From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Mon Jan 2 20:58:38 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA11327; Mon, 2 Jan 89 20:58:38 EST Message-Id: <8901030158.AA11327@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Mon, 2 Jan 89 20:30:54 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #1 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Status: O TELECOM Digest Mon, 2 Jan 89 20:30:54 EST Volume 9 : Issue 1 Today's Topics: Excuses instead of info "Hands On" Seminars, 1989 Re: DTMF vs. Touch-Tone Trade Journals of Interest [Welcome to the new year, and to a new volume of this journal. I hope 1989 will be a year of accomplishment and posterity for you. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucsd.edu From: hp-sdd!rog@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Roger Haaheim) Subject: Excuses instead of info Date: 29 Dec 88 13:17:43 GMT Back in the good old days...one could dial a special number, hang up, and the dialing phone would ring; some kind of echo. It was used by phonefolks who came to fix the phone, to check to see if it was working. They had no problem telling the customer what that number was so the customer could dial back to him/herself. Why has that capability become proprietary? I know it's still done, but when I ask...excuses, but no number. How come? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jan 89 04:20:23 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom@bu-cs,bu.edu Subject: "Hands On" Seminars, 1989 The American Institute, of Madison, NJ has announced the calendar of seminars and training sessions for telecommunications related subjects for 1989. While their programs seem to generally be good and very informative/educational, they are not inexpensive. Typically the rates for the three day seminars range from $900-$1300, not including your hotel room, etc. The DataComm Group is a division of American Institute, and for many years it has had an excellent reputation for its educational programs on technical subjects. Of the four people I've known who attended these seminars in the past, three praised them, while one was only mildly enthusiastic. You can get more information, and/or register by calling or writing the American Institute, DataComm Group -- American Institute DataComm Group 55 Main Street Madison, NJ 07940 201-377-7400 Seminar schedule - Hands-On Data Communications 13 hands-on experiment sessions dealing with ============================ the data network; modems; voice/data integration local area networks; and transmission media. Detroit, MI February 15-17, 1989 New Brunswick, NJ February 22-24, 1989 Seattle, WA March 1-3, 1989 Washington, DC March 6-8, 1989 San Jose, CA March 13-15, 1989 Chicago, IL March 20-22, 1989 New York, NY April 3-5, 1989 Morristown, NJ April 10-12, 1989 Hands-On Local Area Networks Learn latest LAN technologies including Ethernet ============================ and Token-Ring. New York, NY January 10-13, 1989 and March 21-24, 1989 Washington, DC February 21-24, 1989 and May 2-5, 1989 Chicago, IL January 24-27, 1989 and April 4-7, 1989 Los Angeles, CA March 7-10, 1989 and May 9-12, 1989 San Jose, CA February 7-10, 1989 and April 25-28, 1989 Hands-On Troubleshooting LAN Learn LAN network management; LAN problem ============================ detirmination; troubleshooting tools and techniques. Los Angeles, CA January 18-20, 1989 and March 29-31, 1989 New York, NY February 1-3, 1989 and April 26-28, 1989 Chicago, IL February 15-17, 1989 and April 19-21, 1989 Washington, DC March 1-3, 1989 and May 8-10, 1989 San Jose, CA March 15-17, 1989 and May 15-17, 1989 Hands-On X.25 OSI Packet Switching Gain an in-depth understanding of ISDN, ================================== MAP/TOP networks, OSI, GOSIP networks. to use Data Analyzers. Actual experiments with an in-place X.25 PAD. San Jose, CA March 1-3, 1989 (only one session here) Los Angeles, CA February 15-17, 1989 and May 15-17, 1989 Chicago, IL February 22-24, 1989 and May 8-10, 1989 Washington, DC March 20-22, 1989 (only one session here) New York, NY Apeil 10-12, 1989 (only one session here) The DataComm Group courses listed above carry either 4 or 5 CEU's, and count toward advanced level certification. For more information on all courses and to register, call 201-377-7400. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: westmark!dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: DTMF vs. Touch-Tone Date: 30 Dec 88 16:22:44 GMT In article , imp@crayview.msi.umn.edu (Chuck Lukaszewski) writes: > Actually, DTMF has always been generated by premises telephones. The in-band > signalling to which you refer was done with single MF tones which were on > 200-Khz frequency multiples.... Actually, the inter-office signaling uses tone-pairs. Each digit (and a couple of "control characters") is represented as two of five tones. The individual frequencies are spaced at 200 Hz (not kHz) intervals. -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jan 89 04:53:07 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Trade Journals of Interest Four publications I've found to be useful for telecommunications people are listed below. You may already subscribe to one or more of them. TELECONNECT - A Monthly Telecommunications Magazine This general news and features magazine is published monthly by Telecom Library, Inc. A one year subscription (12 issues) is $15. Harry Newton is the editor, and his writing is quite good. Telecom Library, Inc. is located at 12 West 21st Street, New York, NY 10010. They prefer to receive mail and editorial submissions on their free email system at 212-989-4675. (300/1200). TPT Networking Management This rather technical publication devoted its December, 1988 issues to articles on 'Baby Bells look for a new image', 'Overview of X.25 Systems', 'Timing is Everything in Network Strategy', and 'Will FTS-2000 arrive by the millennium?'. In this last article, columnist John Gantz talks about the US Government's 'fumbling and bumbling in the telephone business'. Published monthly, subscriptions are free to qualified recipients. It is published by Penn-Well Publishing Company, 1421 South Sheridan, Tulsa, OK 74112. Editorial and production offices are in Westford, MA at 508-692-0700. Telecom Gear This is a sort of 'shopper newspaper' specializing in sometimes hard to find telecom equipment and supplies. It is free, and published monthly, typically with 150-200 pages of advertising from all sorts of mail order houses which specialize in telecom stuff. If you subscribe to TELECONNET (see above) then you automatically get TELECOM GEAR it seems. The best way to describe this publication is to compare it to 'Computer Shopper'. It has many of the same kinds of ads for buying/selling used equipment, etc. Their address is Telecom Gear, 1265 Industrial Highway, Southampton, PA 18966. U.S. Telecom Digest No, this is NOT the 'print edition' of what you are reading now. It is a rather expensive (at $109 for 23 issues per year, bi-weekly) newsletter which seems to have good, thorough and accurate reports on a wide variety of telecom-related issues. They provide very extensive coverage of telecom legal matters; they report in great detail on pending legislation and FCC activities relating to telecommunications. Their address is -- U.S. Telecom Digest, 1101 King St. Suite 444, Alexandria, VA 22314. I read other telecom-related publications, but I would say the above four are 'must-reads' for me. The others I get to as time permits each month. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Tue Jan 3 00:58:17 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA20278; Tue, 3 Jan 89 00:58:17 EST Message-Id: <8901030558.AA20278@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 00:10:00 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #2 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Status: O TELECOM Digest Tue, 3 Jan 89 00:10:00 EST Volume 9 : Issue 2 Today's Topics: 800 Service and OCN Translation Table [Moderator's Note: This special issue of the Digest has been produced from information provided by Scott Statton, and discusses how prefixes in 'area code 800' are assigned, and the telcos associated with each. DON'T FORGET that system 'xx.lcs.mit.edu' is no longer available to us. If you mail to us there, we do NOT get the mail any longer. Use only the bu-cs.bu.edu address. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 89 20:30:08 EST From: scotts@bu-it.BU.EDU To: telecom@bu-it.bu.edu Subject: 800 Service As some readers of this list may not know, under Equal Access, any long-distance company can carry 1-800 traffic. Which carrier gets the call is determined (at the moment) by the NNX of the number. I.E. 1-800-528-1234 (The nation-wide number for making reservations at a Best Western Motel) is carried by AT&T. While 1-800-888-1800 is carried by MCI. The carrier must have Feature Group D presence for originating calls from the originating exchange (either direct, or through an access tandem). In the future, when CCIS becomes wide-spread, a query will be made in the database [Who gets 1-800-985-1234?] and the call will be routed appropriately. To clarify: Now the carrier is determined by the NNX. In the future, the carrier will be determined by the entire 7 digits. A similar situation exists with 900 service. Each carrier can reserve NXX-s from BellCore (the people who among a zillion other tasks are in charge of handing out prefixes and area codes). They're not cheap! To get the actual number is free (there are qualifications that I don't deal with), but to get it 'turned on' in a LATA costs you money, depending on (1) How many prefixes you're getting, (2) whether it's 800 or 900 service, (3) How many Tandems/End Offices are in the LATA. It requires a discrete amount of labor for EACH office, because EACH routing table must be modified. Of the 800 possible NXX-s, 409 are currently assigned. A long-distance carrier can get one 800 and four 900 numbers just for the paperwork. But to get more than that, you have to show that you're 70% full now, and demonstrate a real need for the capacity. I have included the entire 800-NXX to long-distance carrier translation table. Note that not every NXX is valid in every area. Revised 800/OCN Translation Table Effective 10 October 1988 221 ATX 222 ATX 223 ATX 224 LDL 225 ATX 226 MIC 227 ATX 228 ATX 229 TDX 230 NTK 231 ATX 232 ATX 233 ATX 234 MCI 235 ATX 236 SCH 237 ATX 238 ATX 239 DLT 240 SIR 241 ATX 242 ATX 243 ATX 244 --- 245 ATX 246 --- 247 ATX 248 ATX 249 --- 250 --- 251 ATX 252 ATX 253 ATX 254 TTU 255 ATX 256 LSI 257 ATX 258 ATX 259 --- 260 --- 261 SCH 262 ATX 263 CAN 264 ICT 265 CAN 266 CSY 267 CAN 268 CAN 269 FDG 270 --- 271 --- 272 ATX 273 --- 274 MCI 275 ITT 276 ONE 277 SNT 278 --- 279 MAL 280 ADG 281 --- 282 ATX 283 MCI 284 MCI 285 --- 286 --- 287 --- 288 MCI 289 MCI 290 --- 291 --- 292 ATX 293 PRO 294 --- 295 --- 296 --- 297 ARE 298 --- 299 CYT 321 ATX 322 ATX 323 ATX 324 HNI 325 ATX 326 UTC 327 ATX 328 ATX 329 TET 330 TET 331 ATX 332 ATX 333 MCI 334 ATX 335 SCH 336 ATX 337 FST 338 ATX 339 --- 340 --- 341 ATX 342 ATX 343 ATX 344 ATX 345 ATX 346 ATX 347 UTC 348 ATX 349 DCT 350 CSY 351 ATX 352 ATX 353 --- 354 --- 355 --- 356 ATX 357 --- 358 ATX 359 UTC 360 --- 361 CAN 362 ATX 363 CAN 364 HNI 365 MCI 366 UTC 367 ATX 368 ATX 369 TDD 370 TDD 371 --- 372 ATX 373 TDD 374 --- 375 TNO 376 --- 377 GTS 378 --- 379 --- 380 --- 381 --- 382 ATX 383 TDD 384 FDT 385 CAB 386 TBQ 387 CAN 388 --- 389 --- 390 --- 391 --- 392 ATX 393 EXF 394 --- 395 --- 396 --- 397 TDD 398 --- 399 ARZ 421 ATX 422 ATX 423 ATX 424 ATX 425 TTH 426 ATX 427 --- 428 ATX 429 --- 430 --- 431 ATX 432 ATX 433 ATX 434 AGN 435 ATX 436 IDN 437 ATX 438 ATX 439 --- 440 TXN 441 ATX 442 ATX 443 ATX 444 MCI 445 ATX 446 ATX 447 ATX 448 ATX 449 --- 450 USL 451 ATX 452 ATX 453 ATX 454 ALN 455 --- 456 MCI 457 ATX 458 ATX 459 --- 460 --- 461 CAN 462 ATX 463 CAN 464 -- 465 CAN 466 ALN 467 ICT 468 ATX 469 --- 470 --- 471 ALN 472 ATX 473 --- 474 --- 475 TDD 476 TDD 477 --- 478 AAM 479 --- 480 --- 481 --- 482 ATX 483 --- 484 TDD 485 TDD 486 TDX 487 --- 488 --- 489 TOM 490 --- 491 --- 492 ATX 493 --- 494 --- 495 --- 496 --- 497 --- 498 --- 499 --- 521 ATX 522 ATX 523 ATX 524 ATX 525 ATX 526 ATX 527 ATX 528 ATX 529 MIT 530 --- 531 ATX 532 ATX 533 ATX 534 --- 535 ATX 536 ALN 537 ATX 538 ATX 539 --- 540 --- 541 ATX 542 ATX 543 ATX 544 ATX 545 ATX 546 UTC 547 ATX 548 ATX 549 --- 550 CMA 551 ATX 552 ATX 553 ATX 554 ATX 555 ATX 556 ATX 557 ALN 558 ATX 559 --- 560 --- 561 CAN 562 ATX 563 CAN 564 --- 565 CAN 566 ALN 567 CAN 568 --- 569 --- 570 --- 571 --- 572 ATX 573 --- 574 AMM 575 --- 576 --- 577 GTS 578 --- 579 LNS 580 WES 581 --- 582 ATX 583 TDD 584 TDD 585 --- 586 ATC 587 LTQ 588 ATC 589 LGT 590 --- 591 --- 592 ATX 593 TDD 594 TDD 595 --- 596 --- 597 --- 598 --- 599 --- 621 ATX 622 ATX 623 --- 624 ATX 625 NLD 626 ATX 627 MCI 628 ATX 629 --- 630 --- 631 ATX 632 ATX 633 ATX 634 ATX 635 ATX 636 CQU 637 ATX 638 ATX 639 BUR 640 --- 641 ATX 642 ATX 643 ATX 644 CMA 645 ATX 646 --- 647 ATX 648 ATX 649 --- 650 --- 651 --- 652 ATX 653 --- 654 ATX 655 --- 656 --- 657 TDD 658 TDD 659 --- 660 --- 661 CAN 662 ATX 663 CAN 664 UTC 665 CAN 666 MCI 667 CAN 668 CAN 669 UTC 670 --- 671 --- 672 ATX 673 TDD 674 TDD 675 --- 676 --- 677 --- 678 MCI 679 --- 680 --- 681 --- 682 ATX 683 MTD 684 --- 685 --- 686 LGT 687 NTS 688 --- 689 --- 690 --- 691 --- 692 ATX 693 --- 694 --- 695 --- 696 --- 697 --- 698 NYC 699 PLG 720 TGN 721 --- 722 ATX 723 --- 724 RTC 725 SAN 726 UTC 727 MCI 728 TDD 729 UTC 730 --- 731 --- 732 ATX 733 UTC 734 --- 735 UTC 736 UTC 737 MEC 738 MEC 739 --- 740 --- 741 MIC 742 ATX 743 EDS 744 --- 745 --- 746 --- 747 TDD 748 TDD 749 TDD 750 --- 751 --- 752 ATX 753 --- 754 TSH 755 --- 756 --- 757 TID 758 --- 759 MCI 760 --- 761 --- 762 ATX 763 --- 764 AAM 765 --- 766 --- 767 UTC 768 SNT 769 --- 770 GCN 771 SNT 772 ATX 773 CUX 774 --- 775 --- 776 UTC 777 MCI 778 UTC 779 TDD 780 TDD 781 --- 782 ATX 783 ALN 784 ALG 785 SNH 786 *1 787 --- 788 --- 789 TMU 790 --- 791 --- 792 ATX 793 --- 794 --- 795 --- 796 --- 797 TID 798 TDD 799 -- 821 ATX 822 ATX 823 THA 824 ATX 825 MCI 826 ATX 827 UTC 828 ATX 829 UTC 830 --- 831 ATX 832 ATX 833 ATX 834 --- 835 ATX 836 TDD 837 TDD 838 --- 839 VST 840 --- 841 ATX 842 ATX 843 ATX 844 LDD 845 ATX 846 --- 847 ATX 848 ATX 849 --- 850 TKC 851 ATX 852 ATX 853 --- 854 ATX 855 ATX 856 --- 857 TLS 858 ATX 859 --- 860 --- 861 --- 862 ATX 863 ALN 864 TEN 865 --- 866 --- 867 --- 868 SNT 869 UTC 870 --- 871 --- 872 ATX 873 MCI 874 ATX 875 ALN 876 MCI 877 UTC 878 ALN 879 --- 880 NAS 881 NAS 882 ATX 883 --- 884 --- 885 ATX 886 ALN 887 ETS 888 MCI 889 --- 890 --- 891 --- 892 ATX 893 --- 894 --- 895 --- 896 TXN 897 --- 898 CGI 899 TDX 921 --- 922 ATX 923 ALN 924 --- 925 --- 926 --- 927 --- 928 CIS 929 --- 930 --- 931 --- 932 ATX 933 --- 934 --- 935 --- 936 RBW 937 MCI 938 --- 939 --- 940 TSF 941 --- 942 ATX 943 --- 944 --- 945 --- 946 --- 947 --- 948 --- 949 --- 950 MCI 951 BML 952 ATX 953 --- 954 --- 955 MCI 956 --- 957 --- 958 *2 959 *2 960 CNO 961 --- 962 ATX 963 SOC 964 --- 965 --- 966 TDX 967 --- 968 TED 969 TDX 970 --- 971 --- 972 ATX 973 --- 974 --- 975 --- 976 --- 977 --- 978 --- 979 --- 980 --- 981 --- 982 ATX 983 WUT 984 --- 985 --- 986 WUT 987 --- 988 WUT 989 TDX 990 --- 991 --- 992 ATX 993 --- 994 --- 995 --- 996 VOA 997 --- 998 --- 999 MCI NOTES: *1 -- RELEASED FOR FUTURE ASSIGNMENT *2 -- These NXX codes are generally reserved for test applications; They may be reserved for Acess Tandem testing from an End Office. Note also: The following NXX are dedicated for RCCP (Radio Common Carrier Paging) under the discretion of the local exchange carrier: 202, 212, 302, 312, 402, 412, 502, 512, 602, 612, 702, 712, 802, 812, 902, and 912. OCN Reference List: ADG - Advantage Network, Inc. AGN - AMRIGON ALG - Allnet Communication Services AMM - Access Long Distance AAM - ALASCOM ARE - American Express TRS ARZ - AmeriCall Corporation (Calif.) ATC - Action Telecom Co. ATX - AT&T BML - Phone America BUR - Burlington Tel. CAB - Hedges Communications CAN - Telcom Canada CNO - COMTEL of New Orleans CQU - ConQuest Comm. Corp CSY - COM Systems CUX - Compu-Tel Inc. CYT - ClayDesta Communications DCT - Direct Communications, Inc. DLT - Delta Communications, Inc. EDS - Electronic Data Systems Corp. ETS - Eastern Telephone Systems, Inc. EXF - Execulines of Florida, Inc. FDG - First Digital Network FDN - Florida Digital Network FDT - Friend Technologies FST - First Data Resources GCN - General Communications, Inc. GTS - Telenet Comm. Corp. HNI - Houston Network, Inc. ITT - United States Transmission System LDD - LDDS-II, Inc. LDL - Long Distance for Less LGT - LITEL LNS - Lintel Systems LSI - Long Distance Savers LTQ - Long Distance for Less MAL - MIDAMERICAN MCI - MCI Telecommunications Corp. MDE - Meade Associates MEC - Mercury, Inc. MIC - Microtel, Inc. MIT - Midco Communications MTD - Metromedia Long Distance NLD - National Data Corp. NTK - Network Telemanagement Svcs. NTS - NTS Communications ONC - OMNICALL, Inc. ONE - One Call Communications, Inc. PHE - Phone Mail, Inc. PLG - Pilgrim Telephone Co. PRO - PROTO-COL RBW - R-Comm RTC - RCI Corporation SAN - Satelco SCH - Schneider Communications SDY - TELVUE Corp. SIR - Southern Interexchange Services SLS - Southland Systems, Inc. SNH - Sunshine Telephone Co. SNT - SouthernNet, Inc. SOC - State of California TBQ - Telecable Corp. TDD - Teleconnect TDX - Cable & Wireless Comm. TED - TeleDial America TEM - Telesystems, Inc. TEN - Telesphere Network, Inc. TET - Teltec Savings Communications Co. TGN - Telemanagement Consult't Corp. THA - Touch America TID - TMC South Central Indiana TKC - TK Communications, Inc. TLS - TELE-SAV TMU - Tel-America, Inc. TNO - ATC Cignal Communications TOM - TMC of Montgomery TOR - TMC of Orlando TSF - SOUTH-TEL TSH - Tel-Share TTH - Tele Tech, Inc. TTU - Total-Tel USA TXN - Tex-Net USL - U.S. Link Long Distance UTC - U.S. Telcom, Inc. (U.S. Sprint) VOA - Valu-Line VST - STAR-LINE WES - Westel WUT - Western Union Telegraph Co. NOTE: Where local telcos, such as Illinois Bell offer 800 service, they purchase blocks of numbers from AT&T on prefixes assigned to AT&T. They are free to purhcase blocks of numbers from any carrier of their choice however. End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Wed Jan 4 01:13:02 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA16740; Wed, 4 Jan 89 01:13:02 EST Message-Id: <8901040613.AA16740@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 0:44:59 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #3 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Status: O TELECOM Digest Wed, 4 Jan 89 0:44:59 EST Volume 9 : Issue 3 Today's Topics: Re: A Tiny Tim Re: A Tiny Tim Re: Touch-Tone around the world TouchTone in the UK Re: Excuses but No Number Hands-on Telecom Curricula Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers Time marches on... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 08:21:50 PST From: faigin@aerospace.aero.org To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim Cc: gmeeca!sb@tis.llnl.gov According to my wife, California State University at Northridge just had a conference on computer aids for the handicapped. One of their gizmos that made the local TV news was an interface that allowed an ALS patient to communicate by focusing on words on a gridded CRT screen. Said patient had control over only his eye muscles. You might want to contact folk over there for more details (they have a lab that specializes in custom-fit computer aids for the handicapped). Daniel -- Work : The Aerospace Corp M8/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-3149 Home : 8333 Columbus Avenue #17 * Sepulveda CA 91343 * 818/892-8555 Internet : faigin@aerospace.aero.org +---------------------------------------- Voicemail: 213/336-5454 Box# 3149 | Take what you like, and leave the rest ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 89 08:01:55 PST (Tuesday) Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim From: schwartz.osbunorth@xerox.com To: comp-dcom-telecom@decwrl.dec.com Cc: Schwartz.osbunorth@xerox.com, Kaufman@polya.stanford.edu, Re: "... hooking an automobile accident to a computer ..." I just noticed the following item in "Online Today", the monthly magazine of Compuserve: Apple "Pickings" for the Disabled: A packet of information on Apple computer resources for the handicapped is available from Access Unlimited Speech Enterprises, a charitable, non-profit, special technology corporation. The package includes titles, descriptions and prices of talking and larger print Apple software, accessories, peripherals and special hardware, such as alternatives to the standard keyboard. The products described in the packet are being used by the blind, low-visioned, multiple-handicapped, mute, reading- or learning-disabled, mentally retarded and hearing impaired. Some are designed for users with special needs, while others are general-market products that are recommended additions to the Apple computer system used by a handicapped child or adult. When requesting a free information packet, include your name, organization, address and telephone number, the nature of the disability being addressed, computer of interest, and age or developmental level. Information tailored to your needs will be sent. Mention that you heard of the packet in "Online Today." To order, call 800/531-5314 (nationwide) or 800/292-5619 (in Texas). The organization also is selling a 10-minute VHS videotape of severely handicapped children and young adults using Apple computers to demonstrate the versatility of the machines. The tape costs $45 plus $3.50 shipping and handling. To order, call 713/461-0006. For information, contact Access Unlimited Speech Enterprises, 99039 Katy Freeway, Suite 414, Houston TX 77024. Information on computers and the handicapped is available in the Disabilities Forum [on Compuserve] (GO DISABILITIES). ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) Subject: Re: Touch-Tone around the world Date: 3 Jan 89 21:31:34 GMT In article mcvax!santra.hut.fi!news@uunet.UU.NET writes: > >As a side show, I've also had problems on long-distance connections in >Finland, and they sound a lot like the slippage problems that were described >here. When I call Helsinki from Jyvaskyla, I keep getting these {'s almost >every five seconds ! The problem is, there are three (!) companies involved >in the mess: the local telco for Jyvaskyla area, the PTT (as the long-distance >carrier) and the Helsinki local telco. The problem would seem to in the >PTT/Helsinki telco connection. A lot on it I can do to it from here... > If (1) the '{'s appear regularly, rather than sporadically, (2) they appear more often on more expensive calls, and (3) you don't have itemized long distance billing in your area, you may be suffering from metering pulses. I know they used them recently in Sweden, but I don't know whether other countries have used this billing method. The idea is that the long-distance office sends these tone pulses (at 10-20kHz) at intervals representing some monetary unit worth of service, and something remarkably like a gas meter records them at the local office. Some modems are immune to these pulses. With others, if this is indeed the problem, you might be able to improvise a low-pass filter (or get one from the PTT? sounds to practical to be true.) Of course, it could be slips or bad noise, too. Peter Desnoyers ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jan 89 06:39:43 PST (Tuesday) Subject: TouchTone in the UK From: "hugh_davies.WGC1RX"@Xerox.COM To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu I rang the local British Telecom telephone sales office to enquire if the new exchange (a TXE4A, I believe - judging by its inability to provide dialtone on offhook in about 50% of occasions) in the St.Albans (where I live) supported TouchTone dialling. The person I spoke to said, and I quote, "What's TouchTone dialling?". Sigh. Hugh. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 00:47:56 EST From: mgrant@cos.com (Michael Grant) To: uunet!bu-cs.BU.EDU!telecom@uunet.UU.NET Subject: Re: Excuses but No Number The phone companies are far less willing to let other people know the internal test numbers these days since there are independent telephone repair people (who do not work for the telephone company) who would use them. -Mike ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jan 89 23:17:24 mst From: harvard!arizona.edu!naucse.UUCP!rrw (Robert Wier) To: arizona!noao!ncar!husc6!harvard!bu-cs!telecom@arizona.edu Subject: Hands-on Telecom Curricula Cc: naucse!rrw@arizona.edu Patrick - I am teaching a data networks/data communications class for senior level undergrads this semester (consisting of both cs and ee types). I'd like to have some "hands-on" lab assignments. I got to thinking about this from your recent posting of classes from the American Institute. I wonder if you might have any suggestions on sources or suggestions for lab type projects along these lines? I have been in contact with a few people and have a couple of ideas, but could use a few more. Feel free to post this to the net if you think it worthwhile. Thanks - -Bob Wier at Flagstaff, Arizona Northern Arizona University ...arizona!naucse!rrw | BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | *usual disclaimers* [Readers: what can you suggest for Mr. Wier's lesson preparations? PT] ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@watmath.waterloo.edu From: "Norman S. Soley" Subject: Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers Date: Mon, 2 Jan 89 17:48:56 EST In article , black%ll-micro@ll-vlsi.arpa (Jerry Glomph Black) writes: : I just read a short review in PC Week about a $400 gizmo which : answers your phone, then issues a robot-voice announcement to the : caller requesting that the (hopefully touch-tone-equipped) person : press the '3' button. The caller is then connected to your voice : phone, which rings as usual. If '3' is not pressed, the gizmo : box assumes that a fax or modem is calling, and your data : equipment receives the incoming call. Seems like a good way to : get double use of one line. : : The $400 seems overpriced for what you get I think what you were reading about is a product called Watson, in addition to doing what you say it also is a modem and comes with voicemail software for the PC (a little rudimentary, but workable) considering this the price is quite reasonable. -- Norman Soley - Data Communications Analyst - Ontario Ministry of the Environment UUCP: uunet!attcan!lsuc!ncrcan!ontenv!soley VOICE: +1 416 323 2623 OR: soley@ontenv.UUCP " Stay smart, go cool, be happy, it's the only way to get what you want" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 09:31:08 PST From: laura_halliday@mtsg.ubc.ca To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Time marches on... I walked by a shop yesterday that specializes in antique stuff for movie sets (you know, 1959 licence plates and the like) and one of the things they had in the window was a telephone that had a dial on it. Kinda makes you think... laura halliday University of B.C. [Moderator's note: Yep. And people with touch tone phones are still a *minority* in the United States, let alone other countries. Did you know that? For all the to-do which is made of touch tone phones in this country, there are still millions of subscribers with rotary dial service and POTS, which means 'plain old telephone service'. I've had touch tone since around 1967; long before anyone I know had it. Likewise with modems: Maybe five to ten percent of all phone subscribers have one. Another thirty to forty percent have probably never even heard of them, or only know vaguely what they do. Yet we look at an 'antique' rotary dial phone and say how quaint it is. In my collection of old phones here, I have a 'french-style' unit with the fat base, the skinny, short neck, and the four fingers which hold the receiver in place. Best of all, it is a phone without a dial at all, with a brown *cloth* straight cord from the handset to the base and the jack. The bottom of the instrument says it was manufactured by the Western Electric Company, Hawthorne Works, 1930. It still works fine. Patrick Townson] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Thu Jan 5 00:38:03 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA12710; Thu, 5 Jan 89 00:38:03 EST Message-Id: <8901050538.AA12710@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Thu, 5 Jan 89 0:21:23 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #4 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Status: O TELECOM Digest Thu, 5 Jan 89 0:21:23 EST Volume 9 : Issue 4 Today's Topics: Old Princess phones Network Management Meeting in DC Remote Call Forwarding Manipulation Re: Excuses instead of info Illinois Bell Rate Reduction Re: A Tiny Tim Re: A Tiny Tim ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Old Princess phones Date: Wed, 04 Jan 89 09:39:47 PST From: kent@wsl.dec.com I have in my (remote) possession two older TouchTone Princess phones. With problems, of course. What I don't have is a schematic. The phone were manufactured in 2/71 and 3/75. Both have the code "2702B" stamped on the bottom. Neither one rings -- this seems more likely to be a configuration problem than anything else, because they both have ringers (unlike much older Princess phones which needed a separate one). I just don't know what jumper to move to which terminal. One phone (the older one) is considerably stranger. It receives calls just fine, but can't place them. When you dial, it produces tones, but they don't break dial tone. My ear tells me that the tones aren't quite right -- one of the pair sounds right, but the second tone sounds consistently too high pitched. Strikes me as pretty weird. Can anyone help? chris ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 89 17:25:00 EDT From: Subject: Network Management Meeting in DC To: "telecom" NETWORK MANAGEMENT ROUNDTABLE Association for Computing Machinery Washington, DC Chapter Special Interest Group on Data Communications February 9, 1989, 1 to 5 P.M. SPEAKERS: John Geraghty, IBM, on Netview product Keith Young, AT&T, on Unified Network Management Local standards organizations on NM standards ABSTRACT: For a long time, network management was the forgotten part of network design, added as an afterthought to a design if at all. This has changed, and now network design protocols and standards are developed or being developed. The major products for network management today are IBM's Netview and AT&T's Unified Network Management. Both of these products and a host of others are committed to move in the same direction as the developing OSI Network Management standards. John Geraghty of IBM and Keith Young of AT&T will discuss approaches to network management. This will include views of the history of network management and some future directions. The Netview and Unified Network Management products will be used as concrete examples of currently available network management products. Other speakers will discuss the current state of OSI standards for network management. PLACE: Naval Research Laboratories, Building 222 Auditorium. From the Beltway on the Maryland side of the Wilson Bridge, take I-295 one mile north to NRL exit (Exit 1). Make right at light onto Overlook Avenue then left onto Chesapeake Street. Stop at outer guardhouse,and state where you are going. Stop at inner guardhouse and identify yourself. Carpooling advised as parking is difficult. ROUNDTABLE: Roundtables are intended to provide for a sharing of ideas between developers using a particular technology, and thus normally provide ample opportunity for questions and discussions. They are free and open to the general public; however, reservations are necessary. Please contact Bill DeKeyser at Comtek, 301-681-0825 with your full name and citizenship by noon, February 7. ------------------------------ Date: 4 JAN 89 20:13- From: DMG4449%RITVAX.BITNET@CORNELLC.ccs.cornell.edu To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Remote Call Forwarding Manipulation Is there a relatively inexpensive device I could buy to attach to a standard RJ11 telephone line which has both 3-way, and telco call forwarding as well as the fact that there is another line in the house which would allow me to remotely control call forwarding. I would want to be able to activate, deactivate, and change the number it forwards to, but of course security is important. Does such an inexpensive beast exist??? Thanks, Daniel ____________________________________________________________________________ US MAIL : CPU #1026 25 Andrews Memorial Dr. Rochester, NY 14623 | BITNET : DMG4449@RITVAX | AppleLink : DanielGr | INTERNET : dmg4449%ritvax.bitnet@CORNELLC.CCS.CORNELL.EDU | UUCP : {psuvax1,mcvax}!ritvax.bitnet!dmg4449 | Compuserve : 71641,1311 | GEnie : D.GREENBERG2 | PHONE : [716] 475-4295| ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@accuvax.nwu.edu From: jacobson@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu (Dan Jacobson) Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info Date: 4 Jan 89 09:46:57 GMT >Back in the good old days...one could dial a special number, >hang up, and the dialing phone would ring; some kind of Here in Evanston, IL, beginning a few years ago you had to put a "1" in front of the test sequence that you used to use. In Evanston, depending on your prefix, 475, 328, ... you have to use one of 571...576, I'm not sure how they map. Other cities should also use the same 571...576 set. My house, say 475-9999, uses: dial 1-572-9999, hear funny tone, click phone, hear tone, hang up, it rings. You can loop here^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ I have my phone bell hooked up (via a Fone-Flasher (Radio Shack)) to a circle of christmas lights around my room. When the phone rings it's a "ring of fire," especially when just waking up. So that test number is great for entertaining guests. -- Dan Jacobson, jacobson@eecs.nwu.edu, {oddjob,gargoyle,att,...}!nucsrl!jacobson [Moderator's Note: Evanston and Chicago are the same difference, telephonically speaking. Dan is a few blocks up the street from my house. We in Chicago use 1-571-your last four digits through 1-577-last four. Whether the key is 571, 572,573,574,575,576 or 577 is an arbitrary decision in the CO.] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Jan 89 20:55:46 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Illinois Bell Rate Reduction For the past nearly two years, Illinois Bell has given a one third discount on unit charges for local calls made between the hours of 9 PM and 8 AM the next morning. This is done obviously to encourage use of the telephone at times when the network is least busy. Effective on January 1, the discount period has been expanded to include all day Sunday -- actually from 9 PM Saturday straight through until 8 AM Monday. The way this is calculated is on the number of units used to place a call; not the cost of the units themselves. A call within your local calling area here costs one unit during the day, and .6667 of a unit during the overnight (and now Sunday as well) hours. A call that costs 6 units during the day costs 2 units at night or on Sunday, etc. After a given number of units are used, there is a further reduction in the price of the units themselves. Units range in price from 3.5 cents each to 5.5 cents each, depending on the number used in a month. Obviously during discount periods you use fewer units and it takes longer to cross the threshold where the cost of the units go down. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 23:33:30 EST From: kodak!ornitz@cs.rochester.edu (barry ornitz) To: telecom%bu-cs.bu.edu@cs.rochester.edu Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim I remember seeing a device in _QST_ magazine many years ago that might help. (QST is an amateur radio magazine published by the American Radio Relay League of Newington, CT.) This device enabled a quadraplegic to operate a ham radio by using a collection of plastic soda straws for the individual to puff into. The straws connected to sensitive pressure switches that did the actual control of the radio. These switches are quite inexpensive and are available on the surplus market. The solid-state pressure transducers would also work if an analog output were needed, or they could feed a comparator circuit. These switches could be wired in parallel with the cursor keys (with repeat) to give a mouse-like functionality. A pressure sensitivity on the order of ten to twenty inches of water should be satisfactory. Back in college, I helped make a number of modifications to radio equipment for a friend who was a semi-quadraplegic - he could move his arms but not wrists or fingers. Amateur radio opened up a new world to my friend, and I am glad to have been able to help. If the idea of using pressure switches looks promising in this application, I'll see what I can find for pressure sensors. Barry ----------------- | ___ ________ | | | / / | | Dr. Barry L. Ornitz UUCP:..rutgers!rochester!kodak!ornitz | | / / | | Eastman Kodak Company | |< < K O D A K| | Eastman Chemicals Division Research Laboratories | | \ \ | | P. O. Box 1972 | |__\ \________| | Kingsport, TN 37662 615/229-4904 | | ----------------- ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: rbthomas@aramis.rutgers.edu (Rick Thomas) Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim Date: 5 Jan 89 00:00:00 GMT An idea that I have often wondered about in this area involves some of the results from the "bio-feedback" experiments that were done in the 60s and 70s. It turns out that you can easily learn to consciously control individual muscle fibers, as long as something is hooked to them that can feed-back to you the information that they have twitched or not. This extends also to brain waves. You can learn to enhance or diminish the intensity of your own alpha and theta waves (The alpha waves are indicators of a "meditative" brain state and the thetas are indicative of a "concentrating-alert" brain state. Learning to control them can influence the degree of attentiveness you can muster to a basically boring task, such as air-traffic control, but that is a different story.) I don't know for a fact -- but surmise -- that other aspects of brain activity can be controlled consciously as well. This means that a person need have no motor control at all and can still produce consciously controlled alterations in a measurable variable. With appropriate computer support, this could be turned into a communications channel. There is even a company that markets a card and software for IBM PC's and a head-band that measures brain activity -- for use by "bio-feedback" hobbyists. I believe they advertise in BYTE -- I don't have the details handy though -- My BYTEs are at home and I am at work. With a PC, that card, and some home-brew software, one could easily have a brain-driven word processor. With some (relatively) cheap hobbyist robotics hardware and some home-brew software, it could become a manipulative prosthesis. The possibilities are endless. -- Rick Thomas uucp: {ames, cbosgd, harvard, moss, seismo}!rutgers!caip.rutgers.edu!rbthomas arpa: rbthomas@CAIP.RUTGERS.EDU ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Fri Jan 6 00:44:12 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA27340; Fri, 6 Jan 89 00:44:12 EST Message-Id: <8901060544.AA27340@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 00:05:58 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #5 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Status: O TELECOM Digest Fri, 6 Jan 89 00:05:58 EST Volume 9 : Issue 5 Today's Topics: TENCON - IEEE conference in India 1989 Re: A Tiny Tim Re: A Tiny Tim How To Detirmine Your Ringback Number Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers Re: Old Princess phones Re: Time marches on... [This is a re-transmission of V9 #5. For reasons unknown, the first mailing got mangled; about half of you got only a partial copy.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hou2d!krsm@clyde.att.com To: comp-dcom-telecom@clyde Subject: TENCON - IEEE conference in India 1989 Date: 5 Jan 89 05:37:52 GMT ************************************************************************ TENCON 1989 IN INDIA ************************************************************************ IEEE Region 10 Conference Theme : Information Technologies for the 90's Dates : 22, 23, 24 Nov 1989 Place : Bombay, India Major Topics : Networks Communication Systems Signal Processing Computers & Applications Circuits & Devices Energy Socio-Economic Issues People interested in submitting papers organizing sessions panel discussions Please send me your session proposal and / or paper by e-mail first. Please include the following: Title of the session Summary of the session Sub-topics of the session Potential / actual papers (title, author, estimated number of pages abstract, if any) Details of the session organizer(s) / chair(s) (address, phone(s), fax, e-mail address bio, IEEE experience, session experience) For a paper please include: Title of the paper Author's details (address, phone, fax, e-mail address) Abstract Estimated number of pages You have to send a hard copy of your submittal later. Thank you, again. With warm regards, K.R.S. Murthy AT&T Bell Labs Room 1G-306 480 Red Hill Road Middletown NJ 07748 (201)-615-4629 E-mail ..!att!hou2d!krsm ------------------------------ Date: 6 Jan 89 10:18:57 +1100 (Fri) To: comp-dcom-telecom%munnari.oz@munnari.oz From: rowan@otc.oz (Rowan Munchenberg) Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim Organization: OTC Development Unit, Australia At the University of Adelaide (Australia) one of the Researchers has developed a device called "CEDRIC" which determines where on a screen a users eye is directed. This is used to enable severly handicapped to interface to a computer and possibly voice synthesis software. The user selects words from screen menus, or letters if the word is not available, to form sentences or instructions to the computer. This summary is of the work about 12 months previous. If there is interest I can contract the person involved, Andrew Downing, for more details. To my knowledge this is a product that is already marketed but I am not certain of this. e-mail to me for further information if required. Rowan Munchenberg Overseas Telecommunications Commission, Australia SNAIL: GPO Box 7000 Sydney Australia 2001 E-MAIL: uunet!munnari!otc!rowan uunet!munnari!rowan@otc.oz ------------------------------ To: att!ptsfa!ames!comp-dcom-telecom@ames.arc.nasa.gov From: nesac2!jec@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John Carter ATLN SADM) Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim Date: 6 Jan 89 01:31:30 GMT In article , gmeeca!sb@tis.llnl.gov writes: > My father is in need of information about hooking an automobile accident > victim to a computer (hopefully to give her speech). Regretably, there is > not too much to work with, as she is brain damaged enough to make all motion > most complex. Are there joy sticks that can be operated by tongue? Is there > someone who has equipment that can read eye position so that she can look up > words on a screen. It appears that most of the "smarts" are still intact, > but none of the wiring is hooked to a voluntary controller. Many requests for interfaces for handicapped people are posted on Usenet, but I don't remember seeing anyone pointed to the handicap forum on Compu$erve. The time it would take to make a request for this type information would be very inexpensive (even at $12+/hour), and the responses would be from people who are involved with (or are themselves) handicapped persons. I haven't been on the handicap forum, so I don't know the absolute level of expertise there, but if some of the other 'hardware' related forums are any example, this would be an excellent place to look. If the original poster will contact me, I'll try to retrieve data related to the specifics of the handicapped person's abilities. -- USnail: John Carter, AT&T, 401 W. Peachtree, FLOC 2932-6, Atlanta GA 30308 Video: ...att!nesac2!jec Voice: 404+581-6239 The machine belongs to the company. The opinions are mine. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 89 03:15:58 EST From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subj: How To Locate Ringback Number Roger Haaheim asks about how to find the ringback number for your switch withot the phone company's help. On most ESS systems, if you set up a reasonably intelligent modem to dial each possible exchange followed by the last 4 digits of your phone number (for instance, if your phone number was 552-4563, then you would write a program to dial 220-4563, 221-4563, etc...) until it hits a dial tone. For instance, for my number, the ringback exchange is 952. If I dial 952 and the last 4 digits of my phone number, I get a dial tone. Then I can hang up for a half second, pick it up, and hang it up again. About 3 seconds later, it will ring. What fun. I think I explained this before (and in just a befuddling fashion), but each physical switch handles one or more logical exchanges. For instance, in Ann Arbor, one switch handles numbers with the prefixes 662, 663, 665, 668, and 930. The "phantom" ringback exchanges generally used by Michigan Bell start at 951. Therefore, for my switch, 662 phone numbers use 951, 663 phone numbers use 952, and so on. Another switch in town handles 994, 995, 996, 761, and 769. 994 numbers use 951 for ringback, 995 numbers use 952, and so on. If you dial your ringback prefix and the last 4 digits of someone else's phone number, you will get a busy signal. Note that there is no guarantee that your BOC will use 95x's for ringback. In fact, there is no real guarantee that your system will be anything like I described. But as far as I know most are. Some older systems have a 2 or 3 digit sequence which you follow by a ring code and hang up to have your phone ring back. Some of the sequences I have seen are 419 and 79. Ring codes are 2 digits, neither of which is a 9 or 0. 11 generates a normal ring, others (23, 46, etc., generate various combinations of short and long rings, apparently for testing party lines). So, in one of these areas you might have to dial 7911 or 41911 then hang up, in order to make your phone ring. [Moderator's Note: The main thing that I do not like about this approach is the ringing of *random telephones looking for something else.* This is just a variation on the programs which search for carrier by dialing everyone else in the community without regard to their desire to be left alone. I do not like 'demon-dialer' software. It causes an invasion of privacy of others. P.Townson] ------------------------------ To: telecom@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU From: Dan Chaney Subject: Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers Date: 5 Jan 89 10:13:13 GMT In article soley@ontenv writes: >X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 3, message 7 > >In article , black%ll-micro@ll-vlsi.arpa (Jerry Glomph Black) writes: >: I just read a short review in PC Week about a $400 gizmo which >: answers your phone, then issues a robot-voice announcement to the >.... -- Is there a way to differentiate between FAX and regular modem-logins? I understand that there are el-cheapo FAX programs that, using your modem, act as a document-based fax machine. These programs are much cheaper, on the order of $50-$100. What I would like to be able to do is have the computer pick up the phone and run either the FAX program if this is a fax call or go ahead and run a login to Unix. I can also for see DOS people wanting to choose between FAX, UUCP and possibly a third BBS package. Am I dreaming or is this at all possible? I do not have any specs on FAX protocol but would be interested if anyone has such data. >: equipment receives the incoming call. Seems like a good way to >: get double use of one line. ^In this case, possible even triple or quadruple. Assuming that the other end will give you a carrier long enough to decide between human, FAX, UUCP or just a recording from Sears telling you that your Christmas order has finally arrived. >: >: The $400 seems overpriced for what you get > -- Dan Chaney {uunet and the like}!ukma!chaney chaney@ms.uky.edu chaney@ukma.BITNET If a 100-year old Roman Catholic offers you | "Life is but a state of mind" a clever quote, don't take his word at it. | - Ben Rand ------------------------------ From: smb@research.att.com Date: Thu, 05 Jan 89 09:58:38 EST To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Old Princess phones Cc: kent@wsl.dec.com Touch-Tone phones often suffer from problems where one one row or column doesn't make contact, so you only get a single tone generated. The trouble is almost always dirty contacts. Take apart the phone, remove the plastic covering the keypad internals, and gently clean all of the switch contacts -- you can see them move when you press the buttons. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 5 Jan 89 09:11:00 PST From: laura_halliday@mtsg.ubc.ca To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Time marches on... [Moderator's Note: We did not get the original message to which Laura is responding. Apparently someone wrote direct.] > Somewhere I once saw a sheet intitled "Instructions for Use". It went into > some detail on how to use a dial-phone. 'Place finger in slot over the > desired number and rotate the dial clockwise until the stop is encountered. > Lift your finger, releasing the dial. Once the dial has returned ....' > > If anyone has a copy of this, be it serious and wholly tongue-in-cheek, I > would like a copy and I suspect others would as well. I've seen such things in phone books. Try the London (England) white pages - probably the A-D volume. I'll check with the public library here in Vancouver and see what I can find... cheers, laura ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sat Jan 7 16:51:55 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA06970; Sat, 7 Jan 89 16:51:55 EST Message-Id: <8901072151.AA06970@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sat, 7 Jan 89 16:20:58 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #6 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sat, 7 Jan 89 16:20:58 EST Volume 9 : Issue 6 Today's Topics: Special Issue - IEEE Network Magazine - Provisioning Will my Sony IT-a600 work in oz? Switched56 DSU Video Phones ATT Merlin II System Area code and NNX pairs? Re: Switched 56k information 377 prefix in Raphine, Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hou2d!krsm@clyde.att.com To: comp-dcom-telecom@clyde Subject: Special Issue - IEEE Network Magazine - Provisioning Date: 6 Jan 89 05:58:45 GMT A special issue of IEEE NETWORK MAGAZINE on PROVISIONING FOR THE FUTURE NETWORK is planned for January 1990. Provisioning refers to the process of providing network services to the users, as well as providing resources to the network. Provisioning acvities, which account for a large portion of the cost of network operation, are responsible for managing the selection of network resources to provide the capabilities and performance required by the users of information networks in a timely and cost-effective way. They involve the design and deployment of network resources and the specification of their interconnections to meet the users' need for data, voice, and other communication services and applications. The ability to provision new services and evolving technologies in a unified way is a major driving force in the evolution of information networks. The planned special issue is intended to provide increased awareness of significant recent advances in automated provisioning methods for large, complex multiservice networks. The provisioning methods and tools must take advantage of various technological disciplines to maintain a competitive edge for the network/service provider, and to provide increased customer control of the information network. The special issue will focus on provisioning of intelligent and diverse networks, particularly as applied to integrated services communications. The objective is to address the research and development in provisioning systems, services, procedures and applications, with attention given to trials and experiences, and new directions. The special issue will include tutorials, technicals as well as state-of-the-art articles, and practical examples. Schedule: Complete manuscript due: April 30, 1989 Acceptance notification: July 30, 1989 Final paper due: October 1, 1989 Papers should be limited to twenty double-spaced typewritten pages including figures. A title page should contain the author(s)' name(s), affiliation, complete address, telephone and telefax numbers, and a 200-word abstract. Six copies in English should be sent to one of the guest editors listed below. All papers will be reviewed for technical content and depth, quality, relevance, and originality. GUEST EDITORS Manu Malek Shervin Erfani AT&T Bell Laboratories, Rm. 2C-218 AT&T Bell Laboratories, Rm. 2C-205 480 Red Hill Road 480 Red Hill Road Middletown, NJ 07748 Middletown, NJ 07748 (201) 615-4480 (201) 615-5192 hou2d!speedy!mm@att.att.com hou2d!speedy!sie@att.att.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 00:40:09 EST From: henry@GARP.MIT.EDU (Henry Mensch) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Will my Sony IT-a600 work in Oz? i have reason to believe i may spend some time down under soon, and i'd (naturally) like to take my favorite phone/dialer/ansaphone. of course, i have no clue as to whether or not it is legal to connect devices to the australian phone network, and (if so), whether us-type phones will work. please send your clues, etc., to: -- # Henry Mensch / / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # {decvax,harvard,mit-eddie}!garp!henry / ------------------------------ From: erc3bc!netnews@clyde.att.com To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Switched56 DSU Date: 6 Jan 89 13:47:30 GMT In article you write: >*** How do you send the destination telephone number from >*** the host to the switched-DSU, and from the DSU to the >*** CO? >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >- Brian Jay Gould :: INTERNET gould@jvnca.csc.org BITNET gould@jvncc - >- UUCP rutgers!njin!gould Telephone (201) 329-9616 - >------------------------------------------------------------------------s Which switched56-DSU are you using? I know that in most cases one may write a script to do the dialing from the attached host. In addition, I've heard that there are DSUs that do the pulse dialing automatically. I believe that one of these DSUs is from General Datacomm - sorry, I've never used it and I may ask someone to get the model number if you need it) -tmk ARPA: bentley!tmk@att.ARPA UUCP: tmk@bentley.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 15:26:23 GMT From: Mad Nige To: Telecom Digest Subject: Video Phones In the December issue of Gentlemen's Quarterly, (the US edition) there is and ad from Panasonic for a few of their pieces of gear. The one that struck me as most interesting was the Video Phone, which according to the blurb transmits a still picture every 6.5 seconds. To the best of my knowledge, things like that are not available here in the UK. Can anyone give an outline of how it works? Nigel Whitfield. ------------------------------ Date: 6 JAN 89 10:43- From: CERACC%RITVAX.BITNET@CORNELLC.ccs.cornell.edu To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: ATT Merlin II System Greetings, Can anyone who has experience or knowledge about AT&T's Merlin II Telephone System? I am investigating the possibility of this system but would like information from you, if possible. Upon request, I will summarize for the digest. Thank you! Curtis Reid CERACC%RITVAX.Bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Internet) CERACC@RITVAX.Bitnet (Bitnet) ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@ames.arc.nasa.gov From: shaver@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Dave Shaver) Subject: Area code and NNX pairs? Date: 6 Jan 89 23:23:25 GMT This maybe a silly question, but here goes anyway: I'm looking for Area Code/NNX pairs. BSD UNIX(tm) (probably other versions, too) comes with an Area Codes database as part of the quiz(6) program. I use the csh alias: alias whereac "grep To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: 377 prefix in Raphine, Va. Was the subject prefix (377 in Raphine, Va.) moved from 804 back to 703? The geographic area involved hits U.S. 11 and I-81 between Staunton and Lexington. I have some notes showing it in 804, but I used a phone in that area very recently and I am sure it was in 703. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sun Jan 8 00:22:18 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA06068; Sun, 8 Jan 89 00:22:18 EST Message-Id: <8901080522.AA06068@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sun, 8 Jan 89 0:12:42 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #7 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sun, 8 Jan 89 0:12:42 EST Volume 9 : Issue 7 Today's Topics: Remote Method To Switch Incoming Lines Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers Re: Excuses instead of info Re: Excuses instead of info Re: finding ringback numbers Re: For Callback Security Use a Different Line Re: Time marches on... OUT OF CHANGE? message ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu.UUCP Date: 6 Jan 89 11:20:30 CST (Fri) From: pdg@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Guthrie) Subject: Remote Method To Switch Incoming Lines In article soley@ontenv writes: >In article , black%ll-micro@ll-vlsi.arpa (Jerry Glomph Black) writes: >: I just read a short review in PC Week about a $400 gizmo which >: answers your phone, then issues a robot-voice announcement to the >: caller requesting that the (hopefully touch-tone-equipped) person >: press the '3' button. The caller is then connected to your voice >: phone, which rings as usual. If '3' is not pressed, the gizmo >: box assumes that a fax or modem is calling, and your data >: equipment receives the incoming call. Seems like a good way to >: get double use of one line. >I think what you were reading about is a product called Watson, in >addition to doing what you say it also is a modem and comes with >voicemail software for the PC (a little rudimentary, but workable) >considering this the price is quite reasonable. Yes, the watson can do this, as can other similar devices such as bigmouth and Dialogic boards. They range in price from $189 or so for Watson, to $2000 for dialogics (but they can handle 8 lines with conferencing and call progression sensing etc). I have also seen a dedicated specific device like the original poster mentioned for about the $300 price. All of these take software support, and forget it if you don't have a IBM compatible running MessyDos. The best way to go, though, is to call KISS engineering at 1 (800) 442-2285 and order `The one ring thing'. What it does is let you call in, let the phone ring once and you hang up. The next time you call (for one minute), it will have switched to the second line. Therefor this works if you have both an answering machine and a modem. I don't recall the price, but its less than $50. By the way, if anybody is interested I have a Unix device driver for Dialogic boards (in beta test). Also, dialogic has a nice new board that lets you bring a T-Span into a PC. You can then link it with another board they sell to do the conferencing, A/D APCM conversion etc. Useful now for big telemarketing people, but will be great for gateways if they eventually provide ISDN PRI user side support. -- Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul ------------------------------ To: uunet!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: van-bc!sl@uunet.UU.NET (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) Subject: Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers Date: 7 Jan 89 09:09:12 GMT In article chaney@E.MS.UKY.EDU (Dan Chaney) writes: >In article soley@ontenv writes: >>In article , black%ll-micro@ll-vlsi.arpa (Jerry Glomph Black) writes: >>: I just read a short review in PC Week about a $400 gizmo which >>: answers your phone, then issues a robot-voice announcement to the >>.... > >-- Is there a way to differentiate between FAX and regular modem-logins? > I understand that there are el-cheapo FAX programs that, using your > modem, act as a document-based fax machine. These programs are much > cheaper, on the order of $50-$100. No, there is no way to use a normal (Hayes 1200/2400) type modem for Fax. > What I would like to be able to do is have the computer pick up > the phone and run either the FAX program if this is a fax call or > go ahead and run a login to Unix. I can also for see DOS people > wanting to choose between FAX, UUCP and possibly a third BBS package. > Am I dreaming or is this at all possible? I do not have any specs > on FAX protocol but would be interested if anyone has such data. > I heard a rumour yesterday about a Fax Modem with a built in Hayes 2400 compatible modem that can offer a dial tone to incoming calls. The caller then can send another touch tone digit to activate the service he requires. So you could tell your uucp users to dial: atdt555-1212W1 And your fax users to dial: atdt555-1212W2 Assuming W stands for "wait for tone". Of course if the fax person is really calling from a fax machine he may have to use other modifiers for the dial strings, but this is the equivalent to getting through a PBX which most machines seem to be capable of. On the computer side it would see some messages from the modem along the lines of "DIGIT 1" or "DIGIT 2". Sounds like just the thing for small systems where you don't really want to dedicate a line to both uucp *AND* fax. You just need software that can watch the modem and give a normal login for some connects, and go direct to a fax receive program for others. Of even more interest the person I talked to claimed that this would be in an external box that you can talk to over a serial port! So it's not tied to the PC architecture. I'll forward more details when I confirm all this. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532 ------------------------------ To: tikal!uw-beaver!comp-dcom-telecom@beaver.cs.washington.edu From: mcgp1!donn@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Donn Pedro) Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info Date: 6 Jan 89 16:23:12 GMT In article , hp-sdd!rog@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Roger Haaheim) writes: > Back in the good old days...one could dial a special number, > hang up, and the dialing phone would ring; some kind of > echo. It was used by phonefolks who came to fix the phone, > to check to see if it was working. They had no problem > telling the customer what that number was so the customer > could dial back to him/herself. Why has that capability > become proprietary? I know it's still done, but when I > ask...excuses, but no number. How come? Because while i worked for Pacific Bell in California those numbers were limited to a very few per central office. If I gave out the ringback codes to everyone who asked it would not be available for our use for testing. People used it to busy out their phones so as not to be disturbed. How convenient! They did not want to disconnect their phone so it would ring like they were not home. So thats why you werent privvy to that info. Its proprietary information necessary to the function of the repair tech and gets abused by the general public when it gets out. Former phone man, Donn F Pedro {the known world}!uw-beaver!tikal!mcgp1!donn -------------------------------------------------------------- "You talk the talk. Do you walk the walk?" ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: zorac!dretor.dciem.dnd.ca!chk@uunet.UU.NET (C. Harald Koch) Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info Date: 6 Jan 89 19:58:53 GMT In article jacobson@gamma.eecs.nwu.edu (Dan Jacobson) writes: >My house, say 475-9999, uses: >dial 1-572-9999, hear funny tone, click phone, hear tone, hang up, it rings. >You can loop here^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ Here in Toronto, you can use 57x-xxxx, where x-xxxx are the last five digits of your phone number. This only works on touch-tone phone lines though. (If the exchange supports touch-tone, but you haven't suscribed, it doesn't work). -- C. Harald Koch NTT Systems, Inc., Toronto, Ontario chk@zorac.dciem.dnd.ca, chk@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu, chk@chkent.UUCP "I give you my phone number. If you worry, call me. I'll make you happy." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 7 Jan 89 16:02:56 EST From: harvard!ima.ISC.COM!johnl (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: finding ringback numbers In article Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu writes: >On most ESS systems, if you set up a reasonably intelligent modem to dial >each possible exchange followed by the last 4 digits of your phone number ... > >[Moderator's Note: The main thing that I do not like about this approach >is the ringing of *random telephones looking for something else.* ... Clearly the ringback prefix can't be the same as a valid exchange or you couldn't call anybody in that exchange. Program your modem to call only the unassigned prefixes to avoid pestering people. Most local phone books have a list of assigned prefixes in the local NPA. I also note that telcos often use a range of prefixes, e.g. in New Jersey they use 550 to 559 excepting 555. If you look at the assigned prefixes and see ten in a row that are unused, that's probably it. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 { bbn | spdcc | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something You're never too old to have a happy childhood. ------------------------------ To: uunet!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: visdc!jiii@uunet.UU.NET (John E Van Deusen III) Subject: Re: For Callback Security Use a Different Line Date: 7 Jan 89 00:28:09 GMT The problem of verifying that a penetrator is not hanging on the line could be solved by first dialing your own system and doing some secret handshaking. This method does not require extra lines, (unless the call mix is 100% call-back of incoming calls), or optional services. Some programming is required, and the penetrator will see the login sequence used to do the verification. It would be, therefore, one of those single-command logins with no password. ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@decwrl.dec.com From: jbn@glacier.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle) Subject: Re: Time marches on... Date: 7 Jan 89 18:41:14 GMT The John Crerar Library at IIT in Chicago had, and probably still has, a number of classic pamphlets and books on early telephony. I don't have the titles, but they included a pamphlet for the public describing, in great detail, with pictures, what happens when various types of calls are placed in a large metropolitan area with strictly manual boards. The level of detail is amazing; the functions of A, B and toll boards are covered, and in one scenario, a line is down, and its use blows a grasshopper fuse, triggering a minor alarm and sending craftsmen into the frames to fix the problem. There's also a large-format book on step-by-step switching, describing in excruciating detail, over many pages, the Strowgear system of step-by-step switching. The author wanted a full diagram of the switch on each facing page, opposite the text explaining the function being discussed, and this led to much extra space, which he filled with religious homilies. Are these gems still there? Somebody in Chicago might check. John Nagle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Jan 89 17:48:39 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: OUT OF CHANGE? message About a year ago, I said that 804 and 703-area C&P pay phones have the same OUT OF CHANGE? message. They do differ in the instruction for 0+ local calls: 0+number and 0+areacode+number respectively. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Mon Jan 9 00:32:16 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA23925; Mon, 9 Jan 89 00:32:16 EST Message-Id: <8901090532.AA23925@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89 0:08:54 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #8 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Mon, 9 Jan 89 0:08:54 EST Volume 9 : Issue 8 Today's Topics: 900 list AT&T alleges dumping Another lesson on 700/800/900 service [Moderator's Note: Scott Statton has provided more information on the special services available for telephone users. I had another letter I was going to include today but unfortunatly it got trashed before I got it in here. The person asked a simple question: "Who/where do I contact at AT&T to install 900 service?" If any of you know what department or bureau at AT&T handles this, and where they are located, please post a message to me. I promise not to lose it! Patrick Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 89 23:49:10 EST From: scotts@bu-it.BU.EDU To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: 900 list 900 Series Prefix to OCN translation table Please note that this differs from the 800 table, because much fewer of the 900 NXXs are assigned. NXX OCN NXX OCN NXX OCN NXX OCN NXX OCN 200 ATX 202 Ameritech 210 ATX 220 ATX 221 TDX 222 ONC 223 TDX 225 Pac. Bell 226 MCI 233 TDX 234 TEN 240 U.S. West 248 Ameritech 250 ATX 258 TEN 254 TTU 255 SNT 260 ATX 264 ADG 266 CSY 272 Bell Atl. 273 CAN 275 ITT 280 Ameritech 282 LGT 283 Pac. Bell 288 GTE N.west 297 CAN 300 ATX 301 Ameritech 302 Ameritech 303 Pac. Bell 321 TEN 322 TDX 327 ETS 328 ATX 331 TET 332 PLG 333 U.S. West 335 Bell Atl. 342 ATX 344 ATX 345 ALN 346 United Tel. 350 ATX 364 GTE N.west 366 ONC 369 TEN 370 ATX 377 GTS 386 United Tel. 388 SNT 399 ARZ 400 ATX 407 ATX 410 ATX 420 ATX 422 ALN 426 PLG 428 Ameritech 430 U.S. West 444 ONC 445 PHE 446 MCI 450 Ameritech 451 CAN 456 TEN 463 United Tel. 478 AAM 479 ARZ 480 ATX 483 GTE Midwest 488 ONC 490 U.S. West 500 ATX 505 Pac. Bell 520 ATX 529 MIT 536 BUR 540 ALN 543 ALN 545 GTE Calif. 550 ALN 555 ATX 567 ALN 580 U.S. West 590 ATX 595 CAN 600 ATX 620 Ameritech 624 Pac. Bell 626 CSY 628 Ameritech 630 CAN 633 MIT 639 PLG 643 CAN 645 CAN 650 ATX 654 TEN 656 SNT 660 ATX 661 United Tel. 663 MDE 665 ALN 666 ONC 670 CAN 677 CAN 678 MCI 680 ATX 686 LTG 690 CAN 698 NY Tel. 699 PLG 701 Bell Atl. 710 TGN 720 ATX 722 Pac. Bell 724 RTC 725 SNT 727 GTE Calif. 730 ATX 739 CSY 740 ATX 741 TEN 746 ITT 750 CAN 753 ALN 765 ALN 773 ATX 777 Pac. Bell 778 Ameritech 780 Ameritech 786 ATX 790 CAN 792 CAN 801 Bell Atl. 820 ATX 830 CAN 843 Pac. Bell 844 Pac. Bell 847 United Tel. 850 ATX 860 ATX 866 AAM 870 CAN 872 TEN 887 ETS 888 CIS 900 TDX 901 Bell Atl. 903 ATX 909 ATX 924 Ameritech 932 ATX 948 ARZ 949 MIC 963 TEN 970 MIC 971 MIC 972 MIC 973 MIC 974 ALN 975 ALN 976 ATX 988 MCI 990 MCI 991 ALG 993 SNT 999 TEN ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: AT&T alleges dumping Date: 8 Jan 89 00:17:40 PST (Sun) From: bovine!john@apple.com (John Higdon) Now that AT&T has entered the real world of competition, it has also adopted the good ole American way of dealing with it. Having discovered that its high-priced do-nothing crap they call equipment isn't selling all that well, they focused their attention on (who else) the Japanese. With the CWA and IBEW joining in the chorus, they are accusing Japanese manufacturers of "dumping" cheap (but nevertheless full-featured) electronic key equipment on the US market and are seeking relief from the US government in the form of sanctions. They may be right. What sane person (other than some corporate mentality type) would by a Merlin over a Panasonic 1232? But just maybe they ought to consider how they might improve their product and lower the price. But then that wouldn't be the American way. Just ask the auto manufacturers. -- John Higdon john@bovine ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!bovine!john ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 01:57:48 EST From: scotts@bu-it.BU.EDU To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Another lesson on 700/800/900 service I have compiled some more information about the SACs for your edification. These include 700, 800, and 900. Most telephone users from the United States are quite familiar with 800 service. A number that they dial and incur NO charge (not even message units in most [all?] areas). Then there is 900 service, which is most people perceive as 'value added', i.e. you pay more for the information than for the transport of the call. These vary typically from 35 cents to a few dollars for either a timed service, or a 'as long as you like' duration-sensitive service. There are two sub-species of 900 service, AT&T and "everybody else". Finally there is 700 service, which many people remember as Alliance Teleconferencing. This is the third "canonical" SAC. With few limitations, this SAC is given over to the IEC entirely. Let's look at these in more detail: 800 service is offered by various IECs. Each NXX in the 800 SAC is assigned to a given carrier, who is responsible for assigning numbers from that block to customers, and providing 10 digit translation. When you as Joe Customer dial 1-800-222-1234 (made up number, please don't bother them) it will initiate the following sequence: 1. If you are in an Electronic Office (DMS-100, DMS-200, 1A ESS, #5 ESS) the 800-222 will be translated to "AT&T" and search for an opening in a trunk group marked for 800 origination. Should none be found, bump to step 3 2. If you are in a non-electronic office (SXS, XB, and some flavors of ESS), it will go to the access tandem that you're office 'homes' on, where 800-222 will be translated to "AT&T" [note that if at this point, the number doesn't have a translation, you will get a "lose" recording from the CO] 3. Find a trunk in a trunk group marked for 800 origination. Should none be found, give the customer a recording "Due to network congestion, your 800 call could not be completed" or die, or whatever. (Depends on phase of moon, etc.) 4. The end office will the send the following pulse-strea (in MF): KP + II + 3/10D + ST + KP + 800 222 1234 + ST (note that this is a simplification, there are some fine points of ANI spills that are beyond the scope of this article) II = 2 information digits ... typical values are: 00 normal ANI .. 10 digits follow 01 ONI line ... NPA follows 02 ANI failure ... NPA follows 3/10D = 3 or 10 digits. Either the NPA, or the entire 10 digit number. KP and ST are control tones 5. The carrier receives all of this (and probably throws the ANI into the bit bucket) and translates the 800 number to what's called a PTN, or Plant Test Number. For Example, 617-555-9111. Then, the call is routed AS IF the customer had dialed that 10 digit number. Of course, the billing data is marked as an 800 call, so the subscriber receiving th call pays the appropriate amount. 900 Service. As I mentioned earlier there are two flavors of 900 service, AT&T, and "Everybody Else". Everybody else is handled exactly as 800 service above, except the IEC will probably use the ANI information to send you a bill. (Either directly, or through your BOC, each situation governed by applicable tarrifs and contractual arrangements between the IEC and the BOC) AT&T 900 is a curious monster indeed. It was designed as a "mass termination" service. When you dial a 900 # by AT&T (such as the "hear space shuttle mission audio" number) you get routed to one of twelve "nodes" strewn throughout the country. These nodes are each capable of terminating 9,000 calls >PER SECOND<. There are several options available, where the customer and/or the IP pay for all/part of the call. The big difference between 800 and AT&T 900 is >NOT< "who pays for the call" (there are free 900 numbers) but "how many people can it handle at once". The IP is responsible for providing program audio. AT&T is prohibited from providing audio-program services (i.e. tape recorded messages) [As with any rule, there are exceptions to these as well] The last SAC we'll deal with is 700. I've seen ads on late-nite television for Group Access Bridging service (GAB) under 700 numbers, with a elephantine dialing sequence. The one that comes to mind is 10041-1-700-777-7777. [I make no guarantee about the quality or availability of this service. I don't even know if it still exists.] If you were to dial 1-700-555-4141 you will hear a recording announcing your Equal-Access carrier. (Some carriers ignore the last four digits, and any 700-555 number will give the announcement). This is signalled the same as 800 service, and may or may not be billed ENTIRELY at the discretion of the IEC. In New York, under PSC tarrif you can order 900 and/or 700 blocking as well as 976, 970, 550, and 540 blocking in various (but not entirely orthoganal) combinations. What in ONE carrier might be a customer service hotline (Dial 1-700-I AM LOST) might for another be a revenue product. There is LITTLE standardization of 700 usage from IEC to IEC. The one last dialing pattern that is worth mentioning is what's called, "cut through dialing". Try dialing 10220#. If Western Union comes to your town, you'll get a FG-A style dial tone. Presumably if you had a Western Union "Calling Card" [I don't know their term for it] you could dial a call. (If someone DOES have WU service, could they please check this out for me?) Glossary: ANI - Automatic Number Identification. An MF sequence that identifies your line for toll billing information. Often confused with ANAC (Automatic Number Announcemnt Circuit) which reads your number back in a synthesised voice. BOC - Bell Operating Company. A often misused term (even in this very article :-) that in general usage means, "Your local exchange carrier." Since most of the telephones in the country are served by what used to be the Bell system, we tend to use the term. The proper term in this case, however IS "Exchange Carrier [EC]" They provide service within your LATA. FG-A - Feature Group A. Line Side termination for Long Distance carriers. The old 555-1234 for Widget Telephone Company then dial an access code and the number style dialing is called FG-A. FG-B - Feature Group B. Trunk Side termination for Long Distance carriers. (aka ENFIA B). 950 service. This is LATA wide service, and doesn't cost the customer message units. ANI is only provided when the trunks terinate in the End Office (as opposed to an access tandem). FG-D - Feature Group D. Trunk Side termination. Provides 10xxx dialing, 1+ pre-subscription dialing, and Equal Access 800/900 service. Only available in electronic offices and some 5XB offices (through a beastie called an Adjunct Frame.) GAB - Group Audio Bridging. Where several people call the same number, to talk to other people calling the same number. "Party" or "Chat" lines. IEC - Inter-Exchange Carrier. Someone who actually carries calls from place to place. AT&T, Sprint, MCI are all IECs. IP - Information Provider. Someone who sells a value-added service over the telephone. Where you pay for the INFORMATION you're receiving, as well as the cost of TRANSPORT of the call. NXX - Notation convention for what used to be called a "prefix". N represents the digits 2 through 9, and X represents the digits 0 through 9. There are 800 valid NXX combinations, but some are reserved for local use. (411 for Directory, 611 for Repair Bureau, 911 for emergency, etc.) ONI - Operator Number Identification. In areas with some styles of party-line service, the CO cannot tell who you are, and the operator will come on and say, "What number are you calling from?". You can lie, they have to trust you. They MAY know which PREFIX you're coming from, though. PTN - Plant Test Number. A regular 10 digit number assigned with your inward WATS line. This may NOT be a 'dialable' number from the local CO. (A friend has a WATS line in Amherst, MA [413-549, #5 ESS] and you cannot dial the PTN locally, but you can if you come in on a toll trunk.) SAC - Special Area Code. Bellcore speak for area codes that aren't really places, but classes of service. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Tue Jan 10 01:14:12 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA08846; Tue, 10 Jan 89 01:14:12 EST Message-Id: <8901100614.AA08846@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 89 0:41:51 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #9 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Tue, 10 Jan 89 0:41:51 EST Volume 9 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Re: AT&T alleges dumping (David Kurtiak) Re: AT&T alleges dumping (Higdon replies to Kurtiak) Re: AT&T alleges dumping (John Shelton) New way to donate money Re: Switched 56k information ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89 10:34:10 EST From: David M. Kurtiak To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping In John Higdon's(bovine!john@apple.com) posting to comp.dcom.telecom he writes: >Subject: AT&T alleges dumping >Date: 8 Jan 89 00:17:40 PST (Sun) > >Now that AT&T has entered the real world of competition, it has also >adopted the good ole American way of dealing with it. Having discovered >that its high-priced do-nothing crap they call equipment isn't selling all >that well, they focused their attention on (who else) the Japanese. W-R-O-N-G: not specifically the Japanese, but a handful of foreign manufacturers that have been proven to engage in dumping activities. >With the CWA and IBEW joining in the chorus, they are accusing Japanese >manufacturers of "dumping" cheap (but nevertheless full-featured) >electronic key equipment on the US market and are seeking relief from >the US government in the form of sanctions. > >They may be right. What sane person (other than some corporate >mentality type) would by a Merlin over a Panasonic 1232? But just maybe >they ought to consider how they might improve their product and lower >the price. But then that wouldn't be the American way. Just ask the >auto manufacturers. I was originally going to just ignore this rubbish, but felt that such ignorance cannot be let passed without some sort of rebuttal. The dumping accusations stem from real-world unfair trade practices that as I will point out, are a breach of open-trade agreements between the U.S. and it's trade partners. This is a perfectly legitimate gripe for *MANY* U.S. maufacturers. Without getting into a lecture on World Economics 101, read the actual press release(s) before making such radical conclusions and criticising specific companies, namely AT&T in your example. Scenario: U.S. based Company "A" sells small-business telephone systems for a nominal price of $1000 per unit. Company "B", which is foreign based, has a similar product, with or without better features that they sell IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY for $1000. Company "B" enters the U.S. market selling that same exact prioduct for $200. Keeping in mind that foreign governments often SUBSIDIZE industry, how can a U.S. manufacture even come close to competing??? Co. "B" is selling that product *BELOW* the actual costs of producing it, but because of the gov't subsidies they receive, Co. B still makes money hand-over-fist and captures a significant market share. Do U.S. mfgrs. receive government subsidies?? NO, generally not. This practice of selling below costs in a market other than the home country is known as DUMPING, and is indeed an unfair trade practice by definition of the enacted laws. I personally cannot see how any American, working for an American company in the United States can view this as fair competition. If the foreign competitors who wish to trade here played by the same rules, there would be no problem. But heaven help the U.S. manufacturer who attempts to dump their products in someone else's market. Trade wars, and accusations galore! You may not like American cars, telephones, or even Apple pie -- but be glad that at least you have that choice. In other countries you may not have such liberties. I'm not pro-protectionism, but just wish to see trade that is indeed FAIR to everyone involved. This probably isn't the appropriate group to discuss politics/trade policy, etc., but had to put in my two cents... HOP, *CLICK*, JUMP... I get off of my soapbox. --- David M. Kurtiak Internet: dmkdmk@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Bitnet: DMKDMK@ECSVAX.BITNET UUCP: dmkdmk@ecsvax.UUCP (rutgers,gatech)!mcnc!ecsvax!dmkdmk ------------------------------ To: dmkdmk@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping Cc: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Date: 9 Jan 89 11:23:07 PST (Mon) From: bovine!john@apple.com (John Higdon) Mr. Kurtiak: I was somewhat surprised by your instant reply to my posting. Unfortunately I feel that your response was typical of the knee-jerk attitude that pervades the US manufacturing community. Having owned an equipment vending company for over five years (no longer; the market's too hoary) I can speak with some authority concerning the wares. Most US makers have been well behind the times in their technology. While AT&T was still trying to push the Dimension, ITT was selling their 3100 (great hardware, lousy software), Rolm was selling 1976 equipment in 1986, and Mitel was pushing their highly touted ANALOG SX series. Last night, Sony's chairman of the board on 60 Minutes said the that US firms would be better off to concern themselves with their product than with what goes on in the board rooms and take-overs. I couldn't agree more. "Dumping" is a convenient smoke screen that may be true to a small degree, but it has been proven over and over again that the American people will pay MORE for what they really want. Japanese cars cost more than their American counterparts and yet they still enjoy brisk sales. The same applies to telephone equipment. I have no axes to grind in this area. My truck is American (it filled my needs at the right price). My computer is an AT&T built right here in my home town. When it was first introduced the price tag was $7,000. When they finally lowered the price to $1,600, then it became competitive. Did they loose money at this price? I doubt it. Another aspect concerns quality of workmanship. You may have heard recently about the difficulties Seagate has been having financially. In the press it was revealed that 20% of the work force was let go. Seagate blamed, among other things, foreign competition for their declining market performance. I can tell you first hand what their trouble is. Out of 20 Seagate drives under my control in 1988, seven (7) of them failed. No further comment necessary. US manufacturers have the capability to technologically cream the world competition. It's the free thinking in the United States that has historically led to our once technical superiority. If we could return to that mentality rather than playing legal and board room games, we would once again control the market place. The other countries are well aware of this and are hoping we never wake up. -- John Higdon john@bovine ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!bovine!john ------------------------------ To: ames!comp-dcom-telecom@ames.arc.nasa.gov From: zodiac!jshelton@ames.arc.nasa.gov (John L. Shelton) Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping Date: 9 Jan 89 19:24:44 GMT In article bovine!john@apple.com (John Higdon) writes: .......[portion deleted] ->They may be right. What sane person (other than some corporate ->mentality type) would by a Merlin over a Panasonic 1232? But just maybe ->they ought to consider how they might improve their product and lower ->the price. But then that wouldn't be the American way. Just ask the ->auto manufacturers. -> ->-- ->John Higdon ->john@bovine ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!bovine!john I'll claim to be sane. For home use, I selected a merlin plus over 20+ other sytems, all but one of which was made overseas. (Teleconnect was the other US manufactured unit.) I picked AT&T for an electronic key system for a lot of reasons: 1. Best documentation 2. More features (that I wanted) than any other system) 3. 4/10 (line/station) configuration instead of 2/6 or 3/8 4. Wide range of instruments available, including standard phones 5. Printer option for logging system calls, dumping configuration. 6. Rugged design 7. 800 number for assistance 8. I know I can get spare parts, repair, etc in 1 yr, 3 yr, 5 yr. 9. I'll be able to upgrade software later. 10. The phones don't look like crap; I like having good styling. 11. When I get a bigger house ( ;-) ) I can upgrade to an 8/20 or 30/100 system I didn't realize that other companies were dumping, but it didn't make a difference to me; the AT&T product (in this case) was vastly superior. =John= ------------------------------ To: uw-beaver!comp-dcom-telecom@beaver.cs.washington.edu From: ssc-vax!clark@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Roger Clark Swann) Subject: New way to donate money Date: 9 Jan 89 17:49:59 GMT First off, I hope that everyone is having a great 1989... As many of may have heard/read, there was a bad oil spill recently off the Washington state coast. As a result, there is much cleanup work going on both at the beaches and at emergency wildlife shelters. I was watching a story on all this during the evening news here in Seattle the other night. I was surprised when they ended the story by stating that one could donate to the cleanup fund, (didn't catch if this was the state fund or a private fund), by just dialing a phone number. Here is how it worked: dial 1-440-xxxx = $5 to the cleanup dial 1-440-yyyy = $10 to the cleanup The donation would be automatically charged to caller's phone bill. This is the first time that I have seen this done locally. I assume that it is going on elsewhere in the country as well. Roger C. Swan uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark voice: 206/657-5810 [Moderator's Note: What is the area code to call? Can this number be called from outside the local phone company's area? I have not seen it done around Chicago, but I think it is an excellent idea. We are billed by the phone company for the various information services; we are billed $2 or more for the various sexual gratification services we call on 900-xxx-xxxx; why not something very worthwhile like Mr. Swan is describing? It might be worth a letter to your local telco, or your state regulators, asking that such a group of numbers be made available in your community, with the phone company donating its services as collection agent for charitable groups. P. Townson] ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: gould@pilot.njin.net (Brian Jay Gould) Subject: Re: Switched 56k information Date: 9 Jan 89 15:26:33 GMT In response... MidAmerican Long Distance located in Omaha, Nebraska, offers switched 56kbps services in most of the US. I have used the service for TCP/IP load levelling during peak usage and have found it to be very effective (and reliable). THe service actually costs LESS than a voice call in most cases. Why not? It costs them less to handle the call. Contact Jack Watson at MidAmerican. The main number is (402) 393-8250. Tell them that I sent you. --> Any disclaimers, made by me or by anyone on my behalf, may or may not accurately represent my representation of myself or others. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Brian Jay Gould :: INTERNET gould@jvnca.csc.org BITNET gould@jvncc - - UUCP rutgers!njin!gould Telephone (201) 329-9616 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------s ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Wed Jan 11 01:15:03 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA14077; Wed, 11 Jan 89 01:15:03 EST Message-Id: <8901110615.AA14077@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 0:59:57 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #10 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Wed, 11 Jan 89 0:59:57 EST Volume 9 : Issue 10 Today's Topics: CLASS(sm) Service Re: NJ Bell CLASS Services Race conditions in a PBX Re: finding ringback numbers Re: Video Phones Re: Another lesson on 700/800/900 service Re: Remote Call Forwarding Manipulation TouchTone in Hong Kong [Moderator's Note: We have an overflow of mail in the past two days. I have a dozen messages backlogged, so please be patient. Your submission will appear within a day or two. And thanks for all the mail! P Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: westmark!dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) Subject: CLASS(sm) Service Date: 7 Jan 89 22:26:24 GMT New Jersey Bell has begun offering ISDN-based custom-calling services, under the service mark CLASS. One of these is called Caller*ID service. It displays the calling number while your phone is ringing. To use it, you buy (from the telephone company, or from others) a device that is bridged on to your standard tip/ring line and has a display on it. Does anybody know the signalling method between the CO and the caller-id display box? I have determined that it is in-band analog, and sounds like a modem. After the first ring, there is a burst of carrier, then some modulation, then more carrier, and then the next ring. The data-burst occurs only once, after the first ring, for each incoming call. The modulation technique and data format are probably public information, as you can (theoretically) buy the display box from anybody. But where is the information available? Bellcore... are you listening? -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ To: uunet!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: ccicpg!wsccs!wes@uunet.UU.NET (Barnacle Wes) Subject: Re: NJ Bell CLASS Services Date: 2 Jan 89 07:16:02 GMT In article , judice%kyoa.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (L Judice / 201-562-4103 / DTN 323-4103) writes: > This seems slow to me, since I was under the impression that CLASS > was implemented in software on existing ESS switches... Any NJ Bell > folks out there have a schedule, or currently operating exchanges? I thought the CLASS services were being implemented on newly installed GTD-5s! Can any AT&T employees confirm or deny this? Wes Peters GTE Electronic Systems & Services :-) :-) -- Signature? What Signature? Oops, I left my .signature on Obie! (e-mail to wes@obie.UUCP) ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: hiraki@ecf.toronto.edu (Lester Hiraki) Subject: Race conditions in a PBX Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89 14:16:47 EST Does anyone know how to solve the following problem? Consider a simple PBX which works as follows: All incoming calls from trunks are routed to the attendant console. Outgoing calls are processed as follows. From an internal extention, the user dials the trunk access code (usually 9) and then the some valid number according to the North American Numbering Plan. The PBX accumulates the valid digits first and after receiving the last digit, seizes the first free trunk and signals-out the dialing information in a burst to the local CO. Imagine now that an incoming call arrives at a trunk but the CO has not yet applied the ring voltage - ie connexion was made during the silent window (ringing is usually 2s on and 4s off, say). Just at this moment someone within the PBX is making an outside call & the PBX seizes this trunk before ringing starts, in effect answering the call. The incoming caller is connected to the person waiting for his outside call to be completed. Assuming loop-start lines, can this race condition be avoided? Note, not all business have ground-start lines. I understand ground-start lines eleminate this very problem? Can someone explain how ground- start lines work? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89 08:58:54 PST To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: dmr@csli.Stanford.EDU (Daniel M. Rosenberg) Subject: Re: finding ringback numbers In article johnl@ima.ISC.COM writes: >I also note that telcos often use a range of prefixes, e.g. in New Jersey >they use 550 to 559 excepting 555. If you look at the assigned prefixes >and see ten in a row that are unused, that's probably it. >John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 At least as of a few days ago, 550-xxxx, where xxxx are the last four digits of your phone number, will do ringback in North Jersey (201). This does not work for (most, if not all) payphones (but when it did, it was a favorite trick for the kids to leave the phone ringing in the Foodtown). -- ## Daniel M. Rosenberg /////// CSLI/Stanford //////////////// +1 (415) 328-1373 ## INTERNET: dmr@csli.stanford.edu //////////// UUCP: {ucbvax, decvax}!csli!dmr ## I've my opinions, Stanford theirs. I don't speak for them, nor they for me.# ------------------------------ To: mit-eddie!comp-dcom-telecom From: mit-amt!geek@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Chris Schmandt) Subject: Re: Video Phones Date: 9 Jan 89 03:40:37 GMT In article nigel@CC.IC.AC.UK (Mad Nige) writes: >In the December issue of Gentlemen's Quarterly, (the US edition) there >is and ad from Panasonic for a few of their pieces of gear. The one >that struck me as most interesting was the Video Phone, which according >to the blurb transmits a still picture every 6.5 seconds. They are pretty simple. You need to buy a unit for each end, of course. Each consists of monochrome camera and monitor, plus a moderately low resolution frame store. Press a button, your frame is grabbed, and sent by modem to the other end, relatively low speed. Of course, you lose audio while you're your doing it, as the data transfer is in band. If I recall, it's about 4 bits per pixel, so you can see how a bit of encoding can get the image to the other end in that time. I believe that the various similar products use the same protocol so that you can exchange pix between them. ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: Joel B Levin Subject: Re: Another lesson on 700/800/900 service Date: 9 Jan 89 20:23:08 GMT In article scotts@bu-it.BU.EDU writes: |AT&T 900 is a curious monster indeed. It was designed as a "mass |termination" service. When you dial a 900 # by AT&T (such as the |"hear space shuttle mission audio" number) you get routed to one of |twelve "nodes" strewn throughout the country. These nodes are each |capable of terminating 9,000 calls >PER SECOND<. . . . This is also the AT&T service which allows those obnoxious television "polls" ("dial this number to vote yes, this other number to vote no, and by the way this costs fifty cents"). |The one last dialing pattern that is worth mentioning is what's |called, "cut through dialing". Try dialing 10220#. If Western Union |comes to your town, you'll get a FG-A style dial tone. . . . I haven't tried for a long time, but in Nashua NH (603-880-) this did work for Sprint, i.e. 10777 + # would get you the same peculiar dial tone that their dial-in access number would, expecting you to reply with your access code and destination number. This was convenient because you could reach their customer service by dialling the above followed by the special 6-digit numbers (without access codes). /JBL == UUCP: {backbone}!bbn!levin POTS: (617) 873-3463 INTERNET: levin@bbn.com ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: flatline!phaedrus@uunet.UU.NET (james hartman) Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding Manipulation Date: 9 Jan 89 18:26:51 GMT In article , DMG4449%RITVAX.BITNET@CORNELLC.ccs.cornell.edu writes: > Is there a relatively inexpensive device I could buy to attach to a standard > RJ11 telephone line which has both 3-way, and telco call forwarding as well as > the fact that there is another line in the house which would allow me to > remotely control call forwarding. I would want to be able to activate, > deactivate, and change the number it forwards to, but of course security is > important. Does such an inexpensive beast exist??? Uh, what about your computer? Write/adapt a demon to wake up at certain times and change the number forwarded, or set up an option as part of a dial-in program. After all, what else does your computer have to do when you're not around to keep it busy? -- Zaphod: "It doesn't look like any kind of vortex to me." Gargravarr: "It isn't. It's just the lift." phaedrus@flatline.uucp / uunet!sugar!flatline!phaedrus (James E. Hartman) ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@husc6.harvard.edu From: ho@buengc.BU.EDU (shun E. Ho) Subject: Touch Tone in Hong Kong Date: 10 Jan 89 20:13:46 GMT In article "hugh_davies.WGC1RX"@Xerox.COM writes: >I rang the local British Telecom telephone sales office to enquire if the >new exchange (a TXE4A, I believe - judging by its inability to provide >dialtone on offhook in about 50% of occasions) in the St.Albans (where I >live) supported TouchTone dialling. The person I spoke to said, and I >quote, "What's TouchTone dialling?". Sigh. As of last summer, the tiny British continent of Hong Kong has TouchTone service in at least one of the central business districts. Telephone services in HK are provided by Hong Kong Telephone, a subsidiary of the Cable and Wireless Group of Britain. - Yue-shun ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Thu Jan 12 01:13:31 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA09337; Thu, 12 Jan 89 01:13:31 EST Message-Id: <8901120613.AA09337@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89 1:00:04 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #11 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Jan 89 1:00:04 EST Volume 9 : Issue 11 Today's Topics: Users having address changed: Please read! NPA/COC list Re: Area code and NNX pairs? Re: AT&T alleges dumping Re: AT&T alleges dumping Re: AT&T alleges dumping [Moderators' Note: The Digest is in *two parts* today due to the heavy overflow of mail. You will receive issue 12 also dated 12 Jan with a time stamp a few minutes after this one. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 23:33:08 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) Subject: Some users having address changed Is your name on the list below? We have been requested -- like many other lists -- to eliminate or greatly reduce our use of 'relay.cs.net' in the mailing of [Telecom Digest]. The addresses listed below will be converted to the format shown in the right column as of the digest to be mailed out Friday morning. The addresses listed below should contact us *if you do not receive a Digest mailing on Friday or Saturday. Obviously, that will mean a mistake was made somewhere. If the addresses below DO get a Digest on Friday, Saturday, etc then there is no need to write. The addresses below marked with ?????? have been sent to the automated address-correction service at relay.cs.net. As of now, I do not know what will happen to them. gruber%andy.bgsu@relay.cs.net will become gruber@andy.bgsu.edu telecom%rpics.csnet@relay.cs.net telecom@cs.rpi.edu telecom%src.csnet.relay.cs.net ??????? telecom%hplabs@relay.cs.net telecom@hplabs.hp.com telecom.umass-coins@relay.cs.net telecom@coins.umass.edu telecom%sperry-csd.csnet@relay.cs.net ??????? Moderator ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu.UUCP Subject: NPA/COC list Date: 9 Jan 89 14:57:15 CST (Mon) From: Paul Guthrie In article shaver@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu (Dave Shaver) writes: >Does anyone have an Area Code and NNX list? Yes, Bellcore does. They administer the master lists. There are three main `lists', The LERG, the V&H and the TPM. The LERG (Local Exchange Routing Guide) is used mainly for routing. There are quite a few (nine I think) data files on a LERG tape, each with different information. For instance, LERG 2 contains a CIC list. Lerg 8 I think has your NPA/COC list and contains info such as the switch type of the CO, the place name, etc. The V&H is used for rating. It consists of one data file which for every NPA/COC contains info such as the place name, and vertical and horizontal mileage coordinates relative to a grid superimposed on north america. These coordinates are used for calculating the distance of a call, and fitting this into a mileage band chart to get first and additional minute rates (these are published inb FCC tariff #2). This is (generally) how your phone call costs are done - although there are other methods and losts of quirks, especially in intralata rating. The placename in the V&H is the name that will end up on your phone bill. The TPM (Termination point master) is an extension of the V&H which includes such info as credit card prefixes, including corporate cards. Anybody can order a V&H or LERG (they're not cheap though), but the TPM is restricted to BOCs, LECs and independants. >[Moderator's Note: Such a list, if it exists, would be hopelessly out of >date in a short time. Not so. The LERG and V&H have update info built in for about 6 months ahead, including a field that says when the change becomes effective. There are also update services (Addison Wesley runs one) that have both mailed and on-line updates. Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 8 Jan 89 23:02:32 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: shaver@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu Cc: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Area code and NNX pairs? A while back, I received an area code program written in C. It has a few updates from me, mainly for new areacodes added in 1988. As for NNX (or NXX, if the area in question has N0X/N1X prefixes), you could check on the AT&T V&H tape via AT&T Long Lines. As the Telecom moderator states, this is subject to rapid updates (not to mention having a LOT of information to begin with). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jan 89 09:58:48 EST From: David M. Kurtiak To: bovine!john@apple.com, dmkdmk@uncecs.edu Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping Cc: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Mr. Higdon: Your reply was well put, and I have to agree with most of what you said. It was also well supported with current market issues. My original followup was based on the interpretation of what you were saying was just to knock *everything* made here, and that we as a country CANNOT compete. That was the "knee-jerker" -- you originally just about busted everything and anything without any support other than "typical American attitude." I just simply can't buy that line of thought. Now I can see what was really behind the issue with a backed up response. I will somewhat apologize for the initial defensive attitude now that its more clear that it wasn't just a bashing without cause. (hey, we're as American as the next guy!) :-) There have been several occasions were a US made product hasn't met my expectations or has crapped out before its time. But to generalize that *all* US made products fall into that category wouldn't be fair either. You may be perfectly right about the "smokescreen" that the dumping issue may have on the real, underlying problems US manufacturers are facing. Instead of takeovers and boardroom games, more attention should be directed at the quality and INNOVATION of products. If the products are *that* much better, they will sell despite the price until another (possibly foreign) manufacturer comes in and drowns the market. I guess that MARKETING is more important at that stage, hunh?? Whatever - your points are good, especially about the others hoping we never wake up... There are some products out in the market that are maufacturerd here and are making very impressive sales both domestically and internationally. Perhaps more should follow those success stories instead of being more concerned with personal greed... ---- David M. Kurtiak Internet: dmkdmk@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Bitnet: DMKDMK@ECSVAX.BITNET UUCP: dmkdmk@ecsvax.UUCP {gatech,rutgers}!mcnc!ecsvax!dmkdmk ------------------------------ To: att!comp-dcom-telecom From: hsc@mtund.ATT.COM (Harvey Cohen) Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping Date: 11 Jan 89 20:30:40 GMT In article bovine!john@apple.com (John Higdon) writes: >X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 9, message 2 >Mr. Kurtiak: >I was somewhat surprised by your instant reply to my posting. Unfortunately >I feel that your response was typical of the knee-jerk attitude that >pervades the US manufacturing community. Translation: "The US manufacturing community has no right to complain about unfair trade practices, because the US manufacturing community is not virtuous." >Having owned an equipment vending company for over five years (no longer; >the market's too hoary) I can speak with some authority concerning the >wares. Most US makers have been well behind the times in their technology. [Several examples deleted] Translation: "US makers have no right to complain if foreign companies sell below cost in US markets, because US products are inferior." >"Dumping" is a convenient smoke screen that may be true to a small degree, >but it has been proven over and over again that the American people will >pay MORE for what they really want. Japanese cars cost more than their >American counterparts and yet they still enjoy brisk sales. The same >applies to telephone equipment. Translation: "Since people pay more for Japanese cars, it follows that they would pay more for Japanese telephone systems. Therefore, foreign suppliers should be allowed to sell below cost in US markets." [Lots more about how US products are priced too high and have inferior workmanship.] Higdon's logic is so grossly, mind-bogglingly out of joint that it is impossible to construct a reasoned rebuttal. -- Harvey S. Cohen, AT&T Bell Labs, Lincroft, NJ, mtund!hsc, (201)576-3302 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 0:15:41 GMT From: MITRE-KOREA@SEOUL-EMH1.ARMY.MIL To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping I followed the discussion of ATT and dumping with some interest. Since I am currently living in Korea, I thought I might have a thing or two to consider. First of all, I doubt that things are ever as simple as we would like. The existence of differing internal (i.e. domestic) tax laws and market policies, as well as external (i.e. import/export) ones makes it difficult to directly compare situations across countries. Koreans, for example, pay sales taxes far in excess of any in the U.S., at least on "luxury" products like cars and computers. Second, the law of supply and demand (with allowances for taxes and other market-distorting forces) still applies. A smaller demand will generally imply a higher market-clearing price. In Korea, for instance, the middle class is much smaller than in the U.S., so it is only the rich who buy things like computers. Thus both a smaller market and a less price-sensitive consumer. Third, distribution mechanisms are different. I am unaware of any Korean mail-order Computer Shopper-type distribution. Fourth, culture. Koreans are VERY Korean. They don't need any government "buy Korean" programs. Buying foreign goods when Korean equivalents are available is frowned upon socially. (This is changing however. In particular there is considerable snob appeal in owning a foreign-made item, since it is usually seen as more expensive and possibly better made.) Now the anecdote: As an American living in Korea, I can buy a Korean-made Leading Edge Computer more cheaply by mail order from New Jersey, including shipping, than I can get it here. It's a strange world. Moral: ? Dan Jones mitre-korea@seoul-emh1.army.mil ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Thu Jan 12 01:42:40 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA11228; Thu, 12 Jan 89 01:42:40 EST Message-Id: <8901120642.AA11228@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89 1:24:16 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #12 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Jan 89 1:24:16 EST Volume 9 : Issue 12 Today's Topics: Switched 56 Info Switched 56 Update Telemarketing Hardware Time marches on... Re: Time marches on... Re: A Tiny Tim [Moderator's Note: This is *part 2* of the digest for Thursday 12 Jan. I am still processing some mail a couple days old. All letters will appear, given a couple more days. Patrick Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com To: telecom-request@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Switched 56 Info Date: Tue, 10-Jan-89 10:06:14 PST I apparently have misled the net with my comment that Switched 56 service was readily available from most RBOCs and all you needed to do was call your RBOC. I based that comment on articles I had read in Teleconnect, Data Communications, etc., but not having used it personally. Open mouth, Insert Foot, Close Mouth. After receiving several request for more information, I decided to call my RBOC (Mich Bell) and ask about it. Their rep claimed that it had not been tarrifed in Michigan yet and was only available as a negotiated service. She didn't think it would be tarrifed for at least a year. I then called AT&T. They advertise the service as Digital Dataphone Service, with speeds up to 56K BPS. Now, one would think that it would be easy to get info from them, especially when one has an AT&T Marketing office in ones city, an AT&T Point of Presence in ones city, and a brand new 1989 phone book. Sigh. Local Offices - Data Services: "We don't know what you are talking about." Long Distance Services: "You're talking about a leased line, right?" Finally, someone took my name and said they would have someone else call me. I can hardly wait. I shall continue to persue this, perhaps calling some of the DSU/CSU vendors. However, if anyone else has any first hand knowledge, please speak up. Based on the inquiries I received, there is a lot of net interest in this product. ------------------------------ From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com To: telecom-request@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Switched 56 Update Date: Tue, 10-Jan-89 15:43:42 PST Well, as it turns out, I wasn't as wrong as I thought I was. (Open Mouth, Remove Foot, Close Mouth) I received a call late today from my company's AT&T rep. She actually knew quite a bit about Switched 56 service. I shall attempt to paraphrase what she told me. Note: This is not an endorsement for AT&T. I assume MCI or Sprint can provide similar services. The biggest problem with my previous posting (in comp.dcom.modems), was saying to contact your RBOC for details on Switched 56. I tried that and found out that they know little about it and in many cases it may not be tariffed for local service yet. Call your account rep at your prefered Interexchange Carrier. If you use AT&T and don't know your rep, you can call 1-800-222-0400 and ask them to look up your rep's name for you. Switched 56 is available through most of country. Whether or not you can use it depends on how close you are to AT&T's Point of Presence (POP) and if your RBOC has the facilities (read: #5ESS, DMS-100, etc) in your area and the area you want to call. AT&T acts as a single point of contact for the entire circuit. Even though the tail ends of the circuit will be handled by the RBOC, you still call AT&T for installation, support, maintenance and billing. Rates are very contingent on what AT&T has to do to get the RBOC to install the circuit, so she wouldn't get me any ballpark prices. She was very willing to price specific circuits though. So... I stand by my original recommendation in that if you need small amounts (1-3 hours?)of large bandwidth a day, it may be very advantagous to consider pricing this option. ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jan 89 17:07:54 +1100 (Wed) To: comp-dcom-telecom%munnari.oz@munnari.oz Path: otc!peterh From: peterh@otc.oz (Peter Holdaway) Subject: Telemarketing Hardware (was: Remote Method To Switch Incoming Lines) In article pdg@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Guthrie) writes: > >By the way, if anybody is interested I have a Unix device driver for >Dialogic boards (in beta test). >Also, dialogic has a nice new board that lets you bring a T-Span >into a PC. You can then link it with another board they sell to do >the conferencing, A/D APCM conversion etc. Useful now for big >telemarketing people, but will be great for gateways if they >eventually provide ISDN PRI user side support. >-- >Paul Guthrie >chinet!nsacray!paul What sort of Unix and what sort of bus are we talking about here ? This sounds like the sort of thing I'm after so I'll contact Dialogic directly. Does anyone else know of, or can comment on experience with, currently available hardware to perform these sort of telemarketing functions. DTMF I/O A/D APCM conversion Conferencing Switching T1/CEPT Mux I would prefer to plug these boards into a Sun VME or PC(386i) bus, but I could probably live with a MeS-DOS environment. Peter Holdaway UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!otc.oz!peterh ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader To: bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@lsuc Subject: Time marches on... Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89 19:25:34 EST Patrick Townson writes: > ... people with touch tone phones are still a > *minority* in the United States, let alone other countries. ... > Yet we look at an 'antique' rotary dial phone and say how quaint ... This, I think, has to do with television and the movies. If you watch a show from the era when "dialing" meant just that, you'll notice that they usually cut away after 2 or 3 digits have been dialed. There's just too much dead time waiting for the character to dial 7 digits (or so), unless the director is trying for (a) extra realism, (b) extra tension, or (c) comic effect. The widespread availability of Touch Tone phones meant that this little distortion could be done away with, and now Touch Tone is almost all that you see. And if you don't see one on TV or in the movies any more, it must be an antique, right? I still remember the scene in ACE IN THE HOLE (1951, a.k.a. THE BIG CARNIVAL) where reporter Kirk Douglas is phoning his editor. He asks the long distance operator for a New York number, say "New York 73204". And then he gives the number he's calling from: "Escadrilo 2"! When I first saw this scene it sounded wonderfully periodish. Then in 1983 I went to New Zealand. The user interface to the phone system there is generally very like the British one, except of course for the dials which are numbered the other way around. Well, my wife and I were with a friend (Robert Biddle) in Te Anau (a beautiful spot), and he placed a call to a hotel in Milford Sound (a still more beautiful spot ... but I digress). He was transferring the charge, so he couldn't direct-dial the call. After it, he reported to us: Robert: I'd like to make a transferred-charge call to Milford Sound. Please charge it to Spencerville 269. Operator: That's Spencerville 269, and you're calling Milford Sound 6. Robert: How did you know that?! Operator: It's the only telephone in Milford Sound. Robert: !! Operator: Except for the box outside the post office, and I didn't think you'd be calling that. As we drove THE road to Milford Sound the next day, we noticed poles alongside with exactly 2 wires on them. Robert noted, "That must be for THE telephone". Antique? What's antique? Mark Brader "That's what progress is for. Progress SoftQuad Inc., Toronto is for creating new forms of aggravation." utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Keith Jackson ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: nelson@kodak.com (bruce nelson) Subject: Re: Time marches on... Date: 10 Jan 89 04:36:29 GMT >From the 1953 Binghamton, NY phone book (you never know when you have to look up someone's 1953 phone number :-) 1. Obtain the number from the directory. For example 7-3245. 2. Remove the receiver and listen for the dial tone, - a steady humming sound. 3. Then place your finger in the hole in the dial over the figure "7" and turn the dial around until your finger strikes the stop. 4. Raise your finger and without touching the dial allow it to return to its original position. 5. Then dial the figures "3","2","4" and "5". Listen for the RINGING SIGNAL, an intermittent burring sound which indicates that the called telephone is being rug. If the called telephone is busy you will hear instead the BUSY SIGNAL, a rapid buzz-buzz-buzz quicker and louder than the ringing sugnal. If the party you are calling does not answer after several attempts, call "88" and ask whether the number has been changed or disconnected. Simple, isn't it? Bruce D. Nelson | UUCP: ...!rutgers!rochester!kodak!hawkeye!nelson Eastman Kodak Company | Voice: 716-726-7890 901 Elmgrove Road | Rochester, NY 14653-5219 | ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 89 09:47:50 PST (Monday) Subject: Re: A Tiny Tim From: schwartz.osbunorth@xerox.com To: comp-dcom-telecom@decwrl.dec.com Still more on "... hooking an automobile accident to a computer ..." The January 8 edition of the San Jose Mercury News (Section F, pages 1, 7) had an article entitled "Disabled find jobs on-line." The article lists the following local agencies "that can help the disabled obtain computer training." 1. The Bridge Project: Sunnyvale (408) 736-9041 2. Project Hired: Sunnyvale (408) 730-0880 3. The California Department of Rehabilitation: San Jose (408) 277-1350 4. The CIL-Computer Training Center: Berkeley (415) 849-2911 (voice or TTY) 5. Disabled Programmers Inc.: San Jose (408) 629-3700 The article has more information on each of these organizations. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Fri Jan 13 00:07:08 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA27571; Fri, 13 Jan 89 00:07:08 EST Message-Id: <8901130507.AA27571@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 89 00:00:51 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #13 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Fri, 13 Jan 89 00:00:51 EST Volume 9 : Issue 13 Today's Topics: Dialing For Dollars Re: New way to donate money Race conditions in a PBX Glare (was Race Conditions in a PBX) Cellular Info Re: Finding Your Ringback Number Many thanks! [Moderator's Note: Address changes recommended by relay.cs.net were implemented today, as per message in yesterday's Digest. If you see anything flaky, please advise. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com To: telecom-request@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Dialing For Dollars Date: Thu, 12-Jan-89 08:54:15 PST Regarding the message about the local telco in Washington collecting $5 or $10 depending on what number you dialed... AT&T (and probably the others) has been getting geared up to offer a similar service nationwide. That is, certain 900 numbers will be billed at whatever rate the info provider wishes. You may get connected to a recording similar to current 900 service or you may get put through to a live person or computer system similar to current 800 service. Think of Compuserve with your telco doing the billing instead of Compuserve billing your credit card. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Jan 89 9:19:09 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: New way to donate money Re the "moderator's note" on the subject of donating by making a phone call: This looks to have enormous potential for abuse. Someone who gets access to a company office's telephones or those of a university, say, could make hundreds of phone calls, donating thousands of dollars to their favorite cause, with no way to trace the false donations back to the real caller. Traditionally, the potential for abuse of illicit access to someone else's telephone was limited by the fact that they usually could only call other people and run up a long-distance bill, but, after the abuse was detected, such calls could be eventually charged to the called party, or the actual caller could be identified by looking at the pattern of calls or talking with some of the called parties (and threatening them with being charged for those calls, sometimes! :-). Now, with 976 numbers and other such automatically-charged services, the abuse potential went up, but was still limited by time and (probably) boredom -- after an abuser gets into an office and makes ten 976 calls, he's probably bored by it and will stop. He has no incentive to continue, unless all he wants is to attack the company, and even then it gets tiring. Now, with this new option, though, there is an incentive. He can both hurt the company and direct thousands of dollars to some cause he supports, be it "save the baby seals" or "right to life" or "planned parenthood" or The Committee To Re-Elect The President or whatever... Even though some mechanism will probably be implemented to allow "backing out" of such donations, especially if such a pattern of abuse is detected, it will still be a hassle, be after-the-fact, and not all illicit "donations" will be detected or reversed. This gives the person with a grudge an incentive to make many many many calls; he doesn't even have to wait to listen to any spiel, but can just repeatedly make calls. With an autodialer device, a determined hacker could tap into a line and run up a multi-thousand-dollar string of "donation" calls in just a few minutes, if we want to get technological about it... Maybe it still is a good idea -- as long as the only people who get donations are causes I approve of, that is... :-) Will Martin [Moderators Note: I think the answer to this is that most telcos allow blocking of 900/976 numbers, to prevent abuse of any kind, which would presumably include the abuse described by Mr. Martin. I suspect also that there would be some cancellation clause in the telco's contract with the charity, which gives the telco total recourse for uncollectibles. P. Townson] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 13:44:31 EST From: map@gaak.LCS.MIT.EDU (Michael A. Patton) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Race conditions in a PBX From: hiraki@ecf.toronto.edu (Lester Hiraki) Date: Mon, 9 Jan 89 14:16:47 EST Does anyone know how to solve the following problem? Consider a simple PBX which works as follows: [... Describes race condition on bidirectional loop-start lines ...] Assuming loop-start lines, can this race condition be avoided? Note, not all business have ground-start lines. I understand ground-start lines eleminate this very problem? Can someone explain how ground- start lines work? I used to work for a company that made equipment for telephone connection. The answer to your question is that Loop-Start lines are not supposed to be used bi-directionally, except for cases where this does not matter (i.e. where the person answering the call and the person wanting to dial would often be the same person anyway). Full PBX equipment should not use Loop-Start bi-directionally. Frequently the people involved in an actual installation don't know this and so you get the problem you describe. We occasionally ran into the opposite problem where the phone company wanted to install Ground-Start lines because they assumed our equipment was a PBX when in fact it was terminate-only. In later models we provide small amounts of originate-like service and had to provide a Ground-Start interface to avoid exactly this problem. It is my impression that the conversion from Loop-Start to Ground-Start is fairly simple on most CO equipment (they managed to do about 10 lines in half an hour when we put in a PBX), but there are some low-end PBX vendors that can't provide Ground-Start trunking. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 08:26:01 PST From: HECTOR MYERSTON Subject: Glare (was Race Conditions in a PBX) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Ref Hiraki@ecf-toronto's query. The condition you describe is known as glare and is as old as the hills. The way to avoid it is not to use ground-start for two-way trunks. The way to >minimize< is to have one end select trnks from the "top" of the trunk group, the other from the "bottom". You will still occasionally get glare but less often. Ground Start is the common signaling method for this type of trunk. Trunk seizure is initiated from either end by grounding one of the wires. Normally (a dangerous word to use here) the PBX grounds the Ring and the CO grounds the Tip to initiate calls. ------------------------------ To: mcsd!killer!comp-dcom-telecom From: tim@Athena.UUCP (Tim Dawson) Subject: Cellular Info Date: 11 Jan 89 21:53:43 GMT In article ghg@en.ecn.purdue.edu (George Goble) writes: > >I just got off the phone with John Covert. He had information which >said that ATT (when they went to #4 ESS toll switches) was the cause >of the roamer ports going off hook. The #4 ESS only allows a one-way >connection until the remote end goes off hook. To provide some added information, this is referred to as answer supervision in the telephone industry, and must be known and programmed in both the Cellular switch and the serving CO. The "off-hook" on the roamer port is actually generated in the Cellular switch, not by Bell. The reason for this is that due to the connection only being one way initally, if the Cellular switch does not return Early Answer Supervision (I.E. when the switch Connects as opposed to a mobile phone answering), the audio path from Bell to the Cellular system is never established and the dialed digits never make it to the Cellular system which then times out and fails the call. Answer supervision is NOT the same thing as an off-hook condition. Answer supervision typically consists of a wink being returned to th C.O (E&M signalling at least) by the Cellular system and is totally irrelevant as to whether the Cellular switch is actually connected to and "listening to" the trunk circuit. The primary reason that Bell uses this is probably just as likely to be to increase billable revenue as it is to prevent toll fraud. Bell feels that they have every right to bill for a call (local or long distance) which terminates to a Cellular system roamer port since they ARE passing audio and the call is utilizing their facilities for a period of time (while you dial the mobile number after receiving the second dial tone). Hopefully someday the Bell companies will agree to exchange billing information with the Cellular carriers and then what is known as Calling Party Billing (where the person who called eats the entire bill INCLUDING the cellular air time, instead of just a local call or whatever, just like a normal long distance land-land call) will be possible. Then whenever that jerk salesman trying to sell you widget X of a wrong number comes in, you could rest comfortably knowing that you won't have to pay for it! tad (First posting, so no signature yet!) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jan 89 00:40:38 EST From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu To: telecom%bu-cs.BU.EDU@um.cc.umich.edu Subject: Re: Find Your Ringback Number Re: moderator's response to my system to find one's ringback number Point well taken. I would never recommend or advocate running something like that after nightfall, and even in the daytime, attempt it on your own conscience. A better solution might be to secure a list of all exchanges in your area code; about 10 valid exchange prefixes are always left out of an area code's numbering plan for plant test functions such as ringback. A trip to the public library's phone book section would give one the information necessary for cross-referencing prefixes. Miguel Cruz ------------------------------ Date: 9 Jan 89 11:23:34 EST (Mon) From: gmeeca!sb@tis.llnl.gov Subject: Many thanks! To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu My sincerest thanks to everybody who was kind enough to post their responses to the Tiny Tim request. I have forwarded all the information to the appropriate source (father's friend), who was truly overwhelmed. -- Bradley W. Smith (gmeeca!sb@tis.llnl.gov) 2813 Dayton Drive Ann Arbor, MI 48108 (313) 677-2424 [Moderators Note: And thank you for sharing with us. Remember, we will be expecting a follow-up message as the project continues, and at its conclusion as well. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sat Jan 14 01:08:00 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA08955; Sat, 14 Jan 89 01:08:00 EST Message-Id: <8901140608.AA08955@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 89 0:40:19 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #14 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sat, 14 Jan 89 0:40:19 EST Volume 9 : Issue 14 Today's Topics: Re: AT&T alleges dumping Sleazebag 970 Numbers with Automatic Harrasment Re: Race conditions in a PBX "Antique" phone numbers Re: Time marches on... [Moderator's Note: Here's hoping your weekend is pleasant. If you are getting a three day holiday out of it for MLK's birthday observed, then you are a lot luckier than me. Watch for something *really special* in the next issue of the Digest: an up-to-date, complete listing of North American area code assignments, prepared by Alexander Dupuy. You should have your copy sometime over the weekend. Patrick Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: uunet!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: algor2!jeffrey@uunet.UU.NET (jeffrey) Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping Date: 11 Jan 89 18:44:09 GMT I was very sad to read that AT&T has descended to Japan-bashing. It is a company for which I have the greatest respect. They have been a generous client, and even if that had not been the case, as a UNIX programmer I would still owe them my livelihood. Their ability to plan for the long term is unequaled. However, it seems clear that the Japanese equipment is not underpriced, except in comparison to the AT&T stuff. I had looked at the AT&T phone systems, and the sales people acted as if they already had a government enforced monopoly. The system was completely incompatible, even with other AT&T equipment. In short, AT&T has yet to make a serious attempt to compete with the foreign systems, in price or openness, and their recent "anti-dumping" action seems to indicate they would rather solve the problem with lawyers than engineers. Unfortunately, we expect this sort of thing from American firms, but I had every reason to hope AT&T would be an exception. Phone systems, even Japanese ones, still are high priced, and tend to lock customers into the vendor's equipment, and limit the customer's expansion options. The solution for this is competition. Phone systems could be an important source of innovation in our economy, rather than a major overhead. However, if foreign makers are locked out, this innovation will be slowed in the United States. Our foreign competitors are going to have access to cheaper and better phone systems than Americans. I would hope our "solution" to the DRAM "dumping problem" would have taught all involved a lesson. Our chip prices skyrocketed, sales of thousands of U.S. products were hurt, the Japanese companies did just fine without our markets, thank you, and the two American companies that did make money are spending it on suing each other. I am not sure my business could survive many more attempts to protect my job. AT&T is perfectly capable of beating the Japanese by producing a quality, reasonably priced product--and of selling it in Japan. Not to even try is unworthy of a company which represents the very best of business in America, and therefore the world. -- Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists 1788 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090 jeffrey@algor2.UU.NET or uunet!algor2!jeffrey ------------------------------ To: rutgers!comp-dcom-telecom@cucard.med.columbia.edu From: eravin@dasys1.UUCP (Ed Ravin) Subject: Sleazebag 970 Numbers with Automatic Harrasment Date: 12 Jan 89 19:12:34 GMT A couple of months ago, I came home to find a message on my machine from an automatic sales call machine. The message went something like this: "Please answer the following questions and listen carefully to the contest rules. You may win a vacation trip to sunny FLORIDA!" Machine asks some dumb questions about my desires to go on vacation. "Now please listen carefully. If you answer this contest question correctly, you will WIN an EXPENSES PAID TRIP TO FLORIDA! blah blah blah blah blah blah... "Who is the famous Star Personality that turns the letters on the TV hit 'Wheel of Fortune'? Is it: a) Barbara Streisand b) Barbara Walters c) Vanna White ????" "If you think you know the answer to this question, then call 970-xxxx. That's 970-xxxx. Yes, call 970-xxxx and if you have the correct answer you will win the trip to FLORIDA!" After repeating the number and the exhortation to call a few more times, the machine says, in a faster and less understandable voice: "cost is $5.95 per call" And then repeats the phone number five more times trying to con you into call. This seems about as on the level as those postcards I've gotten every now and then telling me I've won a trip to Florida and when you call them for more information it turns out it actually costs at least $89.95. What I find most disturbing about this is that it sure is easy to miss their announcement of the price of the call, and get snookered into calling back and dropping six bucks into these crook's pockets. If I didn't have it recorded on my answering machine I very well might have missed hearing how much the call was and if I was a little dumber than I am I might have called thinking that I was real smart knowing who Vanna White was and for my smartness I was getting a trip to Florida. -- Ed Ravin | cucard!dasys1!eravin | "A mind is a terrible thing (BigElectricCatPublicUNIX)| eravin@dasys1.UUCP | to waste-- boycott TV!" --------------------------+----------------------+----------------------------- Reader bears responsibility for all opinions expressed in this article. [Moderator's Question: This was printed the way I got it. Mr. Ravin, do you mean 970 or 976 as the prefix? What area code is this? PT] ^ ^ ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: westmark!dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Race conditions in a PBX Date: 13 Jan 89 02:09:11 GMT In article , hiraki@ecf.toronto.edu (Lester Hiraki) writes: > Does anyone know how to solve the following problem? > > Consider a simple PBX which works as follows: > All incoming calls from trunks are routed to the attendant console. > Outgoing calls are processed as follows... ... > Imagine now that an incoming call arrives at a trunk but the CO has not > yet applied the ring voltage - ie connexion was made during the silent > window (ringing is usually 2s on and 4s off, say). Just at this moment > someone within the PBX is making an outside call & the PBX seizes > this trunk before ringing starts, in effect answering the call. The > incoming caller is connected to the person waiting for his outside call > to be completed. > > Assuming loop-start lines, can this race condition be avoided? Note, > not all business have ground-start lines. I understand ground-start > lines eleminate this very problem? Can someone explain how ground- > start lines work? Lester's question refers to what telephony people call glare. When bi-directional trunks are used between two switches, either end may seize a trunk at any time. How do we handle the case where both ends of the same circuit are seized at the same time? Ground-start lines are typically used between PBX and Central Office switches. A separate mark-busy channel in each direction is provided, as follows: The CO marks the circuit busy by applying a high-impedence ground to the TIP side of the loop. The customer equipment marks the circuit busy by applying a high-impedence ground to the RING side of the loop. Either end may send its busy-mark to the other end while testing the other end's busy-mark. The standard protocol is that the PBX tests the CO's busy-mark (by checking for the ground on TIP) before it bids for the line (by grounding RING). The CO does the same thing in reverse. If the PBX and the CO both bid at the same time, the standard protocol requires that the PBX release the circuit and seize another outgoing trunk, and the CO will complete the incoming call. The probability of glare is reduced, if possible, by having the PBX hunt for a trunk from the top down, while the CO hunts from the bottom up. If ground-start service is not available, the usual practice is to use two trunk groups, one for incoming service, and the other for outgoing service. If this is not done, there is no reliable way of avoiding glare. -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ From: covert%covert.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (John R. Covert) Date: 12 Jan 89 15:57 To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: "Antique" phone numbers > Operator: That's Spencerville 269, and you're calling > Milford Sound 6. > >Antique? What's antique? We still have plenty of those here, and if it's possible when not doing a transferred call charge to Milford Sound 6 to dial it directly, the NZ system is less antique than ours. The Patrick Creek Lodge, near Crescent City California, is "Idlewild 5." To call this you must call your operator (I suspect if you're outside the LATA you've gotta call AT&T; Sprint operators almost certainly can't put the call through). BTW, the number is listed with normal 707 555-1212 directory assistance. It's a magneto phone on a ring down. Although the last full magneto exchange was removed from Bryant Pond, Maine, several years ago, there are still quite a few phones in remote places which have to be called via special ring-down magneto circuits on the local intra-LATA toll board. /john [Moderator's Note: And don't forget northern Nevada. There are dozens of these 'toll stations' as they are called; tiny communities with two, three or maybe four telephones in total. I think the entire state of Nevada is in a single telephone directory, called logically enough, "Nevada Bell". An entire town with all five telephones -- or sometimes three entire towns! -- will be listed on a single page. For billing purposes, they are called 'other places' and connection is from your long distance operator via Reno, NV Microwave (702+181) ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jan 89 16:18:00 GMT To: att!comp-dcom-telecom Subject: Submission for comp-dcom-telecom From: editor@chinet.chi.il.us (Alex Zell) To: teleco@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Time marches on... Date: 13 Jan 89 16:17:58 GMT In article jbn@glacier.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle) writes: >X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 7, message 7 > > > The John Crerar Library at IIT in Chicago had, and probably still has, >a number of classic pamphlets and books on early telephony. The John Crerar library is no longer at IIT. It has been a part of the University of Chicago library system for several years. The library is open to the public. There are, of course, restrictions on withdrawals. -- Alex Zell editor@chinet editor@igloo Pictou Island, NS ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sun Jan 15 10:54:04 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA03904; Sun, 15 Jan 89 10:54:04 EST Message-Id: <8901151554.AA03904@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 89 10:41:04 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #15 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sun, 15 Jan 89 10:41:04 EST Volume 9 : Issue 15 Today's Topics: Request For Area Code Program Written in C Area Code Numerical Listing Supplementary Code Numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: att!comp-dcom-telecom From: harvard!gatech!cbnews.ATT.COM!ms (Michael S. Stansbery) Subject: Request For Area Code Program Written In C Date: 13 Jan 89 17:04:49 GMT In article , cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) writes: > A while back, I received an area code program written in C. It has a > few updates from me, mainly for new areacodes added in 1988. > > As for NNX (or NXX, if the area in question has N0X/N1X prefixes), > you could check on the AT&T V&H tape via AT&T Long Lines. As the > Telecom moderator states, this is subject to rapid updates (not to > mention having a LOT of information to begin with). If it wouldn't be any trouble, I would appreciate a copy of the area code program you have written in C. Probably the best way would be to post it to the newsgroup. Other people may be interested also. Thanks, Mike ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: dupuy@cs.columbia.edu (Alexander Dupuy) Subject: Area Code Numerical Listings Date: 13 Jan 89 22:11:51 GMT You don't need a C program to translate area codes into placenames: this script does the trick just as well, and it's easy to modify when they change: @alex ============================================================================== #!/bin/sh 'exec' /usr/bin/look "$1" "$0" 011 [ International Access Code ] 201 Morristown, and Newark, (Northeast) New Jersey 202 Washington, District of Columbia 203 All parts of Connecticut 204 All parts of Manitoba, CANADA 205 All parts of Alabama 206 Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver, (Western) Washington 207 All parts of Maine 208 All parts of Idaho 209 Fresno and Stockton, (Central) California 212 New York City (Manhattan and Bronx) New York 213 Los Angeles, California 214 Dallas, (Northeast) Texas 215 Allentown, Chester, and Philadelphia, (Southeast) Pennsylvania 216 Akron, Cleveland, Massillon, and Youngstown, (Northeast) Ohio 217 Springfield, (South Central) Illinois 218 Duluth, (Northern) Minnesota 219 Gary, Hammond, Michigan City, and South Bend, (Northwest) Indiana 301 All parts of Maryland 302 All parts of Delaware 303 Denver, (North and West) Colorado 304 All parts of West Virginia 305 Fort Lauderdale, Key West and Miami, (Southeast) Florida 306 All parts of Saskatchewan, CANADA 307 All parts of Wyoming 308 North Platte, (Western) Nebraska 309 Peoria, (West Central) Illinois 312 Chicago, Illinois 313 Detroit and Ann Arbor, (Eastern) Michigan 314 Saint Louis and Columbia, (Eastern) Missouri 315 Syracuse and Utica, (North Central) New York 316 Dodge City and Wichita, (Southern) Kansas 317 Indianapolis and Kokomo, (Central) Indiana 318 Lake Charles and Shreveport, (Western) Louisiana 319 Dubuque, (Eastern) Iowa 401 All parts of Rhode Island 402 Lincoln and Omaha, (Eastern) Nebraska 403 All parts of Alberta, CANADA 404 Atlanta and Rome, (Northern) Georgia 405 Oklahoma City, (South and West) Oklahoma 406 All parts of Montana 407 Orlando, West Palm Beach, (Eastern) Florida 408 San Jose and Sunnyvale, (Silicon Valley) California 409 Galveston, (Southeast) Texas 411 [ Directory Assistance ] 412 Pittsburgh, (Western) Pennsylvania 413 Springfield, (Western) Massachusetts 414 Green Bay, Milwaukee, and Racine, (Eastern) Wisconsin 415 Oakland and San Francisco, (Bay Area) California 416 Toronto, (South Central) Ontario, CANADA 417 Joplin and Springfield, (Southwest) Missouri 418 Quebec City, (Northeast) Quebec, CANADA 419 Toledo, (Northwest) Ohio 501 All parts of Arkansas 502 Louisville and Paducah, (Western) Kentucky 503 All parts of Oregon 504 Baton Rouge and New Orleans, (Eastern) Louisiana 505 All parts of New Mexico 506 All parts of New Brunswick, CANADA 507 Rochester, (Southern) Minnesota 508 Worcester, Framingham and New Bedford, (Eastern) Massachusetts 509 Spokane, and Walla Walla, (Eastern) Washington 512 Austin, Corpus Christi, and San Antonio, (Southern) Texas 513 Cincinnati and Dayton, (Southwest) Ohio 514 Montreal, (Southern) Quebec, CANADA 515 Des Moines, (Central) Iowa 516 Hempstead, (Long Island) New York 517 Lansing and Saginaw, (Central) Michigan 518 Albany and Schenectady, (Northeast) New York 519 London, (Southwest) Ontario, CANADA 601 All parts of Mississippi 602 All parts of Arizona 603 All parts of New Hampshire 604 All parts of British Columbia, CANADA 605 All parts of South Dakota 606 Ashland and Covington, (Eastern) Kentucky 607 Binghamton, Elmira and Ithaca, (South Central) New York 608 Beloit and Madison, (Southwest) Wisconsin 609 Atlantic City, Camden, and Trenton, (Southwest) New Jersey 611 [ Repair Service ] 612 Minneapolis and Saint Paul, (Central) Minnesota 613 Ottawa, (Southeast) Ontario, CANADA 614 Columbus, (Southeast) Ohio 615 Chattanooga and Nashville, (Eastern) Tennessee 616 Battle Creek, and Grand Rapids, (Western) Michigan 617 Boston area, (Eastern) Massachusetts 618 Alton and Centralia, (Southern) Illinois 619 San Diego and the Imperial Valley, California 701 All parts of North Dakota 702 All parts of Nevada 703 Arlington and Roanoke, (North and Western) Virginia 704 Charlotte and Salisbury, (Western) North Carolina 705 North Bay, (Northern) Ontario, CANADA 706 Tijuana, (Northwest) MEXICO [equivalent to +52 6X XXX XXX] 707 Eureka, Napa, and Santa Rosa, (North Coastal) California 708 Aurora, Elgin, and Highland Park, (Northeast) Illinois 709 All parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, CANADA 712 Council Bluffs, (Western) Iowa 713 Houston, Texas 714 Orange County and Palm Springs, California 715 Eau Claire and Wausau, (Northern) Wisconsin 716 Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and Rochester, (Western) New York 717 Harrisburg, Scranton, and Wilkes-Barre, (Central) Pennsylvania 718 New York City (Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island) New York 719 Colorado Springs and Pueblo, (Southeast) Colorado 801 All parts of Utah 802 All parts of Vermont 803 All parts of South Carolina 804 Charlottesville, Norfolk, and Richmond, (Southeast) Virginia 805 Bakersfield, Ventura, and Simi Valley, (South Central) California 806 Amarillo, (Northern) Texas 807 Thunder Bay, (Northwest) Ontario, CANADA 808 All parts of Hawaii 809 Bahamas, Bermuda, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands 812 Evansville, (Southern) Indiana 813 Fort Myers and St. Petersburg, (Southwest) Florida 814 Altoona and Erie, (West Central) Pennsylvania 815 Joliet, and Rockford, (Northwest) Illinois 816 Kansas City and Saint Joseph, (Northwest) Missouri 817 Fort Worth, Temple, and Waco, (North Central) Texas 818 San Fernando (Suburban area near Los Angeles), California 819 Sherbrooke (South Central and Northwest) Quebec, CANADA 901 Memphis, (Western) Tennesee 902 All parts of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, CANADA 903 * Unassigned * 904 Jacksonville, (Northeast) Florida 905 Mexico City, (Northern) MEXICO [equivalent to +52 5 XXX XXXX] 906 Sault Ste. Marie, (Northern) Michigan 907 All parts of Alaska 908 * Unassigned * 909 * Unassigned * 911 [ Police/Fire Emergency Service ] 912 Macon and Savannah, (Southern) Georgia 913 Salina and Topeka, (Northern) Kansas 914 White Plains, and Poughkeepsie, (Southern) New York 915 El Paso, (Western) Texas 916 Sacramento, (Northern) California 917 * Unassigned * 918 Muskogee and Tulsa, (Northeast) Oklahoma 919 Greenville, Raleigh, and Winston Salem, (Eastern) North Carolina -- -- inet: dupuy@columbia.edu uucp: ...!rutgers!columbia!dupuy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Jan 89 10:39:19 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: Telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Supplementary Code Numbers You may wish to add a few additional codes to the list given above. These three digit codes are also in use, although they are not, strictly speaking, 'area codes'. They are not in the chart above since I thought some of you may not want them there. If you do, then edit them in. 200 Local testing, used by many telcos. 410 Western Union Telegraph Company - Northeastern USA 510 Western Union Telegraph Company - Eastern USA 610 Western Union Telegraph Company - Canada 700 Value Added Information Services, per individual OCC 710 Western Union Telegraph Company - Southern USA 800 In-WATS 'toll free' calling 810 Western Union Telegraph Company - Mexico 900 Mass Calling Information/Value Added Services 909 Telenet Communications Corp. Data Network 910 Western Union Telegraph Company - Western USA (from Chicago westward) The thing with WUTCO is, many years ago the old Bell System operated Teletype machines; what they called the TWX (or [T]ype[W]riter E[X]change. The TWX machines had their own switches, located in existing telephone central offices, but on separate equipment. About twenty years ago, a court ruling required Bell to sell its TWX service to Western Union, in a suit brought by WUTCO against AT&T. WUTCO operated the system as TWX for many years, and in the past five years has changed the name to Telex II. The Western Union central offices for Telex I (the original telex network) have always been in WUTCO offices. The central offices for Telex II (formerly AT&T's TWX) are still in Bell central offices, although they now belong to WUTCO. Is that clear? Telenet's data network uses conventional area code numbering in the way its switches route calls. Again, there is a lot of telco central office equipment tied up with hardwired connectons between Telenet and its customers who have direct connect PADS, etc. Telenet also has gateways into telex and TWX (or Telex II). 'Area Code' 909 is assigned for billing purposes to the activities of Telenet. If you use the Telenet network, via indials or whatever, that any connection of the form @C 909xxx is a connection to the Telenet headquarters offices in Reston, VA. So these codes 410,510,610,710,810 and 909 are occupied and recognized by the network for purposes other than voice. You cannot dial into them from the voice network, but they are none the less assigned. Likewise, AUTOVON, the federal government telephone network, is largely accomodated through the Bell central offices in every city with federal government facilities. This part of the overall network was grouped together under 300 at one time. I am not sure of the code now. No one *actually dials* 300-anything, but the number relates to that function. Calling from the public switched network to AUTOVON is largely transparent. In calling to a federal office in Our Nation's Capitol for instance, we can generally dial 202-public-last four *or* we can dial 202-autovon-last four and the call will go through. That is because autovon and 202 prefixes are not overlapped or duplicated in many areas. When the present unassigned area codes of the conventional format have all been used, sometime around 1992-1995, area codes 210,211,310,311,400,500,511, 600,711 and 811 will be next in line for assignment. Whether or not you want to include these special numbers in the chart given in the earlier message depends on if you want strictly a listing of the *dialable* codes used by the voice network at present, or if you want to include all *assgined* codes. And while 700-800-900 are not strictly speaking area codes, my belief is they definitly should be added to the list. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Tue Jan 17 02:43:35 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA28773; Tue, 17 Jan 89 02:43:35 EST Message-Id: <8901170743.AA28773@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 2:15:05 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #16 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 Jan 89 2:15:05 EST Volume 9 : Issue 16 Today's Topics: Hello Direct Catalog Re: Alternative Operator Services? Telemarketing Hardware Re: Network Access Fee Up December 1 New File Available [Moderator's Note: Over the weekend, the mailer went out of order. On Monday morning I remailed issue 13 from Friday, rerouted through Harvard. As a result, I was unable to get this issue out. Today you are receiving *two digests* -- number 16 and number 17. Patrick Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 89 12:02:41 mst From: rrw%naucse.UUCP@arizona.edu (Robert Wier) To: arizona!noao!ncar!husc6!harvard!bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@arizona.edu Subject: Hello Direct Catalog Cc: naucse!rrw@arizona.edu Hello Telecomers -- I recently received a new catalog from a company called Hello Direct (800-444-3556)(800-HI-HELLO), located in San Jose, which contains a number of products relevent to topics discussed in recent months on the net. Some of the more interesting items they have listed are: A call forwarding re-router which can be changed from remote locations. Requires a single line with Centrex type call forwarding at Central Office. $149 (Not sure if this would work with standard TT ESS equip. Anyone know?) A 2 line call forwarder that will work without Centrex for $355. A voice mail system which runs on a PC $349 Automatic Call timer (start/stop when phone goes off/on hook) $30 Group III battery operated FAX machine with celluar phone adaptor, about $1600 Various combinations of phone sets without dials, and restricted access phones $70 - $160 Call restrictors - Since there has been a lot of interest in these on the net, I will include an extended description. The single line model can be custom programmed. Factory settings disallows 976: 1 or 0 followed by 976, area code followed by 976. 900: 1 or 0 followed by 900. 1 plus area code (long distance). 411: 1 followed by 411, 555: 1 or 0 followed by 555; 1 or 0 followed by area code and 555 (directory assistance). Has capacity to allow/disallow up to 23 different phone number of 21 digits, or other combinations of phone numbers up to 484 digits. Remote programming with security code (5 digits). Override passcode (4 digits). Rotary or TT programmable. Also allows timed calls from 1 to 15 minutes. (note- Can't tell if it is battery operated or not. The picture does not look as if it contains a battery...there have been problems reported with other battery powered units that the call restriction goes away when the battery goes dead). STRONG DISCLAIMER: I have no connection with HELLO DIRECT, and am *NOT* recommending their products. I, in fact, have not actually seen any of these units. But it might be worthwhile getting their catalog if you have any interest along these lines. -Bob Wier at Flagstaff, Arizona Northern Arizona University ...arizona!naucse!rrw | BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | *usual disclaimers* ------------------------------ To: uunet!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: orion@nuchat (Roland Dunkerley III) Subject: Re: Alternative Operator Services? Date: 14 Jan 89 20:10:16 GMT To: marko@apple.i.intel.com.ogc.edu Cc: orion%nuchat@uunet.UU.NET In article <472@gandalf.littlei.UUCP>, marko@apple writes: >Last night I was paying bills and opened my phone bill. Well the usual PR >junk was stuffed in there with the bill. I normally glance at it to be >sure they aren't trying to sneak one by, like a rate increase hearing or >something. Anyway, the brochure had a blurb about alternative operator services >and how you could be billed for their use when you are away from home and using >your credit card. It went on to say that you should ask what operator you are >using and ask for a different one if it is not the one(company?) you >normally use. > >Now I understand that. What I don't understand is how do I know what I want? >How do I get the best rate say eight or nine times out of ten? Does anyone >know more about this? > There was a big discussion on this subject in comp.dcom.telecom a while back, follow-ups have been directed there. The places to look out for AOSes are Airports, Hotels, and Non-Local Operating Company Coin Operated Computer Operated Telephone (I'm sure I've slaughtered the acronym, someone please tell me the right way). The best thing to do is to ask the operator what company he/she works for, and what outlandish rate they are going to try and charge you, be especially careful making what you may think to be AT&T credit card calls - If the operator doesn't say "AT&T" they usually aren't. If you want any more info on this, someone else on Telecom-Digest may have the relevant back issues. Oh, addressing the last question, usually any AOS is going to have their rates Hiked way way up, the only way to tell is to ask (or read it on the phone, I've seen phones in houston that charged 50c a minute for all domestic LD. >Mark O'Shea >SDA Roland Pleasant Dunkerley III KSC *** (orion@nuchat.UUCP) (uunet.UU.NET!nuchat!orion) *** South Coast Computing Services *** We service Publicly Redistributable software - reasonable rates *** Inquire within ------------------------------ To: mit-eddie!comp-dcom-telecom From: mit-amt!geek@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Chris Schmandt) Subject: Re: Telemarketing Hardware (was: Remote Method To Switch Incoming Lines) Date: 14 Jan 89 03:29:02 GMT In article peterh@otc.oz (Peter Holdaway) writes: >In article pdg@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Guthrie) writes: >> >>By the way, if anybody is interested I have a Unix device driver for >>Dialogic boards (in beta test). > >What sort of Unix and what sort of bus are we talking about here ? > Dialogic currently has a System V driver. Their boards are 8 bit PC bus. I hope to be converting their drivers to SunOS (BSD) in the next couple of months, and a Mach port after that. If anybody is interested in this as a product, they should call Dialogic (Parsippany, NJ, AC 201) as that's likely to make it happen faster. Ask for Jim Shinn (President) and tell him who sent you! I've been trying to convince them that the Sun 386i is a nice platform for voice/phone hacking! There's also work at Olivetti Research Center, Menlo Park, in an "audio server" called VOX that is similar in spirit to the X window graphics server. Good bet that Dialogic will be the first hardware supported. The VOX code may become public domain, again in the spirit of X. It's the *right* way to handle multiple lines/conversations in a multi-process environment. Chris Schmandt ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: moscom!de@cs.rochester.edu (Dave Esan) Subject: Re: Network Access Fee Up December 1 Date: 12 Jan 89 20:53:24 GMT In article telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@vector.uucp >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 8, issue 191, message 8 > > > AT&T WATS rates will be reduced 4 percent effective January 1, 1989. > In addition, AT&T will bill calls individually based on time and > distance. The current hourly pricing method will be discontinued. Is this all WATS calling, or just the PRO-WATS (formerly the Pro-America) setup? I have been patiently waiting for a report deleting most of ATT's FCC #2, but to no avail. -- --> David Esan rochester!moscom!de ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 89 00:23:52 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom Subject: New File Available The messages from Mr. Dupuy and Mr. Statton on the subject of area code assignments and the prefix assignments in 800-900 have been compiled into a special file called [TELECOM Digest Guide to North American Area Codes], or 'guide.to.areacodes' within the telecom-archives. In a general announcement on USENET, I've made this special file available by request to anyone who writes to ask for it. Or they can take it via ftp if they have that ability. If you would like to have those messages, which originally appeared in Volume 9 Issues 2 and 15, ask for your own copy, or ftp it. I found the messages quite good and felt certain the general net readership would probably want to have a copy; at least of the numerical listings if not the technical discussion, but it is included also. The file has of course been placed in the public domain to be copied and distributed as desired, subject only to my requirement that subsequent republications credit [TELECOM Digest] and the authors of the messages used therin. Patrick T. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Tue Jan 17 03:06:38 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA00418; Tue, 17 Jan 89 03:06:38 EST Message-Id: <8901170806.AA00418@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 2:29:45 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #17 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Tue, 17 Jan 89 2:29:45 EST Volume 9 : Issue 17 Today's Topics: Finding Phone Numbers Re: AT&T alleges dumping Demise of Auto Number Announcement (ANA) A Tiny Tim Re: AT&T alleges dumping Re: Excuses instead of info Telecommunications And The Emotionally Disturbed [Moderator's Note: This is *part two* of the Digest for Tuesday 1-17. We had a clogged up mailque over the weekend which forced suspension of transmission early Monday morning. We got a backlog of mail as a result. By Wednesday's Digest I hope we are back to normal with incoming mail. You should have received issue 16 just a few minutes ago. Furthermore, you received one -- or two $%%%$#-up copies of 17 just now, thanks to stilll another evil, dastardly control character stuck in the file which aborted it after 85 lines or so. This, then folks, is the real issue 17. Honestly. This is NOT my day! P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 16 Jan 89 09:26 EST From: GREEN Subject: Finding Telephone Numbers To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu When I dial the WUTCO "area code" 410 followed by any 7 digits, the synthesized voice returns the number I'm calling from. How widespread is this phenomenon? -Scott Green ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@ames.arc.nasa.gov From: wetter@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Pierce T. Wetter) Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping Date: 12 Jan 89 21:25:17 GMT > Now the anecdote: As an American living in Korea, I can buy a Korean-made > Leading Edge Computer more cheaply by mail order from New Jersey, including > shipping, than I can get it here. It's a strange world. > > Moral: ? This is true in Japan as well. If you buy a stereo in japan you are almost forced to buy it from a small shop. (Not much inventory & High overhead per item). He buys it from the Sony distributor, who buys it from someone else etc. until you finally reach sony. Because of this long chain, markups from wholesale are much higher than in the US for an equivalent item. I suspect that if American companies weren't prohibited from doing so, a lot of companies like Sears, Federated, the Warehouse could make an awful lot of money by opening American style distribution networks in Japan. Additionally, the terrible Japanese distribution system makes it more difficult for American companies to compete in Japan. (for various reasons I won't go into.) The Japanese economy is very bizarre. (Stocks sell for up to 1000 times earnings, Vs. the US 20 times earnings). My opinion of the Japanese culture is that its some sort of bizarre capatilist fuedalism. (But this is only my opinion). Dumping notwithstanding, if Japan does not do more to open its borders, or if the dollar does not fall lower, Japan may be in for a rude shock when the US and Europe finally get annoyed enough at Japan to do something about it, in which case the US will probably overreact. Japan doesn't understand that if they want us to buy their stereos, they have to buy our rice. The US is getting to the point that they will soon be willing to stop all trade with Japan, and damn the consequences. Pierce You can flame or laud me at: wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu or wetter@csvax.caltech.edu or pwetter@caltech.bitnet (There would be a witty saying here, but my signature has to be < 4lines) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Jan 89 13:19:29 PST From: ll-xn!ucsd!pnet01.cts.com!mtbill (Mountain Bill) To: telecom-request@bu-it.bu.edu Subject: Demise of Auto Number Announcement (ANA) In San Diego county Pac*Bell has removed the popular ANA test number from many ESS central offices (410-222-2222). I heard a rumor (from a Pac*Bell installer; can't be true! 8-) ) that the company disabled this test number after a harrassment suit was heard in a local court, naming Pac*Bell as a co-defendant because it allowed the harrassing party a means by which to learn the victim's new unpublished number after each number change. Sheesh. Does anyone know the true story, or better yet, the new ANA test number? I find it hard to believe that Pac*Bell can justify sitting a person at the testboard all day long to provide this function... UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!mtbill ARPA: crash!pnet01!mtbill@sdcsvax.arpa INET: mtbill@pnet01.CTS.COM ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1989 14:43 MST From: Keith Petersen To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: A Tiny Tim Amateur Radio has opened up a whole new world for disabled persons, allowing them to communicate with others by radio. It can offer hours of entertainment and participation to such people. In that light, I offer the information enclosed below. --Keith Petersen W8SDZ (my amateur radio callsign). ---forwarded message--- Date: Saturday, 15 February 1986 19:18-MST From: kroth%regina.DEC (Philip J. Kroth) Re: Address for Handi-Hams A guy at work asked me for the address of Handi-Hams. After thinking about it I thought that there might be other people out there who might want it too: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is the address of Handi-Hams. Handi-Hams is an organization of handicapped and non-handicapped people who help other handicapped people get licensed and on the air. If you know of a handicapped person, licensed or unlicensed, who would like assistance or if you would like to help, contact Keith Graham who is the director: Keith Graham Handi-Ham Systems Courage Center 3915 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55422 The preceding information was given to me by Gayle WA1OPN from Worcester, MA. Gayle is a blind and deaf Amateur also suffering from MS. She is limited to CW operation only but is in the process of getting the necessary equipment which will allow her to operate packet. As anyone who knows Gayle will agree, she is an inspiration in the truest sense of the word. Despite her three handicaps, she earned an extra class license, teaches radio theory to people around the world, holds two part time jobs and writes articles about computers and the handicapped which have been published in several languages. She has received many awards including a commendation from President Reagan. Philip Kroth KA2QIK/1 ------------------------------ Date: Fri Jan 13 21:23:32 1989 To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping From: zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) On Jan 11 at 20:30, Harvey Cohen writes: > Translation: "The US manufacturing community has no right to complain > about unfair trade practices, because the US manufacturing community > is not virtuous." If US manufacturing community wants to complain about what they perceive to be unfair trade practices, let them do so. If they want to improve their position in the world marketplace, then let them put their own house in order. > Translation: "US makers have no right to complain if foreign companies > sell below cost in US markets, because US products are inferior." Whether or not foreign companies sell below cost in US markets is moot if the public will not touch the inferior wares spewing forth from US manufacturers. > Higdon's logic is so grossly, mind-bogglingly out of joint that it > is impossible to construct a reasoned rebuttal. Judging from the "translations" offered by Mr. Cohen, he has completely missed the point. It used to be that the finest telephone equipment in the world was manufactured in the United States, period. Matters of dumping and unfair trade practices were not an issue. If you wanted the best, you bought American. Furthermore, if you offer inovation that no one else can match, how can unfair trade practices harm you? It's when you sit back and rest on your laurels (as AT&T seems to be doing, among others) you leave yourself wide open for trouble. It is my understanding the the "dumped" systems are of poor quality anyway. If this is causing AT&T trouble, then things are worse off for them than I orignally thought. > Harvey S. Cohen, AT&T Bell Labs, Lincroft, NJ, mtund!hsc, (201)576-3302 Mr. Cohen's attitude is understandable considering his affiliation. -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john ------------------------------ To: comdesign!bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@apple.com From: comdesign!ivucsb!dan@apple.com (Dan Howell) Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info Date: 15 Jan 89 07:23:55 GMT In article hp-sdd!rog@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Roger Haaheim) writes: |Back in the good old days...one could dial a special number, |hang up, and the dialing phone would ring; some kind of |echo. It was used by phonefolks who came to fix the phone, |to check to see if it was working. They had no problem |telling the customer what that number was so the customer |could dial back to him/herself. Why has that capability |become proprietary? I know it's still done, but when I |ask...excuses, but no number. How come? On GTE phones in both Santa Barbara and in the Los Angeles area, it seems that dialing your own phone number will give you a clicking sound, then when you hang up gour phone rings, and when you answer you get the same clicking sound. Also, dialing 114 will tell you your phone number. On some Pacific Bell phones in the Los Angeles area, 1223 will give you a digitized voice telling you your phone number, followed by a menu giving you several options, one of which is ringback. This doesn't work on the phone I use in L.A., and works on my friend's phone. What's really strange is that we both are located in the same calling area, although we have different prefixes and live in different cities. I do know that my prefix is used in his city and his prefix is used in my city, but have not had an opportunity to try any these out. -- Dan Howell <...!pyramid!comdesign!ivucsb!dan> ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Jan 89 13:02:26 -0900 To: Telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: JTJBM Subject: Telecommunications With The Emotionally Disturbed I am writing a paper on the use of telecommunications with the emotionally disturbed--using it as a socializing mechanism. Do you know any programs involved in this technique? Jan-Baptiste Maas, Juneau, AK University of Alaska, Southeast. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Wed Jan 18 03:19:07 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA13917; Wed, 18 Jan 89 03:19:07 EST Message-Id: <8901180819.AA13917@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 2:58:00 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #18 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Jan 89 2:58:00 EST Volume 9 : Issue 18 Today's Topics: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers Fraudulent Use of 900 #'s Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Re: Race conditions in a PBX Free Trip to Florida (for $5.95 a call!) [Moderator's Note: By now everyone should have issues 13-14-15-16-17, although you may have received them somewhat out of order. Unfortunatly I have no control over the mailer programs used. If you did not get one or more of these, please advise. This is *part 1* for Wednesday; *part 2* will follow in a few minutes as issue 19. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: wales@CS.UCLA.EDU Subject: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? Date: 14 Jan 89 03:31:59 GMT My parents (in San Mateo, CA -- a suburb of San Francisco -- "415" area code) told me that, starting in February, they will have to start dial- ing "1" before area codes. (Up till now, they've just dialed the area code and the seven-digit number.) At about the same time, my MCI bill contained a short announcement of this same thing (why they told me, in Los Angeles, I have no idea), and it said this was part of a plan by Pacific Bell to introduce a new area code in the San Francisco Bay area. I'd be interested in any comments from the net about this development. -- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 (213) 825-5683 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024-1596 // USA wales@CS.UCLA.EDU ...!(uunet,ucbvax,rutgers)!cs.ucla.edu!wales "Now, if you do see me again today, I want you to report it to me immediately." ------------------------------ To: comdesign!bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@apple.com From: comdesign!ivucsb!steve@apple.com (Steve Lemke) Subject: Re: Telephone gizmo for one-line customers Date: 16 Jan 89 21:47:11 GMT In article soley@ontenv writes: }In article , black%ll-micro@ll-vlsi.arpa (Jerry Glomph Black) writes: }: I just read a short review in PC Week about a $400 gizmo which }: answers your phone, then issues a robot-voice announcement to the }: caller requesting that the (hopefully touch-tone-equipped) person }: press the '3' button. The caller is then connected to your voice }: phone, which rings as usual. If '3' is not pressed, the gizmo }: box assumes that a fax or modem is calling, and your data }: equipment receives the incoming call. Seems like a good way to }: get double use of one line. }: }: The $400 seems overpriced for what you get } }I think what you were reading about is a product called Watson, in }addition to doing what you say it also is a modem and comes with }voicemail software for the PC (a little rudimentary, but workable) }considering this the price is quite reasonable. Actually, I was just at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, and I think that what you're after is a neat new device I saw there called The Eliminator - Autoswitch TF-300, made by Command Communications, Inc. Their number is (303) 750-6434, and they also have another device called the Autoswitch TF-500. The Autoswitch TF-300 will handle a FAX machine, answering machine, and normal voice telephone, and the Autoswitch TF-500 adds modem handling. The details of how these devices work is a bit too complicated to mention here (and besides, I'm not feeling well and don't feel like typing it all in) but it was discussed on page 22 of the November, 1988 Radio Electronics and is described in detail on the product brochures available from the company. I believe the prices were $195 (TF-300) and $295 (TF-500) but I'm not sure. They'll also be coming out with a TF-400 which is like the TF-300 but works with a modem instead of a FAX machine. ----- Steve Lemke ------------------- "MS-DOS (OS/2, etc.) - just say no!" ----- Internet: steve@ivucsb.UUCP CompuServe: 73627,570 ----- uucp: apple!comdesign!ivucsb!steve GEnie: S.Lemke ----- Quote: "What'd I go to college for?" "You had fun, didn't you?" ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu.UUCP From: arizona!naucse!kwc Subject: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Date: 12 Jan 89 19:42:37 GMT I saw an interested approach to the illegal use of 900 numbers on a T.V. news program the other night. It seems that a man in New York city set up a 900 number for his home and proceeded to place an advertisement in the New York Times to the effect that he had a "free" house for rent in trade for upkeep and maintenance on the house. I can't remember what percentage of the income went to the phone company and what percentage went to the guy in NYC but he got significantly more than 50%. Finally, after enough complaints, the FBI launched an investigation and told this guy to remove the add. He did remove the add but one week later he took out another add for some other deal which was "too good to pass up" using the same 900 number. After several weeks the FBI was again notified and they investigated again. This time the investigation was more significant and the whole affair may eventually go into litigation. But as of the news report that I saw, all money received by this man was still in his possession. It seems to me that the advent of 900 numbers has opened up a whole new category of fraudulent crimes (recall the Portland Santa Claus 900 number discussed on the net not long ago), as well as all of the problems parents have making sure that their teenagers are not running up hundreds of dollars in bills from 900 numbers. Add to that all of the complaints about telephone solicitation and it makes me wonder if the phone company is in the service of the business world rather than individual users. I guess whoever has the most money wins! -- Ken Collier ...arizona!naucse!kwc College of Engineering and Technology Bitnet: collier@nauvax Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, Arizona From: rebel@swbatl.swbt.com To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Date: 13 Jan 89 15:42:50 GMT Organization: Southwestern Bell Tele. Co. - Advanced Technology Lab - St. Louis In article <1121@naucse.UUCP> kwc@naucse.UUCP (Ken Collier) writes: >It seems to me that the advent of 900 numbers has opened up a whole new >category of fraudulent crimes.... >...and it makes me wonder if the phone company is in the service >of the business world rather than individual users. I guess whoever has the >most money wins! Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud???? The telephone company. When a teenager runs up $2,000 in 900# calls and the parents complain, the phone company ends up footing the bill, the parents aren't about to pay $2,000 and the sure don't want to have to discipline their children or even worse actually "supervise" them!!! (Whats really weird, and of course kinda off the subject, but my parents would have skinned me alive if I had run up that kind of a bill, and probably would have made me pay for it...) The phone company pays for all kinds of fraudulent phone calls. College students from foreign countries who call home and then skip out leaving a bill of about $3,000, stolen calling cards that are used by the thief, etc, etc. I could go on and on. How do I know??? Well I used to work in the Security Department and the toughest thing to do is collect money from customers who aren't responsible for their card being stolen or their kid calling whomever. Businesses stay in business by making money. Plain and simple. Try to run a business that loses money and see how long it lasts. And when the phone company makes money, I make money being an employee. But then I turn around and buy a new car, and that keeps Ford in business, and I rent an apartment, and that keeps the landlord in business, and it goes on and on..... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- \ Sharon Deetz, System Administrator / "The only trouble with / Southwestern Bell Telephone - Advanced Tech Lab \ being in the rat race \ 1010 Pine St. - Room 502 - St. Louis. MO. 63101. / is even if you win / UUCP: {pyramid, uunet, bellcore}...!swbatl!rebel \ you're still a rat!" =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ------------------------------ From: hou2d!peter@clyde.att.com To: comp-dcom-telecom@clyde Subject: Re: Race conditions in a PBX Date: 13 Jan 89 20:25:10 GMT The condition with PBX's where two simultaneous seizures (call attempts) may be connected together is called glare. In PBX trunking, there are two common signaling arrangements: loop start and ground start. Loop start is a two state signaling (on-hook and off-hook), which may allow simultaneous seizures. That is, an outgoing call may, in the absense of ringing, seize a trunk at the same time as an incoming call is waiting for the ringing generator to place ringing on the line. Remember that there is a pause in the ringing signal which is typically four seconds. To eliminate this condition with loop start signaling, PBX trunks are usually engineered as one-way in or one-way out. This directionality refers to the call set up direction, not the transmission path. From the PBX's perspective, a one-way in trunk can receive outside calls, but the PBX cannot place calls on that trunk. This eliminates the possibility of a trunk being seizied from both ends simultaneously. The other PBX signaling, ground start, uses more than two states to contain signaling information. A seizure from central office to PBX is initiated by placing a ground on the tip. A PBX to office seizure is initiated with a ground on the ring. After detecting a ground, the trunk is considered busy, and is not seized at the detecting end. >From here ground start gets complicated. In the office, a ring ground is responded to with a tip ground and a dial tone, the tip ground causes a loop closure at the PBX, which is detected in the CO, and a DP or DTMF detector (where applicable) recieves the digits (and causes dial tone to vanish). The call is now set up from the station set to the office. On an incoming call, an office tip ground is also accompanied with office ringing, which initiates a loop closure in the PBX, and sets the call up. (Disclaimer: I haven't studied this in a while, and address signaling isn't addressed here.) Hope this answered your questions... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 09:14:27 EST From: prindle@NADC.ARPA (Frank Prindle) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Free Trip to Florida (for $5.95 a call!) This scam is being operated by Integrated Information Services (how typical!) at 402-330-5150. They issue their calls from local nodes in major cities. I called to suggest that they block our PBX exchanges before systematically ringing all 3000 phones here at NADC (fortunately, outgoing 976 calls are blocked by the PBX). Their representative, Marilyn Gore, said she would try, but it would take a few days! I sure hope the FCC or PUC or whoever soon puts an end to these people. Junk mail is one thing, but charging people to get hooked into one of these land deals takes a lot of guts! Sincerely, Frank Prindle Prindle@NADC.arpa ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Wed Jan 18 03:50:29 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA15904; Wed, 18 Jan 89 03:50:29 EST Message-Id: <8901180850.AA15904@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 3:28:35 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #19 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 Jan 89 3:28:35 EST Volume 9 : Issue 19 Today's Topics: Life as a toll station Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling Phone Rates Panasonic Switching System AT&T 1300 Answering system Re: Will my Sony IT-a600 work in Oz? Re: New way to donate money [Moderator's Note: This is *part two* of the Digest for 1-18. P.Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 12:54:54 PST From: laura_halliday@mtsg.ubc.ca To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Life as a toll station Back when I was in elementary school, my mum and dad decided they wanted to live out in the country, so we moved to a place about 50km west of Quesnel, B.C. At first we had no phone, then we had a radio phone because dad was the local manager for BCTel. Then we became a toll station... We remained Baker Creek 1-C for a couple of years. Everybody (10 parties? 12 parties?) was on the same line, and BCTel used coded ringing to identify subscribers. Our code was two long rings and two short rings. To place an outgoing call, you picked up the phone and it rang at the operator's console in Prince George (140km away). You told the operator who you wanted to call, and she connected you. Incoming calls had to go through the operator as well; you told the operator you wanted Baker Creek 1-C and she connected you after tapping out two longs and two shorts. I believe such calls were billed as operator-handled long-distance calls, at the same rate as for adjoining areas just outside of the local calling area. The system that had been in place before was administered by another phone company (NorthWesTel?). It used a home-made loop extender that was a big power transformer with the line to the CO hooked up to the filament winding, and with the line to the subscribers (a 12 party line, but no coded ringing) coming out the primary. We were beyond its range. Besides, it didn't work very well... We got a dial phone and 7 digits about 1974, when Baker Creek became part of the Bouchie Lake exchange (604-249). - laura halliday University of B.C. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1989 15:29-EST From: Ralph.Hyre@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling [avoid these if you can, I suppose. I was travelling from Pittsburghgh to Boston when these things happened to me.] Bad experience #1: C{e,o}ntel, random operating company first rest area in NY on East 84: 950-1022 MCI access works, but the tone pad is dead after connection. I can't enter any numbers to call or access codes. theory: polarity is reversed after the call is completed, and the lousy phone doesn't have diodes to handle this. The nice operator connected me to the 'MCI operator', who took the information verbally and then connected me. I plan to fuss if I don't get billed at the '950' rate (50c surcharge) Bad experience #2 (worse) [don't remember the company, can anyone tell me who serves that area? They mostly use GTE pseudo-phones.] Somewhere on I-81 S (rest area between Scranton and Wilkes-Barre) try {,1,0}-950-1022, no luck. try 1-800-950-1022 and get the operator. I think I have a wrong number and hang up. I pick up the phone again and just dial 0, asking the operator to connect me to the MCI operator. She says (~) "No, I can only connect you to AT&T or Bell of PA". (I recall it being more like a refusal to speak with an ALDS carrier than anything else.) Not wanting to push the point at 5am, I give up and say OK, then call collect using AT&T (the AT&T operator was friendly, at least.) No answer, so next time I try MCI's 800-950-1022 number again, again get an operator, and say 'I was trying to call . She connects me and all proceeds normally, except for that hated $1 surcharge. Does anyone know of any other company that doesn't have a travel surcharge? I signed up with SBS Skyline originally, but then IBM sold them to MCI and they kept my $20 fee for this service and provided nothing. - Ralph ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 21:38:57 PST From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Phone Rates One of the things that bothers me about the current pricing for phone service is that phone costs are becoming more constant 24 hours per day. It costs the phone company almost nothing to complete a phone call. Almost all of their costs are in fixed costs, mostly capacity costs for installing the equipment. Each individual call at the margine that is completed and billed for is almost pure profit. (It is business that wants all of the new services and equipment, the phone system of 10 years was technologically fine for transmitting voice). The heaviest demand for calls is Christmas and Mother's Day. Other than these special days, the heaviest demand for phone service is during the business day, which is why phone service has traditionally cost more during the day, than at night. Since the circuits are usually idle during the night (unless usage patterns have changed significantly during the past couple years), it would be most fair to charge almost nothing during those hours. The hours with the highest demand should have higher rates than now in order to encourage people to call at non- peak times. (The overall costs of phone service would decline if that were the case since less capacity would be needed to handle the same number of calls). In reality, however, costs are becoming more equalized, not less so. Services like 900 numbers cost the same no matter what the time of day they are called. The access charge is the same whether you call at peak or non-peak hours. (Business may refuse to pay that charge; residential customers cannot). Reach out America plans charge the same for calls during the evening and night periods. The last I checked there was no Reach Out America Night Plan, but there are discounts during the peak, daytime period available. AT&T's new tariff allows them to discount their telephone rates below their standard rates to business customers in order to be competitive, but they did ask to have the same ability to cut rates for residential customers. Finally, the night discount has been reduced as a percentage of the daytime rate. (The cost of completing a call at night has gone up because the decrease in the discount has not been offset by declines in the base rate. In fact, for many carriers, the base rate has been increasing, not decreasing). These changes have all helped the business customer (who deducts the cost of his phone service) and harmed the residential customer (who cannot). Thus, on an after-tax basis, the business customer calling during peak times may actually pay less for phone service than a residential customer who calls during hours with lower utilization of capacity. (I am assuming that the length and the location of the calls is the same). The reason given is that otherwise large businesses would set up their own telephone systems. The entire reason for the existence of the telephone monopoly in the first place, however, was that due to economy of scale, one large company could be much more efficient (and thus have lower prices) than smaller companies. To the extent that such economies of scale exist today, smaller companies should be unable to provide phone service cheaper than a large one. If there are no economies of scale, then we should expect to see more and more companies rather than the mergers of the past few years. And regardless, those companies would still have all of that unused capacity at night and on weekends, which they could sell very cheaply. It is easy to see who has more lobbying power. Businesses, who cannot vote, are more succesful than individuals who can. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ To: uunet!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: srinivas@cs.utexas.edu (Srini Sankaran) Subject: Panasonic Switching System Date: 17 Jan 89 21:42:00 GMT I am considering buying a Panasonic KX-T616H Electronic Modular Switching System. If you have anything good or bad to say about this equipment, will you please e-mail me? Thanks in advance. -srini... srinivas@cs.utexas.edu ...!cs.utexas.edu!srinivas ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: chip@pedsga.UUCP (Chip Maurer) Subject: AT&T 1300 Answering system Date: 17 Jan 89 22:13:00 GMT We received an AT&T 1300 answering machine for Christmas. I am happy with the machine, but do not like how many rings it waits until it answers (about 6). If I had saved all receipts and boxes and stuff, and if it had been gotten at an AT&T phone store, I could have gotten an upgrade to one that adjusts the number of rings until it picks up. Anyway, is it possible through a chip or some other modification, to modify my machine to answer on fewer rings? I realize that my warrenty would be void, but if it is simple, I'd like to try it. -- Chip Maurer Concurrent Computer Corporation, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 (201)758-7361 {masscomp|mtune|purdue|rutgers|princeton|encore}!petsd!pedsga!chip "It's one o'clock, and time for lunch. Bum de dum de dum dum dum" ------------------------------ To: munnari!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.au!dave@uunet.UU.NET (Dave Horsfall) Subject: Re: Will my Sony IT-a600 work in Oz? Date: 18 Jan 89 00:45:40 GMT In article , henry@GARP.MIT.EDU (Henry Mensch) writes: | | i have reason to believe i may spend some time down under soon, | and i'd (naturally) like to take my favorite phone/dialer/ansaphone. | of course, i have no clue as to whether or not it is legal to | connect devices to the australian phone network, and (if so), | whether us-type phones will work. Unless it's Telecom-approved, it's not legal. But be that as it may, there are a few differences you should be aware of: 1) Mains power is 240-250V, 50Hz. 2) Most of Oz is still pulse-dial, with tone-dial slowly being introduced. 3) Pulse-dial timing is, ummm... 0.6 secs break, 0.3 secs make, with extended pause (dunno how long) between digits. (Since the PABX's I've used have always been tone-dial, and our local home exchange is now tone dial, I've forgotten all about the pulse stuff.) 4) The connector is a big 3-prong monstrosity, but RJ-11 adaptors exist. 5) Call-progress indicators are different - the RING tone is a double burr-burr, for example. 6) You won't find anywhere near the number of features provided by our favourite monopoly that you may be used to. It's a real POTS, but the new AXE digital exchanges offer a few primitive features, like call-waiting, abbreviated dialling etc. However, these are optional, and a particular account selects the required features (and pays). 7) There could be others - the risk is yours. -- Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel-STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave PCs haven't changed computing history - merely repeated it ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: New way to donate money Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 22:41:10 PST From: dgc@math.ucla.edu Will Martin called attention to the enormous potential for abuse of donations by telephone. The moderator dimisses this problem with the statement: I think the answer to this is that most telcos allow blocking of 900/976 numbers, to prevent abuse of any kind, which would presumably include the abuse described by Mr. Martin. I suspect also that there would be some cancellation clause in the telco's contract with the charity, which gives the telco total recourse for uncollectibles. This cries out for a reply! 1. In fact, over their strong opposition, telcos were ORDERED to allow blocking of 976 numbers by the State PUC's (and, at least, in California, out-of-state 976 numbers cannot be blocked). Initially, the telcos charged for the blocking! Now the FCC is going to permit 900 numbers with similar charging privileges to come on line and there is no plan to allow blocking them. 2. Any sort of cancellation clause will be nothing but a major problem for the subscriber. 3. There are services dedicated to providing charging and billing services, both electronically and physically (e.g., Visa, MasterCard, American Express, etc.). Numerous abuses by these companies have caused Congress to pass rigid laws regulating them. These companies already permit donating to charities by telephone calls. Next time there's a telethon, call one of the 800 numbers and you will be asked for a credit card number to charge your donation to. 4. The key point is that as long as telephone service is an essential public utility, without competition (and this is the case for local service) the telcos' regulated services should be separated from inessential other services. If they desire to provide charging and/or billing services, these should be provided separately, subject to the usual regulations that govern such services, with the same power of enforcement of payment (civil suit), AND NO MORE. In particular, in no way should failure to pay for these other services be allowed to interfere with telephone service. dgc David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California at Los Angeles Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu UUCP: ...!{randvax, sdcrdcf, ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dgc [Moderator's Note: A quick comment on a couple points Mr. Cantor raises: He says the telcos were *forced* by the PUC's to allow blocking. Maybe his telco was: Illinois Bell voluntarily implemented 900/976 blocking. They did it after consultation with the Illinois Commerce Commission, but there was no strong arm tactics involved; nor did they do it when it was apparent the Commission would force the issue. Mr. Cantor incorrectly notes that interstate 976 calls cannot be blocked. MCI has always blocked them. Calls to AC-976-anything via MCI return an intercept message saying 'at the present time, MCI does not complete calls to 976...' It is true that AT&T does not block the calls; however it is also true the charges billed to *intrastate* callers do not apply. 415-976-4297 costs 13 cents per minute at night via Reach Out. Callers within California pay $2 for three minutes. By 'telco having total recourse on collectibles' I was saying that when telco cannot collect from a customer, a chargeback is made to the IP. Mr. Cantor says the problems for phone subscribers would be horrible. What is so hard about calling your service rep and saying you refuse to pay for something? Patrick Townson] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Thu Jan 19 02:55:27 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA03802; Thu, 19 Jan 89 02:55:27 EST Message-Id: <8901190755.AA03802@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 2:27:20 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #20 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 Jan 89 2:27:20 EST Volume 9 : Issue 20 Today's Topics: Drastic errors in "Supplementary" article in V9#15 Re: Supplementary Code Numbers Re: Supplementary Code Numbers The Moderator Please Explain NT1U Boxes SL/IP over X.25 Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s [Moderator's Note: In this issue of the Digest, The Moderator is expected to take his medicine like a man-child. Honest, I was just testing to see how much of this Digest you *actually read* every day! Regards issues 16 and 17, I assume everyone now has received them. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: covert%covert.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (John R. Covert) Date: 18 Jan 89 00:12 To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Drastic errors in "Supplementary" article in V9#15 The article "Supplementary Code Numbers" which appeared in V9#15 was one of the most inaccurate articles I've seen in Telecom in its 9 volume history. Although it's true that X10 codes were used on the public network for TWX at one time in the past, not all of the codes shown in the article were ever used, nor were they in the places the article indicates. The X10 codes, and the associated equipment, have been completely removed from the U.S. public switched telephone network. Telenet's use of 909 within their public packet switch network has absolutely no impact on any current or future use of 909 on the public switched telephone network. The article pretends to discuss AUTOVON, but most of the description given is more applicable to FTS, the Federal Telecommunications System, than to AUTOVON, which is the military's network. The two networks are separate. FTS does use the same prefixes in the DC metro area for both on and off-net numbers, but Autovon doesn't. For example, the public network number for the Pentagon is 202 69x-xxxx, but the Autovon number is 22x-xxxx. All the 22x codes are assigned in 202 -- in fact 202 is almost completely full. And Autovon's internal use of area codes includes the use of "312" which has nothing to do with Chicago at all. >codes 210,211,310,311,400,500,511,600,711 and 811 will be next in line for >assignment. Wrong. At that point, we'll start using XX0 codes that are indistinguishable from NXXs, and 1+NPA+ dialing will be required on a nationwide basis. /john ------------------------------ From: goldstein%delni.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388) Date: 18 Jan 89 09:08 To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Supplementary Code Numbers The recent posting about special "area codes" was, uh, rather less than stunningly accurate. Indeed it probably contained almost zero correct information! Please allow me to clarify. [lots of stuff about 410, 510, etc. and TWX deleted] Western Union's Telex II services do NOT use area codes! While the olde AT&T TWX did indeed use four NPAs, WUD has a separate network, using its own central offices. The service codes are an artifact, not part of the numbering plan! The only exception is 610, the Canadian code, which is still reserved in the North American Numbering Plan. (WUD does not serve Canada; the two networks aren't as fully separated up there.) >Telenet's data network uses conventional area code numbering in the way >its switches route calls. Again, there is a lot of telco central office >equipment tied up with hardwired connectons between Telenet and its customers >who have direct connect PADS, etc. Telenet also has gateways into telex and And Telenet has nothing to do with the telco numbering plan! They, like many other customers, lease private line facilities ("Special Access") from the local telcos. >TWX (or Telex II). 'Area Code' 909 is assigned for billing purposes to the >activities of Telenet. If you use the Telenet network, via indials or >whatever, that any connection of the form @C 909xxx is a connection to >the Telenet headquarters offices in Reston, VA. They do NOT have 909 reserved for them, nor does anyone else. Since 909 is vacant, it is often used for local purposes, but Telenet doesn't own it any more than Digital, Boston University or the Portal System!. (We had to use it to spoof some dumb PBXs that needed a "home area code", to handle on-net calling. 909 will be the last one assigned, so it was a logical choice.) All those codes are NOT assigned. 700, 800 and 900 are assigned. The Administrator of the North American Numbering Plan, a job currently assigned to Bellcore, will assign Service Access Codes 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600 as they see fit. They may be used for non-Local Exchange Carrier numbers. In particular, ISDN standards specify that telephone-style numbers can be used for data services as well, so data carriers like Telenet might be assigned prefix codes in 700, 900 or the vacant SACs for their customers. Re: Autovon, FTS, FTS-2000, etc. These are private networks, that again don't own public area codes. Calls from private networks like these to the public network typically use an area code, but that's a matter of local convention. The new FTS-2000 will have internally-assigned "area codes" to dial between the AT&T and Sprint portions. >When the present unassigned area codes of the conventional format have all >been used, sometime around 1992-1995, area codes 210,211,310,311,400,500,511, >600,711 and 811 will be next in line for assignment. No, while n10 may become available (except 610), n11 is reserved for special local functions (i.e., 911) and n00 is reserved for Service Access Codes (i.e., 800, 900). When area codes run out, new ones will be of the format nn0; i.e., they will assign Area Code 260. And the whole country will have 1+ dialing to disambiguate it. The definitive reference is, of course, the Blue Book (Notes on BOC Intra-LATA Networks, published by Bellcore). And the authority to change it nominally lies with the FCC and courts, but the sanctioned forum for reaching industry consensus is now ANSI T1S1.4. The numbering plan is not settled yet, since ISDN will require lots of non-LEC numbers to be made available to other carriers. fred ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Jan 89 10:00:58 EST From: harvard!ima.ISC.COM!johnl (John R. Levine) To: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: Re: Supplementary Code Numbers Does anybody other than Telenet recognize area 909? And is Telenet's 950 number good for anything? Signed, Confused ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 08:46:31 PST From: HECTOR MYERSTON Subject: The Moderator To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Cc: myerston@KL.SRI.COM Patrick Townson is a much more "activist" moderator than those in the past, more notes comments etc. Unfortunately the notes often contain quick, top-of-the-head reactions which are erroneous or incomplete. For example, the recent posting on Nevada Telephone Books is 100% accurate for Northern Nevada. However, the majority of phones in the state are in the Las Vegas area served by Centel which publishes a large, conventional phone book. On the other hand....Patrick is doing an outstanding job in getting the Newsletter out, a public service for which he deserves our gratitude and support. To paraphrase the outgoing president: "Moderate, but verify". :-) ------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 09:17:36 EST From: Jeff Spyker Subject: Please Explain NT1U boxes To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu We have recently become a test site for ISDN with Chesapeake and Potomac (Bell Atlantic) with the installation of an on-site optical remote module to a 5ESS at the CO. The installation of AT&T ISDN 7506 stations is proceeding with NT1U boxes on the wall. Here's the question.... besides the obvious two wire to four wire conversion...what else does this interface do? There are quite a few chips and support components inside to only do wire conversion. thanks. ------------------------------ From: To: pacbell!ames!comp-dcom-telecom@ames.arc.nasa.gov Date: Wed Jan 18 15:38:16 1989 Subject: SL/IP over X.25 Does anyone use SL/IP with X.25? Particularly, with PADs? It appears that the only way to put any TCP computer on any X.25 network is to rig up one or more serial lines between the computer (call it Fred) and the PAD (call it Paddy) in a "milking machine" arrangement, with Fred pretending to Paddy that Fred is one or more terminals, and Fred running a modified version of SL/IP through Paddy to other Fred/Paddy combos. Why would anyone do this? Well, unless you spend a VAST amount of money and time to get your X.25 board/machine combination certified around the world, you can't do wide-area TCP any other way in many countries like West Germany that have criminalized modems. Isn't there a SL/IP committee somewhere? Are they working on SL/IP II? Will it run over X.25? Jerry O. Merlaine pacbell.com!belltec!jom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 10:21:41 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: wales@cs.ucla.edu Cc: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? It might help to type in the text of that short MCI announcement. Requiring leading 1+ where you have been starting immediately with the area code could indicate that N0X/N1X prefixes are coming shortly. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 15:18:54 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Sharon Deetz of Southwestern Bell, St. Louis, writes: >Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud???? >The telephone company. When a teenager runs up $2,000 in 900# calls >and the parents complain, the phone company ends up footing the bill... (By the way, Hi, There! I can look out my office window and see the 1010 Pine SWBell building -- I'm in the building at Tucker & Olive, 14th floor, 2 blocks away from you! This note is probably going to travel about 3000 miles before you see it! :-) The thing about these 900 and 976-number charges is that the telephone company does NOT have to pay for them. First off, the charges are totally artificial -- there is no relationship between the charge for the call and the cost to provide the service. So to say that someone ran up "$2,000" in calls may actually mean that the teenager made two hundred calls, each billed at $10, but which cost the telco maybe 2 cents each in actual expended resources [wear and tear on the relays, using up some electrons in the wires or photons in the fiber cables, whatever... :-)]. The rest of the charge for the call is made up of the amortized assignment of a portion of the telco's overhead and of various development and suchlike costs being recovered on a per-call basis. Add to that the totally arbitrary charge the telco just turns over to the provider of the 900 or 976 service; this probably has even less of a relationship to real costs than the telco's charge for the call! Secondly, when a customer refuses to pay for these 900 or 976 calls, the telco can turn around and just not pay that service-provider that amount, deducting it from the payments made the next month to that company or individual. That is, given the example cited, the telco just cancels the $2000 billing, and then turns around and subtracts $2000 from the $50,000 it was to pay "Dial-A-Porn" or whatever it was the next month, and pays them only $48,000. (Agreed, actually they would deduct only the amount that would have been paid to the service provider, maybe 75% of the $2000 or whatever... details... :-) In any case, though, the telco is NOT out any really noticeable amount of money. It is all just bookkeeping and the juggling of figures. Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Fri Jan 20 02:03:57 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA22526; Fri, 20 Jan 89 02:03:57 EST Message-Id: <8901200703.AA22526@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 1:43:52 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #21 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Jan 89 1:43:52 EST Volume 9 : Issue 21 Today's Topics: Bad pay-phone experience while travelling Private Pay phones Re: New way to donate money Query about Telebit SMART Parks Question Regarding 'Cut Through' Codes Re: Excuses instead of info [Moderator's Note: (Still gagging from bad tasting medicine) Another heavy day with the mail, so a second part will be issued a few minutes after this one, and it will include the 'area code program' written in C language discussed by Carl Moore. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: comp-dcom-telecom@decwrl.dec.com From: crew@polya.stanford.edu (Roger Crew) Subject: Bad pay-phone experience while travelling Date: 20 Jan 89 00:24:43 GMT Here's one for you: This one was at a payphone in Milford, PA. Evidently, the area is serviced by ConTel. So I have a US Sprint calling card that I want to use to make a call to NJ: Tried 950-1033. Doesn't work, but then, I didn't really expect it to. Tried 800-877-8000. Recording ``your call cannot be completed as dialed. Check the number and try again or stay on the line and a customer service representative will be with you shortly...'' Well, I wasn't completely sure about the 800 number so... Try the 800 number again... Same recording. Ok this time I'll wait for customer service. ``Hello. MCI customer service.'' ``...actually I'm trying to place a call on US Sprint.'' ``... oh, this is MCI.'' I then explained the problem ``well, the number we have for US Sprint is 800-531-0008'' ``Ok, thanks, bye.'' Try 800-531-0008. Recording ``The number you have dialed 800-531-0008 has been changed. ``The new number is 800-877-8000.'' Great, so I was right the first time. Back to the MCI people. ``Well maybe you can try US Sprint customer service at 800-531-4646'' Try 800-531-4646. ``The number you have dialed 800-531-4646 has been changed. ``The new number is 800-877-4646.'' Try 800-877-4646. ``your call cannot be completed as dialed. Check the number and try again or stay on the line and a customer service representative will be with you shortly...'' There's a pattern here. Back to MCI. ``looks like the numbers you have are out of date, and the new ones don't work. Maybe YOU could dial the call for me.'' ``...well, I'm just a customer service rep; you need an operator for that... I know,... maybe you can check the number with 800 directory assistance'' Well, I suppose it's worth a try. Try 800-555-1212 No problem getting through, but... ``Sorry we don't list LD access numbers.'' Well, f**k you very much... I know. If I need an operator, I'll use an operator: Dial 0 Explain the situation. ``...now I can't seem to dial this number. I know it's the correct number --- it's supposed to work nationwide; I just can't seem to reach it from this phone. Do you suppose you could connect me?'' ``Sure, no problem.'' Operator dials the number. Same recording. ``Well gosh, I can't seem to get through either... You need to talk to a long distance operator.'' ``How do I get a long distance operator?'' Dial 00 Explain the situation. ``...do you suppose you could connect me?'' ``Sure, no problem.'' Operator dials the number. I find myself listening to the same recording as before. Unfortunately, the operator has long since gotten off the line by the time the recording comes on... Dial 00 Different operator. Explain again. ``...do you suppose you could stay on the line this time?'' Operator dials. We get the same recording. ``I'm stumped.'' ``Well, can you connect me with a US Sprint operator?'' ``No.'' ``How about an AT&T operator?'' ``You're talking to an AT&T operator.'' ``Oh, sorry, I thought you were MCI... Anyway, what can I do?'' ``You're travelling right?'' ``Yup.'' ``Go down the road about 20 miles until you're out of that service area and try again...'' Bottom line: You can't get there from here. Period. Didn't this all work five years ago? -- Roger Crew Copyright 1988 -- All Rights Reserved. (so there!) Usenet: {arpa gateways, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!crew Internet: crew@polya.Stanford.EDU ------------------------------ To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Private Pay phones Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 14:46:34 -0500 From: Joel B Levin This is the first one I've seen -- a two column by two inch display ad in this morning's Boston Globe business section: ---------- ATTENTION PAYPHONE LOCATION OWNERS . Highest Commission On All 0+ Long Distance Calls . $25 - $100 Signing Bonus Per Payphone . Direct To You -- Never Available Before . Keep Your "Bell" Payphone Recent Justice Dept. ruling lets YOU choose your 0+ long distance service. By selecting ITI on your ballot, you will receive the most per call revenues monthly, in addition to your present Bell Commissions. Call or write: CTI PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS* Pay Telephone Sales & Service [gives street address.] [gives 800 and 617 area code telephone numbers.] *Divison of CTI Inducstries, Inc. [Text accompanied by photograph of a pay phone] ---------- [Quoted verbatim, typos and "[]" material mine, capitalization theirs.] /JBL ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: New way to donate money Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 09:16:39 PST From: dgc@math.ucla.edu A few more quick comments: 1. In California, the state PUC did order the telcos to allow 976 blocking and initially they charged $2.00 per line for the "service". I discussed this rather extensively with the PUC attorney who handled the matter. The telcos didn't want to do the blocking! I know nothing about other states. 2. When we had finally were able to have 976 numbers blocked, our local telco (General Telephone) informed us, IN WRITING, that, pursuant to Federal law, it was not blocking out-of-state, long-distance 976 numbers. Whether some individual long-distance services do so, I don't know. At the moment, I have NO WAY of blocking 900 calls and fairly expensive ones are now being advertised. Look at the TV commercials around 4:00 am for the $1.00 per minute 900 party lines! 3. The reply to the comment, "What is so hard about calling your service rep and saying you refuse to pay for something?" is easy. a. You dial the 800 number for the service rep (General Telephone has centralized the service). b. You wait 2 minutes until someone answers. c. You wait another 3 minutes until the call is transferred to a person who handles your type of account. d. You dither and bargain, get questioned, etc. and finally, maybe, if you are trusted, the calls are deleted from the bill (in the case when he had 976 calls deleted, we were asked to write a Formal Letter of Request to a Mrs. X of the telco for this deletion, and we did so). In some cases, occuring to close friends of ours the telco has simply refused to delete calls, and it has taken lengthy negotiation with the PUC to have that done (turned out it was a "bug" in the billing system). e. You get the next month's bill and find that it was done all wrong. It's easy to waste a great deal of time. Once again I reiterate. If the telco's are going into the general billing service, like Visa, Mastercard, etc., (And note that there's no particular reason that you shouldn't be able to buy theater tickets, airline tickets, automobiles, rent cars, reserve hotel rooms, etc., using 976 or 900 calls) then they should be subject to the same regulations that these other operations are, including the various kinds of recourse which protect the customer--the card companies must refuse to pay companies when the customer so requests, etc. and failure to pay charges for other than telco services should have no effect on telco service. This implies that the billing should be separate, so that the charges can be distinguished. dgc David G. Cantor Department of Mathematics University of California at Los Angeles Internet: dgc@math.ucla.edu UUCP: ...!{randvax, sdcrdcf, ucbvax}!ucla-cs!dgc ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@cs.utexas.edu From: nth!loyd@cs.utexas.edu (Loyd Blankenship) Subject: Query about Telebit Date: 16 Jan 89 13:36:29 GMT I have been reading about the wonders of the Telebit, and was curious as to the availability of software for the PC to run a BBS with it. I'd like to be able to use the modem with my Amiga for getting news, and run a BBS with it on my AT clone. Currently I'm using Wayne Bell's WWIV 3.xx software. Is the Telebit compatible with standard AT-style Hayes commands? Loyd Blankenship cs.utexas.edu!nth!loyd (UUCP) Nth Graphics Ltd Austin, TX Disclaimers, etc... ------------------------------ To: att!comp-dcom-telecom From: harvard!gatech!cbnews.ATT.COM!alh (Al Housel) Subject: SMART Parks Date: 19 Jan 89 20:11:40 GMT I have been reading about the development of smart office parks designed to have all of the telecommunications capacity required for current and future tenants. Does anyone have any information on SMART parks? I would be interested to learn of anyone taking part in this type of office development to that I may contact for mor information. Al Housel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 12:57:02 EST From: dileo@BRL.MIL To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Question regarding 'cut through' codes I have just one question concerning the information contained in the Guide to NA Area Codes. Immediately before the glossary, "cut through dialing" is mentioned. This is a technique which I like to use, particularly when my primary carrier is busy or suffering from sunspots or the like. What I would like to know is, What are all of the cut through codes which one can use to specify a carrier for your call. The only one which I know of is 10288, which gives you an AT&T connection. Also, thanks for the copy of the guide. --John DiLeo-Lopez ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@decwrl.dec.com From: avsd!childers (Richard Childers) Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info Date: 16 Jan 89 23:24:51 GMT In article mcgp1!donn@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Donn Pedro) writes: >If I gave out the ringback codes to everyone who asked it would >not be available for our use for testing. People used it to >busy out their phones so as not to be disturbed. Can you document this, or is this what your supervisor told you to say ? > Donn F Pedro {the known world}!uw-beaver!tikal!mcgp1!donn -- richard ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Fri Jan 20 02:51:07 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA25608; Fri, 20 Jan 89 02:51:07 EST Message-Id: <8901200751.AA25608@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 2:25:50 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #22 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Fri, 20 Jan 89 2:25:50 EST Volume 9 : Issue 22 Today's Topics: Request For Area Code Program Written In C Here is the areacode program Re: Supplementary Code Numbers Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder [Moderator's Note: This is *part two* of the Digest for Friday 1-20. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 11:15:28 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: telecom-request@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Request For Area Code Program Written In C Date: 13 Jan 89 17:04:49 GMT [Moderator's note: Carl wrote me to say he tried to reach Mike Stansberry but was unsuccessful. So the program is being presented here; we can all benefit from it. Carl stressed to me in a note that he did NOT write the program; but was merely passing it along.] In article , cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) writes: > A while back, I received an area code program written in C. It has a > few updates from me, mainly for new areacodes added in 1988. > > As for NNX (or NXX, if the area in question has N0X/N1X prefixes), > you could check on the AT&T V&H tape via AT&T Long Lines. As the > Telecom moderator states, this is subject to rapid updates (not to > mention having a LOT of information to begin with). [Mike Stansberry responded] If it wouldn't be any trouble, I would appreciate a copy of the area code program you have written in C. Probably the best way would be to post it to the newsgroup. Other people may be interested also. Thanks, Mike ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 11:13:26 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: telecom-request@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: areacode program /* Received from Brint Cooper */ #include #include /* areacode.c Translated from AREACODE.MAC. Ken Yap (ken@rochester.arpa, ..!rochester!ken). Compile: cc -O -o areacode areacode.c Run: areacode nnn nnn ... AREACODE.MAC Ver 1.3 as of November 20, 1984 Notes by Carl Moore: Modified 26-28 May 1988 to account for 305/407 split in Florida, 303/719 in Colorado, 617/508 in Massachusetts; also added note about suburbs in area 202. Ver. 1.3 added LA suburbs area code 818, added periods to messages (why not?), deleted double entry for area code 809, removed ungrammatical comma from ASCII string at MSG2: and added a space before the `$' in MSG2: so the first space in messages could be removed, providing an extra space for text without changing the SCAN3: routine's 58-character bias. This version provided for M80/L80 devotees courtesy of Irv Hoff's XLATE5.COM to prevent undue anxiety trying to find a copy of ASM.COM. It has not been tested, so bug fixes from Z80-land are more than welcome. - Bruce Morgen Ver. 1.2 added 718 area code for New York City, and fixed bug in area code 604-804 Harry Kaemmerer Ver. 1.1 update of area codes for new U.S. areas, Mexico, & Eastern Canada. Harvey G. Lord, Storrs, CT 06268 Ver. 1.0 - January 2, 1981 by Kelly Smith AREACODE is used to display the region and state, specified by the user...very handy, when someone leaves a area code number on a CBBS, but no city or state reference. Simple enough to use, just type AREACODE nnn (where 'nnn' is a three digit area code), and in return, you get a geographical region by city(s), and state. Sorry if your particular city is not represented, and feel free to add it as required... ** Entries must be in sorted order because binary search is used. */ char *areacode[] = { "011the International Access Code", "170Northwest Mexico", "190Mexico City, Mexico", "201Hackensack, Morristown, and Newark, New Jersey", "202Washington, District of Columbia (also suburbs)", "203all regions, Connecticut", "204Manitoba, Canada", "205all regions, Alabama", "206Seattle, Tacoma, and Vancouver, Washington", "207all regions, Maine", "208all regions, Idaho", "209Fresno and Stockton, California", "212New York City (Manhattan and Bronx) New York", "213Los Angeles, California", "214Dallas, Texas", "215Allentown, Chester, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania", "216Akron, Cleveland, Massillon, and Youngstown, Ohio", "217Casey and Springfield, Illinois", "218Duluth, Minnesota", "219Gary, Hammond, Michigan City, and South Bend, Indiana", "301all regions, Maryland", "302all regions, Delaware", "303Denver, Colorado", "304all regions, West Virginia", "305Fort Lauderdale, Key West, and Miami, Florida", "306Saskatchewan, Canada", "307all regions, Wyoming", "308North Platte and Scottsbluff, Nebraska", "309Peoria, Illinois", "312Chicago, Illinois", "313Detroit, Adrian, and Ann Arbor, Michigan", "314Saint Louis, Missouri", "315Syracuse and Utica, New York", "316Dodge City and Wichita, Kansas", "317Indianapolis and Kokomo, Indiana", "318Lake Charles and Shreveport, Louisiana", "319Dubuque, Iowa", "401all regions, Rhode Island", "402Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska", "403Alberta, Canada", "404Atlanta and Rome, Georgia", "405Oklahoma City, Oklahoma", "406all regions, Montana", "407Orlando and West Palm Beach, Florida", "408San Jose and Sunnyvale, California", "409Galveston, Texas", "412Pittsburgh, Indiana, and Rochester, Pennsylvania", "413Springfield, Massachusetts", "414Green Bay, Milwaukee, and Racine, Wisconsin", "415Oakland and San Francisco, California", "416Toronto, Ontario, Canada", "417Joplin and Springfield, Missouri", "418Quebec, Quebec, Canada", "419Toledo, Ohio", "501all regions, Arkansas", "502Louisville, Paducah, and Shelbyville, Kentucky", "503all regions, Oregon", "504Baton Rouge and New Orleans, Louisiana", "505all regions, New Mexico", "506New Brunswick, Canada", "507Albert Lea and Rochester, Minnesota", "508Framingham and New Bedford, Massachusetts", "509Pullman, Spokane, and Walla Walla, Washington", "512Austin, Corpus Christi, and San Antonio, Texas", "513Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio", "514Montreal, Canada", "515Des Moines and Mason City, Iowa", "516Hempstead, New York", "517Lansing and Saginaw, Michigan", "518Albany, Greenwich, and Schenectady, New York", "519London, Ontario, Canada", "525the Country and City code for Mexico City, Mexico", "601all regions, Mississippi", "602all regions, Arizona", "603all regions, New Hampshire", "604British Columbia, Canada", "605all regions, South Dakota", "606Ashland and Winchester, Kentucky", "607Elmira, Ithaca, and Stamford, New York", "608Beloit and Madison, Wisconsin", "609Atlantic City, Camden, and Trenton, New Jersey", "612Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota", "613Ottawa, Ontario, Canada", "614Columbus, Marietta, and Newark, Ohio", "615Chattanooga and Nashville, Tennessee", "616Battle Creek, Cadillac, and Grand Rapids, Michigan", "617Boston, Massachusetts", "618Alton, Mount Vernon, and Centralia, Illinois", "619San Diego, Palm Springs, and the Imperial Valley, California", "700Value Added Special Services, per individual carrier", "701all regions, North Dakota", "702all regions, Nevada", "703Fredericksburg, Roanoke, and Winchester, Virginia", "704Charlotte and Salisbury, North Carolina", "705North Bay, Ontario, Canada", "707Eureka, Napa, and Santa Rosa, California", "708Aurora, Wheaton, Evanston, northeastern Illinois (as of 11-89)", "709Newfoundland, Canada", "712Council Bluffs, Iowa", "713Houston, Texas", "714Orange and Anaheim, California", "715Eau Claire and Wausau, Wisconsin", "716Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and Rochester, New York", "717Harrisburg, Scranton, and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania", "718New York City (Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island) NY", "719Colorado Springs, Colorado", "800In-WATS Toll Free Calling", "801all regions, Utah", "802all regions, Vermont", "803all regions, South Carolina", "804Charlottesville, Norfolk, and Richmond, Virginia", "805Bakersfield, Ventura, and Simi Valley, California", "806Amarillo, Texas", "807Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada", "808all regions, Hawaii", "809Bahamas, Bermuda, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands", "812Evansville, Indiana", "813Avon Park, Fort Myers, and Winter Haven, Florida", "814Altoona, Erie, and Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania", "815La Salle, Joliet, and Rockford, Illinois", "816Kansas City and Saint Joseph, Missouri", "817Fort Worth, Temple, and Waco, Texas", "818the suburban area north of Los Angeles, California", "819Malartic and western Quebec, Canada", "900Mass Calling Value Added Information Services", "901Memphis, Tennesee", "902Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, Canada", "904Jacksonville, Florida", "906Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan", "907all regions, Alaska", "912Waycross and Savannah, Georgia", "913Ottawa and Topeka, Kansas", "914Monroe, Mount Vernon, and Poughkeepsie, New York", "915El Paso, Texas", "916Sacramento and South Tahoe, California", "918Muskogee and Tulsa, Oklahoma", "919Greenville, Raleigh, and Williamston, North Carolina" }; char *where(code) char *code; { register int i, high, low, mid; int strncmp(); low = 0; high = sizeof(areacode) / sizeof(areacode[0]); while (low <= high) { mid = (low + high) / 2; i = strncmp(code, areacode[mid], 3); if (i < 0) high = mid - 1; else if (i > 0) low = mid + 1; else return (areacode[mid] + 3); } return ("not a valid area code"); } area(code) char *code; { char *where(); if (!isdigit(code[0]) || !isdigit(code[1]) || !isdigit(code[2]) || code[3] != '\0') printf("Area code %s is not a valid area code!\n", code); else printf("Area code %s is %s. \n", code, where(code)); } main(argc, argv) int argc; char *argv[]; { if (argc < 2) { printf("Usage: areacode nnn nnn ...\n"); exit(1); } for (--argc, ++argv; argc > 0; --argc, ++argv) area(*argv); } ------------------------------ To: att!comp-dcom-telecom From: harvard!gatech!cbnews.ATT.COM!alh (Al Housel) Subject: Re: Supplementary Code Numbers Date: 19 Jan 89 19:54:13 GMT Sometime ago I read about a number that you could call to determine the long distance carrier that you had assigned to your telephone service. When this number was called you received a voice message indicating the carrier. Would someone post the number again. Thanks. Does anyone know an easy way of getting an update on the tariff filings filed by the various long distance and local offices ? An address, database, telephone number, etc. would be appreciated. Thanks in advance Al Housel AT&T Bell Laboratories ------------------------------ To: encore!linus!comp-dcom-telecom@seismo.css.gov From: dts@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Daniel Senie) Subject: Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? Date: 20 Jan 89 04:26:43 GMT In article , wales@CS.UCLA.EDU writes: > My parents (in San Mateo, CA -- a suburb of San Francisco -- "415" area > code) told me that, starting in February, they will have to start dial- > ing "1" before area codes. (Up till now, they've just dialed the area > code and the seven-digit number.) > When New York City was running out of numbers, they started requiring 1 + for long distance. They then proceeded to use area code style numbers for prefixes. That makes it impossible to sense area codes by the second digit dialed. The phone companies seem to want to get rid of the automatic area code sensing just in case they need to expand exchanges into the area code style numbers. -- Daniel Senie UUCP: harvard!ulowell!cloud9!dts Stratus Computer, Inc. ARPA: anvil!cloud9!dts@harvard.harvard.edu 55 Fairbanks Blvd. CSRV: 74176,1347 Marlboro, MA 01752 TEL.: 508 - 460 - 2686 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 22:32:57 -0800 From: mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) Subject: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Recently I received in the mail a rather curious packet from Pacific Bell: a new Calling Card (made of paper, not a "credit card" with mag strip like the last one), and a letter of explanation, from which I quote: "YOUR REPLACEMENT PACIFIC BELL CALLING CARD IS HERE! In response to a Federal Court ruling, Pacific Bell has decided to remove the International Number from its Calling Card. Various long-distance companies have arrangements for international calling. Please contact your long-distance company ... [etc.]" I have a couple of questions about this, which will appear below, but the main reason for this message is the following: "We've Added Something New to Make Your Calling Card Even More Convenient... Notice those four extra digits at the end of your phone number? They're your own Special Access Code. You'll need this whenever you use your Calling Card to make a call. Now that your Special Access Code is right on your card, you'll never have to worry about forgetting it." MY GOD! I nearly fainted after reading this. There goes five years of anti-fraud progress out the window in one fell swoop of marketing hype. I looked at it again to make sure I was really seeing it. Yes, they printed the PIN right there on the card. If a bank did that with an ATM card, it would probably make the front page of the newspapers. What PINHEADS!! Every time you think that some people are beginning to understand some security issues, some bozo in the marketing department blows it for everybody. As I have already destroyed the offending card and plan to cancel it (I have been using it regularly for AT&T long distance; it seemed to work just fine) and replace it with an AT&T card, can someone explain what the practical differences, if any, are between the AT&T card and a calling card issued by a telco? Also, what was the issue with respect to the international callback number? I only used it a couple of times, from Japan in 1985, and more recently have used AT&T USA DIRECT >from Germany and the UK, and recommend it highly. Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb / ames!lll-tis!mcb ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sat Jan 21 01:33:08 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA11701; Sat, 21 Jan 89 01:33:08 EST Message-Id: <8901210633.AA11701@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 89 0:52:11 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #23 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sat, 21 Jan 89 0:52:11 EST Volume 9 : Issue 23 Today's Topics: Re: Bad payphone experiences (MILFORD, PA) Re: Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder SL/IP over X.25 International Phone Calls Re: New way to donate money Re: How To Locate Your Ringback Code The Last Word on 'AT&T Alleges Dumping' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1989 09:22-EST From: Ralph.Hyre@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Cc: crew@polya.Stanford.EDU Subject: Re: Bad payphone experiences (MILFORD, PA) [copied without permission. Sorry , Roger] > ``You're travelling right?'' > ``Yup.'' > ``Go down the road about 20 miles until you're out of that service >area and try again...'' I'd guess closer to 10 miles, there is a Bell payphone at the Exxon station the exit before (to the west of) Milford, PA. Once you cross into New York State toward Newburgh, you are still in Contel territory. At least I was with the apparently-more-easily-reachable MCI when it happened to me. although it was getting covered with ICE last time I used it. Maybe we should keep a database of Bad Phone locations? - Ralph ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@decwrl.dec.com From: jbn@glacier.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle) Subject: Re: Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling Date: 20 Jan 89 17:29:20 GMT It can get much worse. A few months ago, I attempted a call from a Pay-Tel Systems private coin station (at the Diana Market #2 on 9th Street in S.F.). The call was to a S.F. suburb, and would cost about $0.75 from a Pacific Bell phone. The Pay-Tel unit's voice synthesizer came out with a demand for $18.75. John Nagle ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Date: 20 Jan 89 00:49:39 GMT >In article <1121@naucse.UUCP> kwc@naucse.UUCP (Ken Collier) writes: >>It seems to me that the advent of 900 numbers has opened up a whole new >>category of fraudulent crimes.... >>...and it makes me wonder if the phone company is in the service >>of the business world rather than individual users. I guess whoever has the >>most money wins! > >Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud???? >The telephone company. When a teenager runs up $2,000 in 900# calls >and the parents complain, the phone company ends up footing the bill, Wait a minute. The phone company collects for 900# calls and splits the money with the 900 operator. If the bill is legally uncollectable (for instance in some cases when run up by a minor, or when the calls were solicited by illegal means) then the phone company does not LOSE any money, as it never had rights to it in the first case. If the 900 operator was already paid their split, the phone compyany is being dumb. >Well I used to work >in the Security Department and the toughest thing to do is collect money >from customers who aren't responsible for their card being stolen Are you really implying that a customer is fully responsible for all fraudulent use of their card in the event that it is stolen? I can see why it was difficult to collect, and I have no sympathy whatsoever for the difficulties you encountered. Peter Desnoyers [Moderator's Note: Under federal law, any person whose credit card(s) is stolen can be held responsible for the first $50 in charges or the amount incurred until the matter has been reported to the card issuer, whichever is less. Credit extended by a telephone company is not an exception. PT] ------------------------------ To: uunet!bu-cs.BU.EDU!telecom@uunet.UU.NET Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder Date: 20 Jan 89 10:15:47 EST (Fri) From: john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) I have a few comments on the question of PINs on calling cards, after which I'll actually answer the posted question. :-) There's one major difference between calling card PINs and ATM PINs, which is the scope of charges and effects of having the PIN compromised. With a stolen ATM PIN, someone can empty your bank account, and if any recourse is possible, it will be after the fact. In the mean time, you're left with a serious cash-flow problem. With a calling card PIN, someone can make phone calls that are charged on your telephone bill, which you can contest before the money actually leaves your control. In addition, since card reader phones are quite rare, and the vast majority of calling card use is not card reader use, there's practically no purpose to a calling card without a PIN printed on it. Anyway, opinions aside: > As I have already destroyed the offending card and plan to cancel it > (I have been using it regularly for AT&T long distance; it seemed to > work just fine) and replace it with an AT&T card, can someone explain > what the practical differences, if any, are between the AT&T card and > a calling card issued by a telco? I'm not sure that "cancelling" your calling card would be very useful. AT&T gets its PIN number for you from your telco, so any change they would make would (eventually) propagate to AT&T, and if they do disable it, AT&T might not have a hassle-free method of assigning you a number independently. Besides, AT&T isn't allowed to carry intra-LATA calls, and you still want to make local calls from payphones without change, don't you? The only real difference I know of, besides the International Number being on the AT&T card, is that AT&T card reader phones (with the video displays) won't take BOC cards, and that the card reader phones placed by BOCs don't claim to take AT&T cards. And, finally, the AT&T card DOES print the PIN on the card, as do all other long distance carrier cards I've seen. ------------------------------ To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: SL/IP over X.25 Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 08:55:56 PST From: kent@wsl.dec.com In 1983, a CSNET-sponsored project at Purdue implemented a system for running TCP directly over X.25. It required that you had "real" X.25 access on your machine, not just a PAD; in our case, we used a board from ACC, with certified ROMs from Interactive Systems (I think). In the US, it's not a terribly cost effective way to operate (SLIP is much cheaper, since it isn't necessarily subject to usage-sensitive charging), but it might be useful in Europe. I'm sure the CSNET folks can still supply a version of this if someone is interested. chris ------------------------------ To: munnari!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: munnari!psych.psy.uq.oz.au!jonathan@uunet.UU.NET (Jonathan Dwyer) Subject: International Phone Calls Date: 18 Jan 89 01:32:01 GMT About 6 months ago (I think) a posting referred to the Telecom Australia prefix for international toll-free calls (0018 instead of 0011?? or something similar). In the posting or resulting replies a contributor mentioned that STD codes could be used to dial New Zealand (but didn't mention the actual code). What I'm after is the STD code to PNG..... Can anyone help?? ,-_|\ jonathan@psych.psy.uq --\ / \ <-----------------------/ \_,-._/ "proofs have been omitted in v the interests of clarity" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 15:57:43 pst From: mtxinu!excelan!chuck@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Chuck Kollars) To: bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Re: New way to donate money It is indeed true that the California Public Utilities Commision, after being deluged with consumer complaints, had to _order_ the local telcos to allow blocking of 976 numbers, and also that the telcos originally were going to charge for blocking. -- Chuck Kollars, Excelan, Inc. chuck@EXCELAN.COM (or mtxinu!excelan!chuck@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU) ...!{mtxinu,leadsv,cae780}!excelan!chuck ------------------------------ To: comdesign!bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@apple.com From: comdesign!ivucsb!dan@apple.com (Dan Howell) Subject: Re: How To Locate Your Ringback Code Date: 19 Jan 89 14:11:09 GMT |[Moderator's Note: The main thing that I do not like about this approach |is the ringing of *random telephones looking for something else.* This is |just a variation on the programs which search for carrier by dialing |everyone else in the community without regard to their desire to be left |alone. I do not like 'demon-dialer' software. It causes an invasion of |privacy of others. P.Townson] It would seem that if 952 is a ringback exchange, it would not be listed in the phone book as a normal exchange. Then couldn't all the exchanges listed in the phone book be eliminated? Then you could dial all the remaining exchanges without worrying about bothering anyone (unless you happen to get a new exchange which wasn't listed in the phone book yet). -- Dan Howell <...!pyramid!comdesign!ivucsb!dan> ------------------------------ To: hafro!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: mcvax!rsp.is!orn@uunet.UU.NET (Orn E. Hansen) Subject: Re: AT&T alleges dumping Date: 20 Jan 89 22:57:29 GMT In article , algor2!jeffrey@uunet.UU.NET (jeffrey) writes: > > AT&T is perfectly capable of beating the Japanese by producing a quality, > reasonably priced product--and of selling it in Japan. Not to even try is > unworthy of a company which represents the very best of business in > America, and therefore the world. > -- > As a non-American it is very annoying to read statements like the one above in articles. If you'd care to re-read your artice, you will notice that you tend to talk of America as it was the whole WORLD. The total population in America is only about 1/10th of the world. Americans are not Europeans, Asians etc., even though you sometimes seem to think so. Further more, some products I have seen and used made in the US are not made in top quality. Years ago, when you peeked into products made in Europe and America you'd notice that Europeans had everything neatly positioned while Americans obviously were manufacturing cheap, but good compared to it's price. The Japanese have outsmarted you on that one, they produce quality products at low cost. Quality manufactured cheap. Europeans are beginning to produce DRAM's that are bigger and even East-Europeans are gaining on the West's lead in Electronics. The space shuttle the russians manufactured showed that their Computer knowledge is far far far greater than anyone suspected. So, mine freund, it's not only the Japanese! =========================================================================== [Moderator's Note: I had sworn off publishing *anything* further in the 'AT&T alleges dumping' category. This Digest is not really the proper forum for a long-term discussion on the merits of American made versus foreign made anything. But this one item did come in which rebutted an earlier message and in the interest of fairness I am including it today, assuming that our overseas correspondent may get the Digest or comp.dcom.telecom on a somewhat delayed basis and not been able to answer until now. But as of now, please move the discussion elsewhere. Thank you. P. Townson] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sun Jan 22 01:24:54 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA28708; Sun, 22 Jan 89 01:24:54 EST Message-Id: <8901220624.AA28708@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89 1:03:54 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #24 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sun, 22 Jan 89 1:03:54 EST Volume 9 : Issue 24 Today's Topics: Victims of Wrong Numbers Mousepruf 900 Tariff Application Area Code Numerical Listings Cellular Setup Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Re: Supplementary Code Numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89 00:27:38 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Victims of Wrong Numbers Pat Zsetenyi operates an interior design business in one of the south suburbs of Chicago. On the day she opened her business, she thought she had hit upon a gold mine. After going out for a few hours, she returned to her office to find the answering machine on her new number loaded with calls. "I was thrilled," said Zsetenyi. "It was my first day in business and I had all these messages on my answering machine already." Then she realized no one could be calling her yet, since no one knew the new number. Well then, whose calls *did* she have? When she played back the messages, there were dozens of calls for United Airlines, which has a reservations number that is almost the same as hers -- just two digits are transposed. At the time she did not know it, but she had joined an elite group of people, who through no fault of their own, have phone numbers easily mistaken for frequently dialed numbers. She says she gets anywhere from ten to dozens of wrong numbers per day. If the weather is bad or there is some incident at the airport, then the calls really start pouring in. She pointed out the most amazing part of the whole thing are the people who call and get her answering machine. They hear the whole outgoing message "Thank you for calling Zsetenyi's Decorating Den" and then they still proceed to leaving a message for United Airlines, asking to be "....called back when the reservations office is open...." "...one lady called back three days in a row, saying , 'Why won't you return my call? I need my tickets!'....I finally called her and told her she was never going to hear from United at the rate she she was going..." Area Code 312 is very rapidly filling up, which increases the odds that misdials will reach a working number. Because of the growing scarcity of numbers until 708 kicks in later this year, the period of time a disconnected number is held before being reassigned has been reduced from several months to a few weeks at most. In years past, 'notorious' numbers -- such as those belonging to call girls -- would be retired from service for YEARS after being disconnected. This is a luxury no longer available here. Hillary Anderson, a spokeswoman for Illinois Bell Telephone said she has the same problem with her home phone which happens to be very similar to the main switchboard number for W. W. Grainger Company. Ms. Anderson said that anyone can have their number changed if it bothers them, "...but yet, most people with easily mistaken phone numbers do not want to change them. It is not a matter of the fee involved. IBT charges $33 to change someone's phone number, but as a matter of good relations with our customers, we will waive the fee whenever someone is receiving an 'annoying amount' of wrong numbers. I can write off that charge from a customer's bill, but it seems like instead of being annoyed, those people seem to relish their odd distinction." About fifteen years ago, I had an office in downtown Chicago on one of the first ESS exchanges to open up here in the Chicago-Wabash office. My number was WEbster 9-4600. At the time, Sears Roebuck's national credit card office was also downtown. Unlike me with two lines on a desk phone, Sears then had a big old fashioned *five position* cord board with the lead number in their hunt group being WAbash 2-4600. Now 939 and 922 are not that similar, but one day a new AT&T toll switcher opened on Canal Street. In a simple accident, 922 was incorrectly translated by that office to 939....need I say more? For two days straight, I was flooded with calls for Sears' credit department. It was fun while it lasted. On complaining I was told I should change my number. I told them that number had been in service for 13 years and would not get changed. "So what," said the service rep. "Sears has had WAbash 2-4600 for *sixty five years* and they probably won't change theirs either!" Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jan 89 06:45:52 PST From: ll-xn!ucsd!pro-mars.cts.com!bill (Bill Cerny) To: crash!telecom-request Subject: Mousepruf 900 Tariff Application "On April 1, 1988, Pacific [Bell] filed Application No. 88-04-004 wherein it requested that the [Ca Public Utilities] Commission authorize Pacific to offer a new service, Information Calling Services (900 ICS)." - Ammendment to Application, filed Jun 2, 88 Selected extracts from this filing: 9.5.4.A.1 Three selective blocking options are available to the residential customer: Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 -------- -------- -------- 976 976 900-303 900-844 900-505 900-505 900-303 900-303 900-844 is general audience - "Resource Network" programs 900-505 is general audience - "Open Forum" [talk] programs 900-303 is adult services with both "Open Forum" and "Resource Network" programs. 9.5.3.D.1.c Transport and billing of service to IP/Sponsor (1) Billing, per call: $.05 1st Min Addl Mins (2) Transport - Resource Network ------- --------- per call, day period (8-5) $.20 $.09 per call, night period $.19 $.06 (3) Transport - Open Forum, per call $.20 $.09 9.5.3.A.2 Definitions FREE TRIAL OPTION - A period not to exceed 30 days during which no Information Charges for a selected Resource Network Program will be billed to a Subscriber. [an IP may have up to four "Free Trials" during one calenday year] NON-PEAK INFORMATION CHARGE - Resource Network IP's may establish non-peak charges. If this option is selected, non-peak Information Charges will apply to the lower of two IP selected rate periods, Monday-Friday, and to weekends and Utility holidays. Lotsa goodies, too many to list, and they make me drool. I wish I could switch my 976 program to 900; but the CPUC is allowing every/any-body state their druthers, especially those nauseating "consumer advocate" groups. The proposed 900 service is superior (from an IP's viewpoint) to that currently offered by AT&T, Telesphere, et. al. But my grandchildren may be old men before Pac*Bell is allowed to offer it (surprise! the Pac*Bell network is already routing 900 calls; call one of the 3 prefixes and note the disconnect recording comes from the same c.o. that switches 976 calls!) Get a copy of the application: dial 811-4976 (in Ca only; folks outside of Ca just wish they weren't 8-) ) -- Bill ARPA: crash!pro-mars!bill@nosc.mil (as seen on TV) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 12:36:22 EST From: Alexander Dupuy To: cmoore@BRL.MIL Cc: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Area Code Numerical Listings Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 17:10:59 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) You included 708 in Illinois. When does that take effect? "conventional" area code format apparently means N0X/N1X except N00,N10,N11, right? The 708 changes were something I read about in Telecom digest. I think they will take place in spring '89 (correct me if I'm wrong, Patrick). Yes, at least for now, N0X/N1X covers all "conventional" area codes. @alex [Moderator's Note: 708 gets assigned to new subscribers starting later this year. November 9 is the official starting date. The split will be official shortly thereafter. Very little grace period given; unlike NYC's 212/718. PT] ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) Subject: Cellular Setup Date: 21 Jan 89 06:53:42 GMT Question: How is phase shifting actually involved in communications between the mobile unit and the switching office ? Question: Is it possible to access cellular setup channels and place fraudulent call with a ham radio? Thanks for your help .. Perry Reply here on this newsgroup or e-mail to boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (arpanet) ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: westmark!dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Date: 21 Jan 89 13:44:34 GMT In article , kwc@naucse writes: > Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud???? > The telephone company. Let's not forget who _really_ pays for telephone fraud! The telephone company recovers its costs by collecting money from you and me and everybody else who pays a telephone bill, don't they? -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jan 89 21:54:38 PST From: "Eric P. Scott" Subject: Re: Supplementary Code Numbers To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu In California, 811-XXXX numbers provide toll-free access to various Pacific Bell offices. My recollection has it that the tariff allows inter-LATA calls to be handled by PacBell rather than an IEC (but must terminate within the organization, of course). 211 is reserved for COPT (Customer-Owned Pay Telephone, CPUC's version of the FCC's COCOT) refunds. -=EPS=- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Mon Jan 23 00:41:00 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA02654; Mon, 23 Jan 89 00:41:00 EST Message-Id: <8901230541.AA02654@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 0:10:20 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #25 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Mon, 23 Jan 89 0:10:20 EST Volume 9 : Issue 25 Today's Topics: New Movie: 976-EVIL Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? Correct dates for 708 split re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89 01:57:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Kurt A. Geisel" To: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: New Movie: 976-EVIL I heard something about an ultra-cheap horror flick, directed by the same guy who plays Freddy Crouger (sp?) on the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, called 976-EVIL. In light of the recent discussions on phone rip-offs, I was wondering if anyone knows if there will be some gimmick to go along with this movie. If not, I don't think the phone company would appreciate this title (or a similar one.) You know what kind of people watch these movies. Even if there is no official ripoff, they will try and dial the number. If it's not a gimmick, it still made me realize there could be a lot more phone gimmicks associated with movies and TV shows in the future. Even beyond the typical "dial X for YES, dial Y for NO." Pretty soon, they may try to get us to pay to find out how the story ends. - Kurt Kurt Geisel SNAIL : Carnegie Mellon University 65 Lambeth Dr. ARPA : kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu Pittsburgh, PA 15241 UUCP : uunet!nfsun!kgeisel "You mean, I could have... THUNDERBOLT FISTS?" BIX : kgeisel - Infra Man [Moderator's Note: Actually, the use of the telephone jargon in the title of movies is nothing new; nor is the use of the telephone as the primary theme in the film. Of course some movies are made in better taste than others, and some presume their viewers will have IQ's => 90. Two examples of the latter from years ago were "Dial 'M' For Murder"; and "Bells Are Ringing" with the wonderful Judy Garland. Then there was that piece of trash a few years ago about the phreak (or do you say freak?) who could send killer amounts of electrical current down the line, and murder his victims simply by their answering the telephone. Does anyone remember the name of that one? 'Tandem Rush' comes to mind. P. Townson] ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? Date: 21 Jan 89 23:29:36 PST (Sat) From: bovine!john@apple.com (John Higdon) As in many other areas of the country, SF Bay Area will now be faced with those dreaded "informal" prefixes. You know, the ones that look like area codes. This is the reason for the "1" before dialing a ten-digit number. But the southern part of the Bay Area, in 408, still does not require a "1" before dialing an area code. A spokesperson for Pac*Bell says that due to lack of growth, there are no plans to implement "informal" prefixes and hence no "1" requirement in the forseeable future. How many other areas of the country are left where a "1" is not required for long distance? Is this one of the last? Interestingly enough, San Jose and Sunnyvale are in 408 and Mountain View/Los Altos are in 415. This is all one local calling area. To place the local call, it is necessary to dial the area code. When calling San Jose from Mountain View a "1" will be required; when calling Mt. View from San Jose it will not. Can you say confusing? -- John Higdon john@bovine ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!bovine!john ------------------------------ From: covert%covert.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (John R. Covert) Date: 22 Jan 89 10:38 To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Correct dates for 708 split The correct start date for the 312/708 split is 11 November 1989. Permissive dialling will continue until at least 9 February 1990. /john ------------------------------ To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89 17:25:42 -0500 From: Wm Randolph Franklin If the Interior Decorator thought that United wasn't exercising appropriate care in publicizing its correct number, could they say something like this on their tape, "No matter who our employer is, for personal travel we much prefer American at xxx-xxxx"? It could be a true statement, not libellous to United, that would cost them a lot of business, and that would not tip off someone who thought he was talking to a United number. Wm. Randolph Franklin Internet: franklin@cs.rpi.edu Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts Telephone: (518) 276-6077; Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: (518) 276-6003 Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 ------------------------------ From: ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!David_W_Tamkin@harvard.harvard.edu To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? Date: Sat, 21-Jan-89 23:44:10 PST Rich Wales's : | My parents (in San Mateo, CA -- a suburb of San Francisco -- "415" area | code) told me that, starting in February, they will have to start dial- | ing "1" before area codes. (Up till now, they've just dialed the area | code and the seven-digit number.) | | At about the same time, my MCI bill contained a short announcement of | this same thing (why they told me, in Los Angeles, I have no idea), and | it said this was part of a plan by Pacific Bell to introduce a new area | code in the San Francisco Bay area. The requirement to dial 1 before area codes doesn't necessarily mean that an area code split is imminent. It means that the NNX-style prefixes are running out and that NXX will be the rule for future prefixes (N is a digit from 2 through 9; X is any digit from 0 through 9). Since most of the new prefixes will consist of the same three digits as existing area code numbers, the 1 in front is needed to inform the telco that the next three digits are indeed an area code and there will be seven more digits following; without the 1, the first three digits are taken to indicate a prefix in the caller's area code and only four more digits are expected. As long as all local prefixes were NNX, the initial 1 wasn't needed for that purpose (it might be for others): if the second digit was 0 or 1, then the first three digits were an area code and seven more would follow; if the second digit was 2 through 9, then the first three were a prefix within that area code and only four more would be coming. But NNX allows only 640 prefixes; NXX allows 792 (assuming that those of the form N11 will not be used). This is not perforce a harbinger of splitting the area code. Here in 312 the requirement for 1+ before area codes was introduced October 1, 1982; we are indeed being split, but the partition into two area codes will take place more than seven years after the institution of 1+. Along with 1+ for area codes, we had to start dialing 0312+NXX-XXXX instead of 0+NNX-XXXX for operator-assisted calls within area code 312 as of the same date for the same reason. Curiously, 1312+NXX-XXXX is forbidden by both of the local providers here and results in a recording that the call cannot be placed as dialed. Since, with the upcoming split, it is quite likely (especially from a COCOT with no phone number of its own written on it) for callers near the dividing line to know the area code of the number they want to reach but to misjudge the area code they are calling FROM, and therefore to dial 1 + their own code. My personal opinion is that a call dialed within one's own area code in eleven-digit form should just be put through. David_W_Tamkin@cup.portal.com ... sun!portal!cup.portal.com!David_W_Tamkin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Tue Jan 24 01:39:54 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA23834; Tue, 24 Jan 89 01:39:54 EST Message-Id: <8901240639.AA23834@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 1:22:33 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #26 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Tue, 24 Jan 89 1:22:33 EST Volume 9 : Issue 26 Today's Topics: cheap & easy circuit backup Plantronic Headsets Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder 1+areacode Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: Query about Telebit [Moderator's Note: Thank you to everyone who pointed out that the movie star reference yesterday should have been to Judy Holiday -- not Judy Garland. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Telecom Digest Subject: cheap & easy circuit backup Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 09:58:08 -0800 From: ben ullrich Every once in awhile, out local telco manages to cripple our customer support (among other things) by cutting several of our analog circuits. this seems to happen because the area we're in is under heavy construction, but nevertheless we're looking to get some sort of backup for out incoming and outgoing circuits for this and other (perhaps more disastrous) outages. we're looking for something that won't be too expensive, since we are something of a smallish operation (only 16 did's and 16 co trunks) and don't have a lot of money to dump into something we'll almost never need. one idea being kicked around is plain ol cellular phones. the budget-writers here really like this one, but i'd like to know what others more experienced in both cellular and backup systems have to say. i'd also like suggestions for inexpensive backup circuits. the general end is to skip the local telco in the area from our building to the CO. this seems to me to require the the solution be wireless. (microwave is too expensive). thanks to any help you folks can provide. please mail to me, and i'll summarize if there are enough responses. ...ben ---- ben ullrich consider my words disclaimed,if you consider them at all sybase, inc. "everybody gets so much information all day long that emeryville, ca they lose their common sense." -- gertrude stein (415) 596 - 3654 ben%sybase.com@sun.com {pyramid,pacbell,sun,lll-tis,capmkt}!sybase!ben ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jan 89 21:20:30 mst From: stjhmc!stjhmc!ddodell@asuvax.asu.edu (David Dodell) Subject: Plantronic Headsets To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu.ARPA I have seen advertised lately Plantronics headsets for the small business market. Does anyone have any experience with them, and if so, a good source for obtaining them? They seem to be going in the $50 to $70 range. Thanks, David St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center - Phoenix Arizona uucp: {decvax, ncar} !noao!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers} !ncar!noao!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD FidoNet=> 1:114/15 or 1:1/0 Internet: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 23:15:58 EST From: harvard!ima.ISC.COM!johnl (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder In article john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) writes: > >The only real difference I know of, besides the International Number >being on the AT&T card, is that AT&T card reader phones (with the >video displays) won't take BOC cards, and that the card reader phones >placed by BOCs don't claim to take AT&T cards. The BOC phones increasingly do take all of the LD carrier cards. The phones at the Denver and Los Angeles airports in fact take AT&T, MCI, and Sprint cards even though the illustrations on the phones are of Visa and Amex cards. High time, too. I was at the Cleveland airport last week and about half of the phones there are a strange hybrid -- it's a regular AT&T coin phone with the dial replaced by a thing about three times the size which includes a tone pad, a mag stripe reader, and a bunch of extra buttons probably intended for carrier selection but currently programmed for 411 and 911. I was unable to make any of these card readers accept any card at all, be it AT&T, Sprint, or Visa. At least the lack of access is equal. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 { bbn | spdcc | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something You're never too old to have a happy childhood. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 17:54:09 PST From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder > I have a few comments on the question of PINs on calling cards, > In addition, since card reader phones are quite rare, and the vast > majority of calling card use is not card reader use, there's > practically no purpose to a calling card without a PIN printed on it. No, the PIN can be on a separate sheet, which you have to memorize. Do you want your computer to print out your password after you type your login name? Further, the card reader phones are just as big of a security problem if you do not have to type the PIN. And they cost more, which raises telephone rates. > > As I have already destroyed the offending card and plan to cancel it > > (I have been using it regularly for AT&T long distance; it seemed to > > work just fine) and replace it with an AT&T card, can someone explain > > what the practical differences, if any, are between the AT&T card and > > a calling card issued by a telco? > And, finally, the AT&T card DOES print the PIN on the card, as do all > other long distance carrier cards I've seen. Allnet does not issue a standard looking credit card so the PIN is not on it. On the other hand, I seem to remember that it is about 10 digits long, so you probably have to write it down, unless you can figure out a good acronym for your random number. Also, they change the number frequently and expire the number if you do not use it for a month or two or so. And they have 2 different numbers depending on whether you are dialing their 950 number or their 800 number. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 10:39:48 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: bovine!john@apple.com Cc: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: 1+areacode Wasn't it as recent as 1982 when "local & nearby calling" in 415/408 was only 7 digits, even if crossing that areacode boundary? Then, the change made was to require the areacode on all calls, even local, crossing areacode boundary, so you got what New York City had until late 1980. Area 415 is apparently growing fast enough to be running out of NNX. As I recall, all or part of areas 516 and 914 (these pick up NYC suburbs) have not required 1 before area codes, nor has Pittsburgh (area 412), and several years ago I dialed "800" from 3 pay phones in Delaware (prefixes 674, 475, 478) without the leading 1. I don't know if any of these changed. ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) Subject: Re: 1+ dialing and new AC for SF Bay Area? Date: 23 Jan 89 18:15:07 GMT Mostly this comes from the use in the local area of exchanges that have N0X/N1X prefixes. Washington DC just went through this change as well. Since they never used to allocate prefixes from this range, it never used to be a problem, but now it needs 1+ to indicate that what follows is an area code and no 1+ to indicate that the prefix is following. From what I've read, the Numbering plan has always intended to have NXX prefixes, but it was a convenient hack to differentiate area codes by this basis in the past. It certainly saved dialing time, but touch tone and autodialers made this less of a problem. -Ron ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: 24 Jan 89 01:22:55 GMT Along those lines - The exchange for dormitory phones at MIT is 225, and there is a room in New House? Next House? with the phone number (617) 225-8xyz, where 1-800-225-8xyz is the toll-free number for reservations for the Sheraton across the river. I knew someone who was unfortunate enough to live in that room - the problem is that you can't dial 800 numbers from outside the U.S., so many of the people who call the number are foreign, speak English poorly, and are in a different time zone. Several callers were persistent enough that she had to take reservations to get rid of them. (or so she says) The switch was an old step-by-step, and the crafts where surly part-time students, so the easiest way for her to change her number was to move to another room. Peter Desnoyers ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) Subject: Re: Query about Telebit Date: 24 Jan 89 05:12:26 GMT Do not use a Telebit modem on an amiga, that is if it's over 9600 baud. Amiga systems use as a standard US Robotics ONLY! I have never found a 9600 + baud system that operates with a US robotics. US, has promised to upgrade their modems and promise compatibility. Without one, people will not be able to call your BBS, trust me, I use one, and run a bbs. [-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-] | "Undermine their pompous authority, make anarchy and disorder your | o trademarks cause as much disruption and chaos as possible, but don't let o | them take you alive" - Sid Vicious | o ____ ____ o | Boo\ /rax bootrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu | [-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Wed Jan 25 01:30:14 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA18878; Wed, 25 Jan 89 01:30:14 EST Message-Id: <8901250630.AA18878@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 1:11:24 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #27 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Jan 89 1:11:24 EST Volume 9 : Issue 27 Today's Topics: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling Bizarre phone conversation interception area code map [Moderator's Note: Another day with a lot of mail, so this is *part one* of two parts today. Part two, a/k/a/ issue 28 will follow in a few minutes, with messages relating to credit card PINS, and a discussion of cellular phone billing identification. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 22:56 CST From: linimon@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Mark Linimon) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers In article you write: >In a simple >accident, 922 was incorrectly translated by that office to 939....need I say >more? For two days straight, I was flooded with calls for Sears' credit >department. It was fun while it lasted. It's horror stories you want? At school (Rice) the dorms have fixed phone numbers assigned, per room. i.e. if you are in 701 Sid Rich this year you will have the same number whoever had 701 Sid Rich had last year. All in all, understandable. Well in 450 we always got calls for American Savings. Never could figure out why. Finally one day I was driving down I-45 (one of the major drags through town) to Galveston...and there's this giant billboard for American Savings... :-) We did try to convince American Savings to at least _change the billboard_, but to no avail. We were nice to the callers for the first few months, then after that we got to the point where we would walk them through getting their balance and make up outlandish numbers... Disclaimer: this was years ago. In the meantime I grew up. :-) Mark Linimon killer!nominil!linimon ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jan 89 10:33:43 PST (Tuesday) Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers From: DLynn.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Your message brings back some old memories. When in college, I made the mistake of asking for "an easy-to-remember number". Pac Tel had a list of repetitive numbers that, for no extra charge, they would issue for those who asked. Essentially only businesses asked, and so nearly all the adjacent numbers were big businesses. I got so many wrong numbers that I kept a list by the phone of the most often called ones, and gave the correct number out to most wrong dialers. If I didn't, some callers would dial again and again. Some callers claimed the business card they were reading really said 8 where I knew it had to read 3, 6 or 9. Must have been really small type or smeared printing. I got a lot of calls where they dialled 8 instead of 7, too; must have been finger-aiming error. It was pretty funny one morning hearing an operator trying to get out of me why I would not accept a collect call; she had never had a business refuse to accept, and it didn't dawn on her that she had got the wrong number. I wasn't very coherent explaining this, since it was about 6 am, and I had been up studying most the night. The caller (from the east coast) didn't apparently believe in time zones. I think my roommate took a couple of orders from callers who wouldn't believe they had dialled wrong. Some poor devil is probably still waiting for his water cooler to be delivered. We never asked for our number to be changed. I don't know whether it was the thought of an unneccessary expense (no one offered to change it for free, but then we didn't complain much), or whether we were just too naive to know we were being bothered. That summer, my roommate stayed over the summer, and with essentially all school friends gone, he went for weeks at a time with wrong numbers only, none intended for him. He started answering every call with "I'm sorry you have dialled the wrong number." He was wrong only once. /Don Lynn DLynn.ElSegundo@Xerox.COM ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: 24 Jan 89 17:26:33 GMT In article , telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > She says she gets anywhere from ten to dozens of wrong numbers per day. If > the weather is bad or there is some incident at the airport, then the calls > really start pouring in. She pointed out the most amazing part of the whole > thing are the people who call and get her answering machine. They hear the > whole outgoing message "Thank you for calling Zsetenyi's Decorating Den" > and then they still proceed to leaving a message for United Airlines, asking > to be "....called back when the reservations office is open...." It is apparently human nature to refuse to believe that you've dialed a wrong number unless you've been confronted with unimpeachable evidence. A friend of mine spent a few years working as the receptionist for a local contractor named Eastern Heating and Cooling Inc. She used to get at least one call a week, and usually considerably more, intended for Eastern Air Lines. Some confusion may be due to the fact that, if you open the Albany phone book to the general area for Airline Companies, you may easily spot the huge ad for Eastern Heating and Cooling Inc. which is in the Air Conditioning Contractors & Systems section. Never mind that Eastern Heating logo is nothing like the Eastern Air Lines logo, the Eastern Heating ad contains phrases like "25 Radio Dispatched Vehicles" and "Walk-in Coolers and Freezers," as well as logos for Trane, Carrier, York, and Bryant. Anyway, the conversations would usually go something like this: +++ My friend: "Eastern Heating and Cooling, may I help you?" Caller: "Yes, I'd like to get some information about this afternoon's flight to Atlanta." MF: "I'm sorry, sir, but this is Eastern Heating and Cooling. You want Eastern Air Lines." C: "Yes, but what's the price on the non-stop from Albany to Atlanta?" MF: "I don't have that information. This is NOT Eastern Air Lines." C: "Okay, but why can't you tell me how much the ticket is?" MF: "Because you dialed the wrong number. Check the phone book under Eastern Air Lines." C: "Look, you have a flight to Atlanta, flight number 689 leaving Albany at 5:50, right?" MF: "No. All we have are 25 radio dispatched trucks." C: "I don't like the way you're speaking with me. Please connect me with your supervisor." MF: "Okay, but he's gonna be mad because right now he's busy taking apart a heat pump." C: "$#*@*&!!! I just want you to know I'm never flying Eastern Air Lines again!" (hangs up) +++ Under that Eastern Heating ad is an ad for American Heating and Cooling Inc. I'd love to know what kind of calls they get THERE... -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ To: ames!comp-dcom-telecom@ames.arc.nasa.gov From: claris!edg%bridge2.3Com.Com@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: Bad pay-phone experiences while travelling Date: 24 Jan 89 21:18:58 GMT In a previous article Ralph Hyre discusses bad experiences with pay phones. 1. The case in which 950-xxxx connects but the pay phone doesn't give tone. Usually the operator can reconnect you to the 950 number and the tones work. (This assumes a cooperative operator.) 2. Can't get 950 from the sticks. That's the breaks, I think. Some of these phone companies are still living in the dark ages. Carry an ATT credit card for just in case. Here are some of my pet peeves. 1. I call my voicemail via AT&T credit card, but the phone disconnects me when I hit the pound. It tells me that I may dial another call now. Solution: call via the operator or on MCI. 2. Hotel phones that either block 950 or charge you 50 cents for it. Solution: Complaining bitterly usually doesn't help. In the old days you could sic Sprint on a hotel and they'd try to sell the hotel on unblocking the 950 access. I don't use Sprint any more, so I don't know if this is still done. 3. Hotels that use Alternative Operator Services for credit card calls. If it don't say "Thank you for using AT&T" or "Thank you for calling on Pacific Bell [insert your BOC here]" hang up. Be sure to fill out the comment card on the bureau and tell them you don't appreciate being raped. This is especially nasty when the hotel charges you a $.50 or more charge for making a credit card call from the room and then places your call on an AOS that kicks back a hefty percentage. 4. COCOTs of any kind. Local calls are charged as toll calls (deposit .85 for a call that should cost .20.) COCOTs that route to AOS's. COCOTs that cut off the touch tone pad so you can't unload your voicemail. COCOTs that tell you to call *611 for a refund and then don't answer. Sorry I blew my stack. The state of telephony is declining, even as the technology improves. -edg -- {decwrl|sun|oliveb}!CSO.3com.com!Edward_Greenberg Ed Greenberg -or- 3Com Corporation {sun|hplabs}!bridge2!edg Mountain View, CA 415-694-2952 ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) Subject: Bizarre phone conversation interception Date: 24 Jan 89 17:42:16 GMT I just remembered something that happened to me a couple of years ago. I'm wondering if someone can explain how this could happen. I was living the Troy, N.Y. exchange at the time (north of Albany, area code 518, number 274-XXXX). I came home to find my answering machine indicating one call had been received. But the tape did not contain a phone call to me. Instead, it contained a part of a long distance phone conversation between some place in the midwest and some place in the east. There were two people talking: a male representative of the American Beef Council and a female editor of some kind of nutrition newsletter produced at a famous eastern university. The Beef Council rep was explaining to the woman that he would be mailing her some menus and nutritional information that she could use in her newsletter. She was reluctantly agreeing that she would take a look at the material and would use it if it was suitable (the usual PR vs. journalism battle that I'm familiar with). Neither party was located in New York State. My machine did not record the beginning of the conversation; for whatever reason it just started recording it in the middle. It did record the end of the conversation and the sound of the two parties hanging up. I made a casette tape of this and have saved it somewhere. I've never had anything like this happen before or since. My answering machine is a fairly common Panasonic model, and I've never had any trouble with it. Anybody have any ideas? -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, DIA & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 11:07:16 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: area code map I could not get mail thru to nelson@kodak.com , so I am rephrasing this some- what to make it more of general interest. I saw mention of 1953 Binghamton phone book; did it have an area code map? I was wondering if there were any area code splits before 305/904 in 1965. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Wed Jan 25 02:36:42 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA23281; Wed, 25 Jan 89 02:36:42 EST Message-Id: <8901250736.AA23281@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 1:42:03 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #28 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Wed, 25 Jan 89 1:42:03 EST Volume 9 : Issue 28 Today's Topics: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder Kredit Kard Kwestions Re: Cellular Setup Re: Cellular Setup videotex EHKP-protocol Where To Find Telecom Archives [Moderator's Note: This is *part two* of two parts for Wednesday 1-25.] -------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 13:31:09 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards The recent discussion on PINs on cards in cleartext, and the Moderator's Note in Digest #23 on treating a Calling Card like a credit card (in regard to the individual being responsible for the first $50 in illicit charges on that card if it is stolen) prompts this note: First off, here in SW Bell territory, the PIN has *always* been on both the cardboard SW Bell calling card and the plastic AT&T card. So I was a bit taken aback when reading the posting of the individual who was outraged that the PIN was on his new card. I would contend that NOT having it on the card was the exception, and his telco was merely coming into line with the other BOC's in putting it on the card. (This is not a claim that having it on the card is a *good idea*; it just is how things are.) As regards equating calling cards with credit cards, I think I differ with the moderator on this. Also, I would be interested to see references which state that the calling card actually does fall under the federal credit-card regulations. As I recall, I never did request a calling card. It was sent to me by the telco on their initiative. I seem to recall that credit cards sent by an issuer when there was no specific request or application for them made by the individual do NOT fall under the $50 rule, but that those are specifically exempted. Also, I don't think that credit cards can legally be sent out to non-requesters, like they used to be. (If you recall, years back, firms like oil companies would send out credit cards en masse to college graduating classes and suchlike groups. That no longer happens. I think that was made illegal.) Since I haven't changed phone service in many years, I have no way of knowing how calling cards are now distributed. Maybe some others on the list can post their experiences; do you get a calling card in the mail automatically without requesting it when you set up new phone service? Or do you have to specifically request one to receive one (in writing or just verbally)? The other aspect that makes me wonder if calling cards are legally equivalent to credit cards is the fact that there is usually a secondary element of identification with the use of a credit card. In person, there is a signature. For telephone orders of merchandise to be shipped, some firms will ship only to the address-of-record of the credit card holder. (This latter admittedly breaks down, especially with regard to having gifts shipped to other people at Christmas, etc.) Plus there is a verification or check with the credit card company for charges over a certain dollar amount. Calling cards have no such secondary identification, nor do they have the verification process. (If they DID have the PIN issued separately, and require the user to type it in to complete the call, like an ATM requires for a transaction, then they *would* have a secondary identification, of course.) I believe that the calling-card-number info is stored and then run through the billing process in batch mode daily, right? So the use of a stolen calling card or an illicitly-acquired number would only be detected after-the-fact in that batch run. (I may well be wrong on this -- maybe there is a massive central on-line database to catch illegally-used calling card numbers as they are used. Is there? There would have to be one for each LD carrier, I guess...) All this leads me to contend that calling cards are not legally the same as credit cards. Therefore, we cannot maintain that regulations referring to credit cards apply to calling cards. However, that doesn't mean that tarriffs or contracts do not contain wording that may actualy result in the obligations of a calling card holder being similar to those of a credit card holder. But that would then differ with each issuer. Will Martin ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: ron@hardees.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder Date: 24 Jan 89 16:37:40 GMT Actually, there is no excuse for carrying around your telephone credit card anyhow. As I only rarely find a phone with a reader I almost always type it in after the DONG. I just do this from memory. If I'm calling home, which I usually am, at least AT&T lets you hit just the pin after the DONG which is even faster. -Ron [Am I the only one that terminates the call with the # so I can tell the nice lady who says "You may dial another number now," "No, thank you, I'm finished now." ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Jan 89 10:50:48 EST From: Jerry Glomph Black To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Kredit Kard Kwestions First, a comment on the PIN brouhaha: AT&T cards (and BOC cards) always have had your PIN number right on the card, but as it's a 4-digit number, most people can remember it. There are numerous ways to write down your secret code numbers on a wallet card so as to maintain security: use 10's complement, or subtract 1 from each digit, or you-name-it. I'm a bit perplexed by the 'international' number on the bottom: 1M,<10-digit phone no.>,<1 digit>. It seems pretty easy to guess or 'exhaustively' determine the digit for anyone, if it only takes a maximum of 10 tries! A mundane question: I have a Sprint FON card. It gives the 800-877-8000 number to access the service, but no mention of a 950-1022 or whatever the local access # is. Do you get a cheaper rate if you avoid the 800 number? The scanty documents which accompanied the card give no clue. Is this another case of deviousness, or what? JG Black, black@micro@LL-VLSI.ARPA ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) Subject: Re: Cellular Setup Date: 24 Jan 89 17:41:05 GMT > Question: Is it possible to access cellular setup channels and place > fraudulent call with a ham radio? Technically no, because a radio operating on the appropriate freqencies would not be an amateur radio. The words "ham radio" is a synonym for amateur radio, a regulated radio service by the FCC that allows radio enthusiasts to construct and operate their own radios. The modes of operation and frequencies in use are well defined by the commissions rules. Use of the term to mean any person building his own radios (for degenerate purposes) is like the bastardization of the term hacker. Please avoid doing it. It is by far easier to defraud the phone company by modifying a legitimate cellular telephone. The thing already does most of the work (the radio part and most of the dialing). All you have to do is hack the roms a bit to make them operate with phony ID's. -Ron [Moderator's Note: It is far easier to go to the penitentiary that way also. Remind me to search my files for the newspaper story of the fellow here in Chicago last year who was convicted of operating a 'reprogramming for profit' cellular phone 'repair shop'. When IBT security representatives, Chicago police and FCC personnel raided his place, they found not only cellular phones being liberated from billing constraints. It seems the dude was also into freeking CB radios; getting them broadbanded and oscillating in the ten meter band. Six months in the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative followed by two years federal probation is not my idea of how to spend my summer vacation. P. Townson] ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Cellular Setup Date: 25 Jan 89 03:29:34 GMT In article , boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) writes: > Question: Is it possible to access cellular setup channels and place fraudulent call with a ham radio? It is probably possible to place a fraudulent radio telephone call from an amateur radio station, but it's easier (and just as illegal) to use a cellular telephone set. When a valid call-attempt is made, the cellular telephone set transmits its phone number and its serial number (an electronic PIN), as well as the number dialed by the user. The local cellular carrier is supposed to validate the combination. A cellular telephone user who fiddles with the proms or other administerable memory can probably impersonate a valid subscriber. It may be high tech, but it's functionally equivalent to stealing and using another telephone subscribers calling card number. -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: tor@eva.slu.se Subject: videotex EHKP-protocol Date: 24 Jan 89 08:33:29 +200 Communications protocol EHKP for Videotex via X.25/Datapak ========================================================== The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences is planning to participate in the Swedish Videotex system as a Videotex (database) host. We are interested in software that support the EHKP protocol for connecting to Videotex. We would appreciate any information on: - Hints on good litterature that describes the EHKP protocol. Any public domain software? - Avialable EHKP protocol software for connecting VAX/VMS minis to Videotex via X.25/Datapak or any software running under unix or MS-DOS. Features and price? Torbjoern Leuchovius ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jan 89 11:50:51 PST (Tuesday) Subject: Where Are Telecom Archives? From: "Arthur_Axelrod.WBST128"@Xerox.COM To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Patrick, re your item in V9 #16 offering the file [TELECOM Digest Guide to North American Area Codes], or 'guide.to.areacodes' within the telecom-archives . . . Alas, I can't recall where the telecom archives are. Could you please tell me? I can FTP the file. Thanks. Art Axelrod Xerox Webster Research Center [Moderator's Gleeful Note: Ah! A chance to beat my own drum again! Thanks for asking, Art. The telecom archives is housed for the time being at bu-cs.bu.edu. Slightly under 10 megs of reading material is there for you, or anyone who wants it. An almost complete set of {TELECOM Digest} for the past 7.5 years -- it began in June, 1981 -- is available in 8 volumes. The most recent issues are in a file called appropriately, 'telecom-recent'. Many other text files are also available; some of which appeared in various issues of the Digest, much of which has not ever appeared here. Follow normal FTP protocol. After you 'ftp bu-cs.bu.edu', login as anonymous and provide a password. You would then 'cd telecom-archives', and 'ls -l' to see what all is available. Please help yourself. In the meantime, I have mailed you a copy of the North American Area Code Guide. See you tomorrow! P. Townson] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Thu Jan 26 01:47:47 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA03186; Thu, 26 Jan 89 01:47:47 EST Message-Id: <8901260647.AA03186@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 1:03:29 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #29 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Jan 89 1:03:29 EST Volume 9 : Issue 29 Today's Topics: Wrong Number Stories Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Another Wrong Number Story Re: Annoying Phone Calls Re: Annoying Phone Calls Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Re: How To Locate Your Ringback Code [Moderator's Note: This is *part one* of two parts for the Digest for 1-26. The second part, on the topic 'Is there life after PC Pursuit?' will follow in a few minutes. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Cc: gonzalez@BBN.COM Subject: Wrong Number Stories Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 16:31:27 -0500 From: gonzalez@BBN.COM I once had trouble with a phone number. It happened that a business in a neighboring town had posted an ad in a trade journal with a botched exchange. I got calls every few weeks for nearly a year. Once I had figured out what had happened, I contacted the company, and passed the customer contacts along to them. They never repeated the ad, the calls dwindled, and then I moved and got a different phone number. A former co-worker had a place in Boston with a number very close to one for a phone sex service. Needless to say, she got several amsusing calls from men who fat-fingered (a piano player's term) the number. Some of these guys apparently got quite annoyed when she refused to accept their credit card numbers and call back as promised in the ad. To make matters worse, her mom was visiting one week, and reportedly had a long (30 minutes or more) conversation with some guy. Her mom didn't take his credit card number, but did coyly advise my friend that a guy had called for her, and left his number. Recent grumblings about the decline of US phone service, particularly with regard to hotel add-on charges, inspired a cute thought. In Europe, hotels have been ripping people off for years on long distance. Also, the general opinion and personal experience has been that phone service in Europe is inferior to ours. With the all the fawning over Euro-style, European formula, and European engineering, I suppose it's only logical that we also aspire to a European-quality phone system (:-). Having grown up with the offspring of Murray Hill types, and learning phone tricks from the Jersey Bell repair guys, I must admit to a certain nostalgia. Paying 60 cents for a domestic long-distance directory assistance call also contributes to my sense of loss. I miss Ma Bell. -Jim. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Gonzalez AT&T: 617-873-2937 BBN Systems and Technologies Corp. ARPA: gonzalez@bbn.com Cambridge, Massachusetts UUCP: ...seismo!bbn!gonzalez ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ To: uunet!bu-cs.BU.EDU!telecom@uunet.UU.NET Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: 24 Jan 89 19:55:37 EST (Tue) From: cucstud!wb8foz@uunet.UU.NET (David Lesher) The classic had to be Mike Royko, columnist for the [Chicago Tribune]. AT&T had new 800-xxxxxxx customer service number. Alas, Mike's home phone was 312-xxxxxxx. He wrote a nice piece about how he was going to tell all the people calling they didn't deserve service and he would see to it they were disconnected, and various other threats. Seems to me Ma ended up taking out an ad in his paper, next to his space to beg forgiveness. [Moderator's Note: Actually, it was his office telephone. The [Chicago Tribune] centrex is 312-222. His private number 312-222-3xxx was commonly dialed by people wanting AT&T at 1-800-222-3xxx. These were people who failed to dial the 1-800 first. AT&T frequently advertises in the Chicago papers, but their ad in this instance was to remind people to 'dial 1-800 first, when calling a toll-free number.' I think the easiest telephone number to remember in the world must be the Tribune classified ad-takers: 312-222-2222. P. Townson] ----------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 02:41:34 EST From: Miguel_Cruz@ub.cc.umich.edu To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: One More Wrong Number Story Just one more wrong number victim story. My next-door neighbor in the dorm some years ago had a number that was exactly the same as the local power company except that he had a 4 where they had a 1, two digits that are right on top of each other on a TT pad. In the beginning of the year, he would just tell people that they had a wrong number, but as the year went on, he started being quite mischievous with callers who refused to admit to having dialed a wrong number. He would apologize, and ask them to describe their electricity problem. Billing inquiries he would refer to the proper number, but he came up with some incredibly bizarre responses to service/repair questions. I still feel sorry for the woman he told to unplug all her appliances and unscrew all of her lightbulbs and wait for the truck that would be there in "half hour to 45 minutes". Not such a good story in the retelling, I guess. Oh, well. ------------------------------ From: unknown - id lost in transmission To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Annoying Phone Calls Date: 20 Jan 89 13:08:32 GMT Organization: Bellcore In article <106@yamnet.UUCP>, gn@yamnet.UUCP (Greg Noel) writes: > > I just moved from Greensboro, NC (*WHEW*), and as I was leaving > I received an advertising slick from Southern Bell promoting a > new multiplexing type service. > > The service provided you with up to three phone numbers, all > ringing on the same phone but with different "rings". Hence, > you could get a general (solicitor) number, and a number for > IMPORTANT people. Nice. > > I got here to LA, and was disappointed though not surprised to > find the service is not available here. What parts of the country > is the service is available in? New Jersey Bell is going to offer this service starting in the early part of 1989 - I think in April (from what I remember reading in the newspaper) Bill Mitchell [Moderator's Note: Bill Mitchell is with Bellcore. I am sorry that his network address got scrambled before it reached me. P. Townson] ------------------------------ From: johnl@ima.ima.isc.com (John R. Levine) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Annoying Phone Calls Date: 21 Jan 89 20:23:22 GMT In article <106@yamnet.UUCP>, gn@yamnet.UUCP (Greg Noel) writes: > The service provided you with up to three phone numbers, all > ringing on the same phone but with different "rings". ... > I got here to LA, and [I couldn't get it] In the western part of L.A. GTE used to allow you to order both halves of a two-party party line which provides the same sort of service. It used to be popular when two people were living in sin and didn't want people to know about it. ("Who is that guy answering your phone at 7:30 in the morning?") You might try asking to see if that's still possible. Two-party service is usually cheaper than private line, so even with both halves it's not much more than a regular private line. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 { bbn | spdcc | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something You're never too old to have a happy childhood. ------------------------------ Date: Sun Jan 22 19:40:47 CST 1989 To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: john@zygot.UUCP (John Higdon) Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s In article <296@serene.UUCP>, rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) writes: > In article <400@swbatl.UUCP> rebel@swbatl.UUCP (root@swbatl.swbt.com > 5-9080) writes: > : Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud???? > : The telephone company. When a teenager runs up $2,000 in 900# calls > : and the parents complain, the phone company ends up footing the bill, > You gotta be joking. Where do you think the phone company gets it's > money? The RATE PAYERS pay for fraudulent phone calls. Actually, it's the 900 or 976 service provider who takes it in the shorts. If the phone company can't collect from a customer for calls to an information service, do you think that they are going to remit to the provider anyway? Also, if they have already remitted to a service provider, and the bill eventually proves uncollectable, they *charge back* the service provider. -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Fraudulent use of 900 #'s Date: 15 Jan 89 03:07:19 GMT "Now exactly who do you think ends up paying for telephone fraud???? The telephone company ... Try to run a business that loses money and see how long it lasts." This is incorrect. When a customer refuses to pay for thousands of dollars worth of prefix 976 calls, the telephone company doesn't lose money. They just don't make more money. They end up with the same amount of money as though those calls had never been made. The account that runs the 976 service doesn't get their cut. It's not as though the telephone company buys telephone calls at wholesale and resells them at retail. Virtually all their costs are fixed costs. The incremental cost of placing a 976 call is zip. The newspapers are full of this "the phone company loses millions of dollars on fraud" stuff. It ain't so. (None of the above should be construed as support for perpetrators of telephone fraud. Especially when they bill to my phone number. Hang 'em high!) -=- Andrew Klossner (uunet!tektronix!hammer!frip!andrew) [UUCP] (andrew%frip.gwd.tek.com@relay.cs.net) [ARPA] ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: cucstud!wb8foz@uunet.UU.NET (David Lesher) Subject: Re: How To Locate Your Ringback Code Date: 25 Jan 89 00:41:10 GMT I have found many, but not all BOC's use 55n-xxxx where xxxx is the last 4 of the ntbrb (thats nUMBER tO bE rUNG bACK) and n varied from CO to CO. I found 0,1,2,3 in various places. The operative prefix was one NOT in use in that local dialing area, of course. I have had cases where I could not easily get the dang thing to let go of the line when I was done;-{ Of more interest to me is the ANI number. In Cleveland, it was 200+any 7d, except the correct #. If you had a wrong # the ANI voice kindly told you which pair you were on. That was a godsent when you had 30 trunks and you wanted to figure which was where. It also gave out interesting numbers when used on out-WATS lines. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Thu Jan 26 03:10:39 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA08614; Thu, 26 Jan 89 03:10:39 EST Message-Id: <8901260810.AA08614@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 2:07:08 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #30 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Thu, 26 Jan 89 2:07:08 EST Volume 9 : Issue 30 Today's Topics: STARLINK - an alternative to PC Pursuit Telecom Info From Travel-Holiday Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder More pet peeves How US West Handles 976 Blocking [Moderator's Note: This is *part two* of two parts for 1-26. Recently I received word of a new competitor to Telenet's PC Purusit. Considering that Telenet is raising their rates beginning next week, you may want to research your own traffic and do a cost comparison with the new service described below. Whether or not it will save you money depends on your own application, of course. P. Townson] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: W8SDZ@WSMR-SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL (Keith Petersen) Subject: STARLINK - an alternative to PC Pursuit Date: 24 Jan 89 07:51:00 GMT The following is provided "as-is" for its informational value. It is from a file that was recently uploaded to my BBS. I cannot answer questions as I have no connection with this service. --Keith Petersen ---cut-here--- STARLINK is an alternative to PC Pursuit. You can call 91 cities in 28 states during off-peak hours (7pm-6am and all weekend) for $1.50 per hour. All connections through the Tymnet network are 2400 bps (1200 bps works too) with no surcharge and there are no maximum hours or other limitations. There is a one time charge of $50 to signup and a $10 per month account maintenance fee. High volume users may elect to pay a $25 per month maintenance fee and $1.00 per hour charge. The service is operated by Galaxy Telecomm in Virginia Beach, VA and users may sign up for the service by modem at 804-495-INFO. You will get 30 minutes free access time after signing up. This is a service of Galaxy and not TYMNET. Galaxy buys large blocks of hours from TYMNET. To find out what your local access number is you can call TYMNET at (800) 336-0149 24 hours per day. Don't ask them questions about rates, etc., as they don't know. Call Galaxy instead. Galaxy says they will soon have their own 800 number for signups and information. The following is a listing of the major cities covered. There are others that are a local call from the ones listed. Eastern Time Zone Connecticut: Bloomfield Hartford Stamford Florida: Fort Lauderdale Jacksonville Longwood Miami Orlando Tampa Georgia: Atlanta Doraville Marietta Norcross Indiana: Indianapolis Maryland: Baltimore Massachusetts: Boston Cambridge New Jersey: Camden Englewood Cliffs Newark Pennsauken Princeton South Brunswick New York: Albany Buffalo Melville New York Pittsford Rochester White Plains North Carolina: Charlotte Ohio: Akron Cincinnati Cleveland Columbus Dayton Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Pittsburgh Rhode Island: Providence Virginia: Alexandria Arlington Fairfax Midlothian Norfolk Portsmouth Central Time Zone Alabama: Birmingham Illinois: Chicago Glen Ellyn Kansas: Wichita Michigan: Detroit Minnesota: Minneapolis St. Paul Missouri: Bridgeton Independence Kansas City St. Louis Nebraska: Omaha Oklahoma: Oklahoma City Tulsa Tennessee: Memphis Nashville Texas: Arlington Dallas Fort Worth Houston Wisconsin: Brookfield Milwaukee Mountain Time Zone Arizona: Mesa Phoenix Tucson Colorado: Aurora Boulder Denver Pacific Time Zone California: Alhambra Anaheim El Segundo Long Beach Newport Beach Oakland Pasadena Pleasanton Sacramento San Francisco San Jose Sherman Oaks Vernon Walnut Creek Washington: Bellevue Seattle STARLINK is a service of Galaxy Telecomm Division, GTC, Inc., the publishers of BBS Telecomputing News, Galaxy Magazine and other electronic publications. [Moderator's Note: The above has been making the rounds on various news groups and Fidonet Bulletin Boards. I thought it worth bringing here FYI; but how well it would work for you is something only you can tell. P. Townson] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 8:58:17 CST From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Telecom Info From Travel-Holiday The Feb '89 issue of Travel-Holiday magazine has several telecom-related news items in their "Travel Advisor" traveller's news section: In the "Consumer Watch" column, p. 85: "Q. Is it possible that my credit card [sic] number was stolen by someone aboard the ship? I placed two satellite calls from my cabin through the radio room, where I had left my credit card number. When I returned home, I was informed by the telephone company that my number had been used 75 times one day and 150 times the next. A. It's possible that a passenger or crew member used your telephone credit card number. However, considering the volume of calls made on your number, it's more likely that your number was stolen by several parties over the air. When your credit card number is given to the overseas operator, it can be heard by anyone with a shortwave radio. As a precaution, on your next trip, preregister your card number with the telephone company. If you have an AT&T calling card, dial 1-800-SEACALL. Tell them your name, telephone credit card number, the name of yur ship and your cruise dates. Onboard ship, inform the radio room that you have preregistered your card with the phone company. Don't give them your credit card number so that it won't be accidentally transmitted when you call." ***End of item*** [Comments: Appropos to our current discussion as to the "creditcardness" of Calling Cards, here's a good example of confusion between the two on the part of the general public. Also, note the confusion between the question's referral to calls by satellite, vs. the answer's reference to ordinary shortwave-carried marine-operator ship-to-shore calls. If the call had really been made via a satellite uplink from the ship, the issue of shortwave would have never entered into the picture. Also, I like the casual use of the traditional "the telephone company", when there now are hundreds instead of just one... :-)] And, in the same issue, p. 89: FAX AND PHONE FACTS "Just when you thought you were safe -- fax charges. After years of pressure from guests upset over unreasonable telephone surcharges, hotels have thought up another charge for your bill. Hundreds of hotels now charge up to $10 when you *receive* a fax transmission. And it's very likely that you won't even know about it until you check out. Hotels say they use the fee to cover the cost of renting the equipment. However, that may not always be true. Some fax-machine companies install the machines in return for a percentage of the fees the hotels charge their guests. * * * At Stouffer Hotels and Resorts you no longer have to pay the surcharges on the credit-card, collect, and 800 number calls you make. You will, however, still be billed $2 extra for long distance calls and 75 cents for local, long distance and local directory and 950 number calls. * * * ...In November, AT&T announcd the addition of three new countries to its USADIRECT service. Now you can dial an access number from 51 countries to directly reach an AT&T operator in the US. In some countries you can dial from any residential, business, or public telephone. In others you must use a dedicated telephone located in hotels, airports and seaports. And you can use your AT&T card or make a collect call. There's no extra charge for the service. For more information, call (800) 874-4000." ***End of item*** [Comments: I called the 800 number given and asked a couple questions. The man at the other end said that "no extra charge" in the above means that, though this service bypasses the foreign country's overseas operators, you are billed at the regular overseas-call rate for your call. It just saves you time and hassle to do it this way. They don't split the call charge into separate overseas-to-US and internal-US segments, charging separately for each, which is what I had first envisioned.] Anyway, hope the above is of interest! Regards, Will Martin ------------------------------ To: mcnc!comp-dcom-telecom@ecsgate.uncecs.edu From: klg@dukeac.UUCP (Kim Greer) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder Date: 25 Jan 89 21:26:14 GMT In article mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 22, message 5 > >MY GOD! I nearly fainted after reading this. There goes five years of >anti-fraud progress out the window in one fell swoop of marketing >hype. I looked at it again to make sure I was really seeing it. Yes, >they printed the PIN right there on the card. If a bank did that with >an ATM card, it would probably make the front page of the newspapers. >What PINHEADS!! Every time you think that some people are beginning ^^^^^^^^ That's a good one!! PIN-HEADS (Personal Identification Number) ... Well, anyway, I thought it was funny. o o > \--/ -- Kim L. Greer Duke University Medical Center try: klg@orion.mc.duke.edu Div. Nuclear Medicine POB 3949 dukeac!klg@ecsgate Durham, NC 27710 919-681-2711x223 ...!mcnc!ecsgate!dukeac!klg fax: 919-681-5636 ------------------------------ From: cantor%ddif.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (David A. Cantor) Date: 25 Jan 89 11:17 To: telecom_digest%ddif.DEC@decwrl.dec.com Subject: More pet peeves In vol 9 iss 27, Ed Greenberg told us about some of his pet peeves. Here's mine: It's becoming common now for hotels to charge a flat amount for any directory assistance call, and a surcharge for all other long distance calls except 800 numbers. The number 800-555-1212, however falls into two categories: 800 numbers and directory assistance. ALL hotels I've stayed over the past two years are now charging for calls to 800-555-1212 (directory assistance). When possible, I use pay phones (even COCOTs) to place calls to 800 directory assistance when I'm staying in a hotel. Dave C. ------------------------------ To: uunet!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) Subject: How US West handles 976 Blocking Date: 24 Jan 89 18:36:39 GMT In article dgc@math.ucla.edu writes: >... >2. When we had finally were able to have 976 numbers blocked, our local > telco (General Telephone) informed us, IN WRITING, that, pursuant > to Federal law, it was not blocking out-of-state, long-distance 976 > numbers. Whether some individual long-distance services do so, I >... US WEST's 976 information says "The following type of calls are denied access to Dial Data 976 Service." (then states sometimes it may not be able to deny all of them...) Inter-LATA, Intra-LATA, Calling Card, Third Number Billing, Coin & Coinless Originated, Operator Assisted, Hotel Originated, WATS, Feature Groups ABC&D, Independent Originated. So perhaps GT cannot block your attempts to call long-distance 976, but the distant CO might block the call. I guess the federal laws preserve your ability to call anyone, but who you're calling can refuse to accept your call. -- Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Fri Jan 27 01:54:23 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA12868; Fri, 27 Jan 89 01:54:23 EST Message-Id: <8901270654.AA12868@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 1:22:21 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #31 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Jan 89 1:22:21 EST Volume 9 : Issue 31 Today's Topics: Re: Cellular Setup International Calling Cards Re: ATT commerical Re: ATT commerical Re: Nuisance phone calls ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: tim@Athena.UUCP (Tim Dawson) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Cellular Setup Date: 25 Jan 89 17:32:12 GMT >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 24, message 4 > >Question: How is phase shifting actually involved in communications between the mobile unit and the switching office ? > >Question: Is it possible to access cellular setup channels and place fraudulent call with a ham radio? > >Thanks for your help .. > >Perry > >Reply here on this newsgroup or e-mail to boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (arpanet) To answer your questions as best as possible: 1) The "Phase Shifting" you refer to is in all probability referring to the modulation of the RF going from the mobile to the cell site. (I forget the actual emission designators) and is similar to FM. Typically communications from the cell site to the cellular switching office are via T-1 pcm carrier systems. 2) Extremly improbable. For the why, first let me describe the scenario of a modbile to land call set up. a) User enters phone number and hits send. b) Mobile listens to data stream on signalling channel, and checks busy/idle bits to see if another mobile has channel in use. If idle, mobile sends request containing mobile Electronic Serial Number (manufactured into the radio), the mobiles phone number, and the called number. c) System receives request and sends data burst back to mobile confirming that request is received, and assigning a voice channel. d) Mobile changes frequency to voice channel, verifies SAT (sub audible tone used to verify that mobile has reached correct channel) and returns same SAT to cell site. Mobile also verifies DCC (Digital Color Code - like SAT but in digital domain) to confirm channel. Mobile unmutes audio and call setup proceeds through switch. At this point, all progress tones, etc heard from the mobile are coming from the land office, not the mobile switch. e) Call is now in progress. While call is up, Cell sites constantly are scanning mobile signal strength. If dips below threshhold for a certain (variable from system to system) number of scans, a handoff request is made. Adjacent cells scan the mobile, and if signal is ABOVE threshold, the system initiates handoff. A request is sent digitally to the mobile to mute audio, and change to the new frequency (also sent). The mobile mutes, changes frequency, verifies SAT and DCC on the new channel and unmutes (all in about 50 ms or so, typically). This handoff is generally inaudible to the user, but is what makes using cellular with modems a pain - no audio/data can be sent during this handoff. f) For call termination, mobile sends disconnect request to switch, and all facilities are idled. As can be seen, this is not a trivial process. The primary problem with trying to defraud a Mobile system is that you have to know a valid mobiles Electronic Serial Number/Mobile Number Combination or the system will deny service. You also have to be ablo to transmit and receive 9600 baud FSK (to the best of my memory - my spec isn't handy) to the system in order to determine what voice channel assignment has been made. And you have to do it FAST! Most all call setup items described above must occur within very closely difined time windows, or the system will fail the call. Also, as soon as the guy who gets stuck with the bill bitches, they will most likely change his mobile number, or start tracing the calls and can determine who is the fraudulent user based on who is being called quite easily. This is one of the big plusses of cellular telephony - if somebody steals a phone, their ESN can be denied nationally, and they can't use it. It is not impossible to change ESN in a phone, but is extremely difficult since it is manufactured physically into the unit, and is not generally documented by the manufacturer is public domain documnets for security reasons. So what you would end up doing is basically redesigning a cellular mobile, and seriously doubt whether many people have the skill and knowledge to even come close to being able to do so. Also, with the security provisions in cellular systems, even if you could manage the hardware, the system software would still make it highly unlikely that you could use it. -- ================================================================================ Tim Dawson (...!killer!mcsd!Athena!tim) Motorola Computer Systems, Dallas, TX. "The opinions expressed above do not relect those of my employer - often even I cannot figure out what I am talking about." ------------------------------ To: ukc!comp-dcom-telecom From: jpp@slxsys.specialix.co.uk (John Pettitt) Subject: International Calling Cards Date: 24 Jan 89 10:34:07 GMT Following on from the recent postings on use of calling cards and the problems encountered please spare a thought for the poor users of non US charge cards. I have British Telecom phone credit card, which in the uk works very well and has some nice features (3 wrong pin attempts cancels the card!) but in the USA it's a pain. There are two ways of using a BT card to call england from the US. 1) Call the operator, say you want to call a UK number and bill it to a uk credit card, expalain the yes uk cards do work, yes I know the number starts 44M and calling cards dont start that way, get supervisor, explain again, get international operator, recite card number (13 digits), number to call (8 digits) and sometimes get connected. or 2) Call 1-800-4455667 and talk to a BT operator in london, recite over poor quality transatlatic line, card number, number to call, and number of phone you are using, repeat until operator gets all numbers correct. or 3) Pay hotels rip-off phone rate and just dial the number . . . John Pettitt Specialix International (Solution is to get calling card number for US office, now all I have to do is sort out the internal accounting . . . .) -- John Pettitt, Specialix, Giggs Hill Rd, Thames Ditton, Surrey, U.K., KT7 0TR {backbone}!mcvax!ukc!pyrltd!slxsys!jpp jpp@slxsys.specialix.co.uk Tel: +44-1-398-9422 Fax: +44-1-398-7122 Telex: 918110 SPECIX G >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: palmer@hsi.UUCP (Mike Palmer) Subject: Re: ATT commerical Date: 18 Jan 89 14:58:17 GMT In article <9300027@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >ATT is running a new set of commericals (I guess they got >tired of the "slice of death" series). > >In one of the new commerials the guy says something to the effect >"Yea, we cost more on the first minute, but how often do you make > one minute phone calls?" > >Do the rates really converge? Or are they trying to help people >rationalize sticking with a more expensive service. About a year and a half ago, the phone company sent me a notice about having to choose my long distance carier along with all the option in my area and their phone numbers. I proceeded to call each one and ask about their rates. everyone of them asked me for a long distance number that I called often and then quoted rates. All the non-AT&T companies also gave comparisons with AT&T for 2-4 minute calls. As I remember, AT&T's rates were something like 15 cents for the first minute and 9 cents for each additional minute. All the other companies were 12 cents for the first minute and 10 cents for each additional minute. A little quick math and the realization that most of my calls were of the 10 minute variety and my long distance carrier became AT&T. > >- Carl -- ======= Mike Palmer {uunet,noao,yale}!hsi!palmer ======= ======= Health Systems International palmer@hsi.com ======= ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu.UUCP From: john@zygot.UUCP (John Higdon) Subject: Re: ATT commerical Date: Wed, Jan 25, 1988 In article <7303@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, jnl@ihlpf.ATT.COM (John N. Le) writes: > Even if AT&T rates are higher in some cases, so what. If you like > to pay less, it's your choice, but I wish you luck if you try to demand > from your LD company the same high quality service that AT&T are doing > for yearssssss. But now it's 1989, and the old stand-by reliable hissy analog connections still provided by AT&T are a little passe. Occasionally, I get a digital transcontinental connection from AT&T, but it's a small percentage of the time and only to major metro areas. Sprint on the other hand, seems to provide fast, reliable digital connections virtually everywhere. I'd use them if their rates were higher, but they're *lower*. -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: glee@cognos.uucp (Godfrey Lee) Subject: Re: Nuisance phone calls Date: 23 Jan 89 16:26:47 GMT >>I believe the time has come to do something about nuisance phone calls. >I found after I installed an answering machine, that junk callers >usually hang up when they realize they got an answering >machine. Problem is that there are more and more automated phone solicitations. With these you don't get the satisfaction of hanging up on them, and if you have an answering machine, you get junk filling up your tape! I do sense some consumer rebellion on this though, I got a few of them about a year ago, but lately have gotten none, what is the situation in the rest of Canada and in the U.S.? -- Godfrey Lee P.O. Box 9707 Cognos Incorporated 3755 Riverside Dr. VOICE: (613) 738-1338 x3802 FAX: (613) 738-0002 Ottawa, Ontario UUCP: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!glee CANADA K1G 3Z4 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Fri Jan 27 02:52:19 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA16584; Fri, 27 Jan 89 02:52:19 EST Message-Id: <8901270752.AA16584@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 2:19:30 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #32 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Fri, 27 Jan 89 2:19:30 EST Volume 9 : Issue 32 Today's Topics: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: Mousepruf 900 Tariff Application Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder determination of rates for overseas calls Re: area code map ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: uunet!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: roy@phri (Roy Smith) Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: 26 Jan 89 14:26:21 GMT My old 2nd line (i.e. modem) number used to differ by a transposition (or some other small difference) from the financial aid office at New York City Technical College. This was no problem until they sent out a memo one September to all their students with a typo on it. Lots of wrong numbers all of a sudden. We eventually got somebody who was patient enough to help us work out what happened ("where did you get this number", "it's on the memo", "what memo?", "the memo I got in the mail", "would you please be so kind as to read it to me", "...", "are you sure that's the number that's written on the paper?", etc). Anyway, we called the financial aid office and complained. It was amazingly difficult to make them understand what had happened: Me: Hi, you don't know me, but you sent out a memo telling people to call your office and gave my number by mistake. Them: What's your number? Me: xxx-xxxx Them: No, that's not our number, there must be some mistake. Me: Yes, that's the point, you told people to call my number. Them: No, I'm sorry, that's impossible, and we [getting a bit rude here] really can't be responsible for people dialing a wrong number. Me: Can you please go into your file cabinet and pull out a copy of the memo and read it to me? Them: I don't have a copy of it here, maybe you better talk to ..... Eventually, I finally got some higher-up administrator to actually go find a copy of the memo and read it out loud to me, taking her to task when she read past the phone number, unconcously saying the correct number for the financial aid office. Long pause. "Oh, we made a mistake". No shit, sherlock. I eventually convinced her that it would be in both our best interests' if she would send out a memo correcting the mistake: "Dear student, please note that the phone number for the financial aid office is xxx-xxxx, not yyy-yyyy as stated in the last letter. She did so. Of course, next semester, some grunt took the memo out of the file cabinet, xeroxed 100 million of them, and sent them out to all the students again. I'll leave it up to you to guess if they bothered to correct the phone number before they did so. Eventually we took to leaving the modem on all the time. Not really very nice, but what could I do? I would imagine I would be pretty frantic if I got a memo saying "unless you call this office before next Friday, you'll loose out on your financial aid" and every time I called the number, got sombody screaching at me. Could you imagine if you had a cellular phone and paid for incomming calls and this happened? The kicker to the story is a little while after we took to modemizing people, we read in the paper that some crazy person had walked into the financial aid office and started shooting at random, killing several people. Could it be that he was just frustrated by getting a modem whistle at him whenever he called about his aid package? I hope not. -- Roy Smith, System Administrator Public Health Research Institute {allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net "The connector is the network" [Moderator's Note: I had the identical experience in 1972. At the time, my 'second line' was actually my direct line. I lived in an apartment building with a front desk/manual switchboard. I had a two line 'turn button phone' with the switchboard line on one side and my private number HYde Park 3-3714 on the other side of the button. The Draper & Kramer Real Estate Company sent out a memo to all tenants in a huge (500 units) highrise building telling them how to reach the building engineer for maintainence requests, etc. Guess whose number was given in error when some digits were transposed. I fought with those people for a year! I finally had success only by being *rude* to the callers; to wit if they complained of no heat or no hot water I would cheerfully 'put them on hold' for a minute and come back on the line to advise them according to my records, 'the rent you are paying does not include heat or hot water'. After D&K got an earful from angry tenants complaining about '...that rude janitor you have working in the Fifteen-Fifty-Five Building' they decided to issue a new memo. I called it my own version of 'gorilla' (guerilla) warfare! PT] ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: 26 Jan 89 18:18:43 GMT Yes, I noticed that. When I worked at a radio station we used to get calls for Sears repair service all the time. Me: Good Morning, WJHU. Caller: Is this Sears? Me: Nope, it's a radio station. Caller: Well my washer stopped working. Me: Can't help you, this is a radio station. Everyonce and a while I took parts orders. It was easier than trying to convince them they dialed wrong. I also used to get calls for Doreen (prounce DOUGH-REEENE). Me: (sleepily, its 2 AM) Caller: Let me speek to Doreen. Me: Doreen says she don't want to talk to you no more. We're going back to bed now, so don't you call again. ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU From: edell%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Edell) Subject: Re: Mousepruf 900 Tariff Application Date: 27 Jan 89 01:08:02 GMT One aspect not mentioned by the previous poster of interest to consumers is: 9.5.3.A.2. Definitions Delayed Timing of Information Charge A product feature which delays commencement of billing of Information Charges to a Caller. The purpose of the delayed timing option is to allow time for the Caller to hang up prior to connection to the program without being billed an Information Charge. 9.5.3.C.1.a.3 Regulations; Utility Obligations; General The Utility will provide a period of 18 seconds for Delayed Timing of Information Charges. If this period is exceeded, a Caller will be billed the Information Charge from the time of initial connection and the Transport Charges will be billed to the Information Provider and/or Sponsor from the time of initial connection. If a Caller hangs up within this 18 second period, no Information Charge will be billed to the Subscriber and no Charges will be billed to the Information Provider and/or Sponsor for that call. Further, the tariff specifically states that the Utility will disconnect the Information Provider/Sponsor for violating the rules/regulations of the tariff. (Such as: program content matching the prefix of the service's telephone number, proper disclosure of price, etc.) The first disconnection would last at least one week, the second disconnection would last two weeks, and the third disconnection would be permanent. Also, the reconnection charge (for first and second violations) is $2,000. Hopefully this section of the tariff addresses the First Amendment rights problems Pacific Bell has faced when it tried to disconnect "adult" services. I should state that my business is a real estate loan referral program offered through Pacific Bell's 976 service. -Richard Edell (UCB Student) ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU From: edell%garnet.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Edell) Subject: Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards Date: 27 Jan 89 00:37:46 GMT According to a copy I have of "Regulation Z - Truth in Lending" (published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System) public utility credit is exempt from Regulation Z (Section 226.3.c); and it is this regulation (Section 226.12 - Special Credit Card Provisions) that provides the consumer protections we're talking about (card must be requested, $50.00 limitation of cousumer libility, etc.). If Regulation Z is the only source of these protections and if public utility credit is exempt, then these protections do not apply to consumer credit. But, I guess you can call Calling Cards credit cards. (Note: this exemption only applies to public utility services (not equipment) for which the charge are regulated by any government unit.) -Richard Edell ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@linus.mitre.org From: alliant!!harriss@seismo.css.gov (Martin Harriss) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Calling Card Blunder Date: 26 Jan 89 15:38:56 GMT In article ron@hardees.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: > If I'm calling home, which I usually am, at least AT&T >lets you hit just the pin after the DONG which is even faster. > >-Ron > >[Am I the only one that terminates the call with the # so I can >tell the nice lady who says "You may dial another number now," >"No, thank you, I'm finished now." Also note that you can hit # after entering your pin when only entering the last 4 digits when calling home. If you don't do this you have to wait for the thing to time out and decide that you are only entering four digits instead of the full 14. Martin Harriss alliant!harriss ------------------------------ To: amdahl!ames!comp-dcom-telecom@ames.arc.nasa.gov From: braun@drivax.DRI (Karl T. Braun (kral)) Subject: determination of rates for overseas calls Date: 25 Jan 89 01:54:35 GMT How do the long distance companies determine rates for overseas calls? Particularly, how do they determine when you are calling during non-peak hours? Is it from the time in the time zone the call is initiated, or are there some funny games played due to international considerations? (I suppose the same question applies to domestic calls made across time zones, but somehow the fact that it is international seems to complicate it, in my mind at least). As stated above, I am not a regular reader of this group (I'm an irregular reader?). Please respond via mail. Summaries upon request. -- kral 408/647-6112 ...{ism780|amdahl}!drivax!braun "To surrender is to remain in the hands of barbarians for the rest of my life; To fight is to leave my bones exposed in the desert waste" - ancient chinese poem [Moderator's Note: But please carbon those responses here also. Thanks. PT] ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: nelson@kodak.com (bruce nelson) Subject: Re: area code map Date: 26 Jan 89 19:17:52 GMT In article cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) writes: >I saw mention of 1953 Binghamton phone book; did it have an area code map? >I was wondering if there were any area code splits before 305/904 in 1965. There weren't any area codes before the 60's. To call long distance, you had to tell the operator what city and number you were calling. Some of the phone numbers in that book were of the form HArpersville 3C20. They were changed to AC + 7 digits when DDD was introduced. Bruce Nelson Eastman Kodak Co. (standard disclaimers) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sat Jan 28 01:11:47 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA20093; Sat, 28 Jan 89 01:11:47 EST Message-Id: <8901280611.AA20093@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89 0:53:09 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #33 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Jan 89 0:53:09 EST Volume 9 : Issue 33 Today's Topics: USA-Direct Re: USA-Direct Re: 1+areacode Re: area code map Re: Query about Telebit Re: cheap & easy circuit backup ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 10:08:52 EST From: Jerry Glomph Black To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: USA-Direct The USA Direct service doesn't save you money, but it does have advantages. I spent Sept-Nov last year in Australia, and used it frequently. Besides bypassing the hassle of dealing with foreign operators and byzantine phone systems (if you have MOUNTAINS of oversized Aussie coins, you theoretically could dial direct, at prices very similar to USA Direct). The idea of phone credit cards is not widespread. They had a few (10 in the whole country!) special phones at airports that could charge onto your VISA card, I wish these had been more widely available. But I digress. The main advantage of USA Direct was to pre-screen the overseas line quality. You called 0014-xxwhatever, and were rapidly connected to an AT&T operator over either a very good cable line (75% chance), or a really crappy satellite link with echoes, maddening delays, etc. Clearly, you hang up & try again in the latter circumstance, the experience costing nothing but the time to redial the toll-free number. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 20:48:48 PST From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: USA-Direct > ...In November, AT&T announcd the addition of three new countries to its > USADIRECT service. Now you can dial an access number from 51 countries > to directly reach an AT&T operator in the US. In some countries you can > dial from any residential, business, or public telephone. In others you > must use a dedicated telephone located in hotels, airports and seaports. > And you can use your AT&T card or make a collect call. There's no extra > charge for the service. For more information, call (800) 874-4000." > ***End of item*** > [Comments: I called the 800 number given and asked a couple questions. > The man at the other end said that "no extra charge" in the above means > that, though this service bypasses the foreign country's overseas > operators, you are billed at the regular overseas-call rate for your > call. It just saves you time and hassle to do it this way. They don't > split the call charge into separate overseas-to-US and internal-US > segments, charging separately for each, which is what I had first > envisioned.] Note: I also called several different times and got several different stories from your beloved AT&T. One time I was told that the calls had to be made from special phones; another time I was given a number to dial; another time, the person did not know what I was talking about. USADIRECT? What's that. For the country I inquired about, it is the same price every minute of every day. That rate is fairly reasonable too (except for the fact that there is no reason that there should not be off peak use discounts) and the mandatory operator assisted charges. By fairly reasonable, I mean it costs less than the other country charges for an *operated assisted* call. Based on the above information, I would say that the 'no extra charge' is just marketing hype. They set the rates and then they say there is no *EXTRA* charge. The charges are definitely not the same from X to USA as from the USA to X, even if both are operated assisted. I also fail to see how using USADIRECT saves time or hassle. If you have to go to a special phone, it almost certainly does neither. It might save money, but it might not. From the above country X, it is possible to use a pre-paid phone card or coins at many phones to call the U.S. at direct dial rates. Depending on how long you talk, it may be cheaper than USADIRECT. (By the way, the cards are available every- where, the foreign language name is phonecard, and the largest coin is worth about $4.00, so it is not as if you have to have a stack of dimes available although the marginal incremental cost is about one dime.) The commercials for the service are hogwash as well. I have never tried to make an international call where the operator did not speak English. In many countries they start speaking in English. Perhaps they figure that since AT&T's operators do not speak German or Japanese, foreign countries' operators do not speak English. I suspect that the rules, prices, etc differ from country to country, but I don't have any proof since I only inquired about one country. David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: smk@sfsup.UUCP (Stan Krieger) Subject: Re: 1+areacode Date: 26 Jan 89 14:49:21 GMT In article , cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) writes: > > ............... >As I recall, all or part of areas 516 and 914 (these pick up NYC suburbs) have >not required 1 before area codes, nor has Pittsburgh (area 412), and several >years ago I dialed "800" from 3 pay phones in Delaware (prefixes 674,475,478) >without the leading 1. I don't know if any of these changed. While the original reason (we were told) that 1+A/C calling was implemented was to open up central office codes of the form N0N or N1N, and therefore could be confined to places which needed these extra central office codes, the posting of Area Codes a few days ago that showed that almost all possible Area Codes are assigned reveals that a side effect of this will be to open up Area Codes of the form N[2-9]N. The detection of whether the first three digits is an area code or central office is being changed from looking for a 0 or 1 in the second digit to looking for a 1 as the initial digit. It's obvious we're running out of area codes, simply because new services open up more phone numbers. In the beginning, for example, there was Centrex. So, instead of a medium office building having 20 phone lines (and phone numbers), with an operator switching calls in the building, the building may still have only 20 phone lines to the outside, but could be using 200 phone numbers for each of the inside phones. And, I just saw a new service advertised; it wouldn't give any more phone lines, but it would allow homes to have extra phone numbers- a coded ring would indicate what number was being called. In this way, people would know who the call was for before answering the phone. This will create a need for more phone numbers. At least, when 1+A/C becomes the norm, about 4 times more Area Codes than are currently available will become available. -- Stan Krieger Summit NJ ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: smk@sfsup.UUCP (Stan Krieger) Subject: Re: area code map Date: 26 Jan 89 17:35:53 GMT In article , cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) writes: > I saw mention of 1953 Binghamton phone book; did it have an area code map? > I was wondering if there were any area code splits before 305/904 in 1965. When DDD came to Atlantic City, NJ in 1961, besides detailed instructions on how to use Area Codes, etc, we were told that Area Codes were not required to any call in NJ, although the map showed the 201/609 split. There was one list of central office codes and the approximate name of the locality served. A few years later, we were told to start using 201 for calls to Northern NJ. I have since heard that the algorithm for Area Codes was orginally something like this- 1. States with one area code had its second digit as 0; states with multiple area codes had all its area codes with a second digit as 1. 2. Lower numbers were reserved for areas with a large number of phones, so the time to dial NYC (212) for example took less time than less populated areas (like the state of Wyoming). As I further heard, NJ was originally just one area code (201), but it got split before DDD really got moving. -- Stan Krieger Summit NJ ------------------------------ To: telecom%xx.lcs.mit.edu@E.MS.UKY.EDU From: David Herron -- One of the vertebrae Subject: Re: Query about Telebit Date: 26 Jan 89 16:30:30 GMT In article boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) writes: > Do not use a Telebit modem on an amiga, that is if it's over 9600 baud. >Amiga systems use as a standard US Robotics ONLY! I have never found a 9600 + >baud system that operates with a US robotics. US, has promised to upgrade >their modems and promise compatibility. Without one, people will not be able >to call your BBS, trust me, I use one, and run a bbs. WHAT?!?!?! I've had my trailblazer hooked to my amiga and it worked just fine thank you. Perry, you're very very very confused ... Now if what you were trying to say is that BBS owners generally have US Robotics modems and if most of your business is with BBS's, then yes I agree you should get one of those modems. But my understanding with US Robotics modems is that even though they use V.29 there's a couple of funny things they do that makes the modem basically only useful with another USR modem. Of course I'm in nearly the same boat with my trailblazer, but I rest confident in that technically (at least) I made a better choice. Also, I'm a Unix person and Unix sites tend to have trailblazers ... -- <-- David Herron; an MMDF guy <-- ska: David le casse\*' {rutgers,uunet}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET <-- Now I know how Zonker felt when he graduated ... <-- Stop! Wait! I didn't mean to! ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: westmark!dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: cheap & easy circuit backup Date: 27 Jan 89 02:26:26 GMT In article , sybase!calvin!ben@Sun.COM (ben ullrich) writes: ... >we're looking for something that won't be too expensive, since we're something >of a smallish operation (only 16 did's and 16 co trunks) and don't have a lot >of money to dump into something we'll almost never need. > >one idea being kicked around is plain ol cellular phones... The use of cellular portable phones as backups when your CO trunks fail sounds like a good idea. But before you invest in them (approximately $1000 per telephone, and about $30/month per telephone before you make the first call) make sure you have decent radio coverage at your location. A cellular dealer ought to be able to demonstrate his product at your location. Also, be aware that conversations on such phones are public. Eavesdropping on cellular is illegal, but its also easy to do, and widely done, and the law is hard to enforce. -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sat Jan 28 01:46:18 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA22315; Sat, 28 Jan 89 01:46:18 EST Message-Id: <8901280646.AA22315@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89 1:31:49 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #34 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Jan 89 1:31:49 EST Volume 9 : Issue 34 Today's Topics: Re: Cellular Setup Re: Cellular Setup Cellular Fraud Two parties calling each other simultaneously My cordless remote stopped working Charging for international phone calls UK and USA Telephone Calling Cards old pay telephones Age of area codes/NAP Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) Subject: Re: Cellular Setup Date: 26 Jan 89 19:45:48 GMT You mentioned that there are set guidlines to the frequenciest that cellular phone services are allowed to use, however; when I had been futzing with my police scanner I had been able to hear cellular phone conversations. I am familiar with the laws that allow anyone to be able to listen to radio waves via radio sets. But why would they allow phone conversations to be set in these bands where anyone with a police scanner can eavesdrop? boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu ------------------------------ To: munnari!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.au!dave@uunet.UU.NET (Dave Horsfall) Subject: Re: Cellular Setup Date: 27 Jan 89 01:20:56 GMT In article , boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) writes: | | Question: Is it possible to access cellular setup channels and place fraudulent call with a ham radio? Unlikely - amateur radio equipment doesn't cover the 800MHz cellular band without heavy modification. Then you'd have to spoof the ESN's etc. -- Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel-STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave PCs haven't changed computing history - merely repeated it ------------------------------ From: smb@research.att.com Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 20:52:51 EST To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Cc: att!killer!mcsd!Athena!tim Subject: Cellular Fraud It is not impossible to change ESN in a phone, but is extremely difficult since it is manufactured physically into the unit, and is not generally documented by the manufacturer is public domain documnets for security reasons. Well -- maybe it's harder today, but a couple of years ago the N.Y. Times reported a fairly wide-spread business doctoring the id chips in phones. They said that the oddest thing was not that it was happening, but that it was decentralized -- lots of small-scale stuff, by lots of different folks who knew how to operate PROM burners. They didn't find what they expected: a few centralized shops with sophisticated crooks. --Steve Bellovin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 14:12:07 EST From: kevin@calvin.ee.cornell.edu (Kevin Tubbs) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Two parties calling each other simultaneously My Dad swears that about 10 years ago, he was calling a salesman somewhere. At the same time, the salesman decided to call my Dad. Both had apparently completed dialing, when their call "met in the middle" somehow! Is this really possible? Or do you suppose one of them picked up and dialed without listening for dial tone, when in reality he was dialing into the other guy's ear? My Dad seemed to think that each of them had gotten dial tone and dialed normally. BTW, this was a long distance (cross country) call. Any ideas? Kevin Tubbs, 5152 Upson, Cornell University, Ithaca NY, 14853 (607) 255-8703 kevin@calvin.ee.cornell.edu {uunet,rochester}!cornell!calvin!kevin ------------------------------ To: reed!tektronix!comp-dcom-telecom From: apple.i.intel.com!marko (Mark O'Shea) Subject: My cordless remote stopped working Date: 24 Jan 89 16:10:25 GMT I have a cordless remote phone from Sears (Too bad, I know). A while back it quit working. I called Sears and they told me it would cost the same amount to fix it as purchasing a new one-natch, the warranty was expired. So I put it away in the closet that holds all the handy home gadgets which need repair and I'll get around to someday... Well, about three or four months ago I heard something about how the batteries sometimes go bad and that could be the problem. So, I stopped off at my local Radio Shack and picked up a replacement set of batteries. I removed the old batteries and soldered in the new ones and put the phone on charge for 24-hours. At the end of the 24-hour period I got a dial tone, before the battery replacement there was no dial tone. After a few tries to dial out-with no luck-the dial tone went away. I had my sister-in-law call me and I tried to answer using this phone-no luck. No sister-in-law jokes please, I like mine. Is there possibly a simple fix for this beast? Is there a place that will fix it for a reasonable fee(<$50)? Shall I put it back in the handy gadget closet, shall I use it for 6mm, 87 grain impact testing? Thanks, Mark O'Shea SDA ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 14:39:18 PST From: dias@iris.ucdavis.edu (Gihan Dias) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Charging for international phone calls I have a question regarding how charges for international calls spanning multiple rate periods are computed. Are the number of minutes in each period charged at the appropriate rate, as domestic calls are, or is the whole call chared at the rate corresponding to the beginning of the call? for example, if the economy period extends upto 6.00 pm, followed by the standard rate period, How would I be charged for a 10 minute call starting at 5.56? Does anybody know if the charge computation is performed in different ways by different L.D. carriers, in particular, AT&T and MCI, or for different destination countries? Thanks, Gihan Dias ------------------------------ From: covert%covert.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (John R. Covert) Date: 27 Jan 89 18:07 To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: UK and USA Telephone Calling Cards >There are two ways of using a BT card to call england from the US. [Horror stories] >Solution is to get calling card number for US office, now all I have >to do is sort out the internal accounting . . . . It was recently announced on the AT&T news line that U.S., U.K., and Japan calling cards were about to become interchangeable, by some time in March. This would theoretically mean that you will soon be able to dial 01-44+ and just enter your U.K. card number at the tone, and away the call would go. The number to be used is just the domestic number (no 1M or 44M) with PIN. It may (I'm not sure) also mean that you will be able to use your U.K. card for domestic (0+) and possibly other international calls while in the U.S., and not just for calls back home as it is now. Is there an automated system being introduced within the U.K. for making calling card calls? DTMF pay phones seem to be being rapidly introduced. /john ------------------------------ From: xrtll!stephan@citi.umich.edu To: yunexus!telecom Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 18:00:35 EST Subject: old pay telephones I'm interested in buying an older style pay telephone. I'm talking about the all metal black ones with the three chrome coin slots protruding from the top. The only ones I have seen were from this antique dealer and were very expensive ($300 cdn). These had been repaired and looked like new and were obviously targetted at people with no knowledge of phones. I am willing to fix one myself as long as the basic unit is in good condition Unfortunately, I can't figure out where all of these units went to. Thank you in avance for you help. Stephan Deschenes WCOM Toronto ------------------------------ Subject: Age of area codes/NAP To: uunet!bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@uunet.UU.NET Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 20:46:12 EST From: David Lesher I remember seeing (on a 'personal' directory given away by Ohio Bell) that area codes would take effect on 1 January 1955. Can anybody else remember this date? Cleveland had 6 digit (or really two letter CO+4 digit) number asssignments just prior to then. ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: 27 Jan 89 18:59:32 GMT My favorite is that we had a close number to the pre-equal-access Sprint access number. It was one of our modem lines and we used to hear people dialing up and pushing touch tones trying to make long distance calls on our modem. -Ron ------------------------------ To: att!comp-dcom-telecom From: larryc@mtuxo.att.com (XMRH6-L.CHESAL) Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: 27 Jan 89 18:18:06 GMT I recall reading a story (in the Miami Herald Sunday magazine, I think) about a sportswriter who moved to a new town and as soon as he arrived, he got a call from a bar where someone asked him to settle a bet about the winner of the 19xx World Series or something. He was flattered, gave the right answer, hung up, and then couldn't figure out how they knew he was the new sportswriter in town. He then began getting calls asking for stuff like the average winter temperature in Brazil, the distance to the moon, and the genus and species of endangered animals. Turns out his new phone number was the same as the (recently changed) Reference section of the Public Library. Larry Chesal (201) 576-6179 att!mtuxo!larryc ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sat Jan 28 15:40:35 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA05993; Sat, 28 Jan 89 15:40:35 EST Message-Id: <8901282040.AA05993@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89 15:19:01 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #35 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sat, 28 Jan 89 15:19:01 EST Volume 9 : Issue 35 Today's Topics: AOS Experiences Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: Query about Telebit Re: area code map When DDD Began ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com To: telecom-request@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: AOS Experiences Date: Fri, 27-Jan-89 10:15:23 PST Had an interesting experience with a hotel phone the other day on a trip to Colorado Springs. Needed to make a few phone calls on my company credit card. Didn't have the numbers, so I was going to dial directory assistance on the card. Phone instructions say to dial 8+0+ for long distance (collect or credit card) calls. No problem thinks I, so I dial 8+0+616+555+1212. Get recording (lousy computer voice) saying number invalid. Try again after verifying that calls were authorized from room. (Many hotels disable calls when room is empty). Still get recording, so I dial 8+1+616+555+1212 and get through. Figure call will be billed to room. Now try to make call (8+0+616+xxx+xxxx) but notice that credit card tone was not AT&T tone. Wait for a few seconds and get recording "For Cheapest Rates, have your Mastercard or VISA number ready!" Thinking that I wasn't going to fall for this, I wait some more. Person comes on line and says "Long Distance Operator, May I Help You?" I said I wanted an AT&T operator and she put me through. Next call, same routine, except that AOS operator asks what hotel I am staying at. I tell her and she says to dial 8+00+. I tried this and was able to dial AT&T calls, including my card number with no intervention or problem. Interestingly, this technique was not posted anywhere in the room. I didn't bother asking what the AOS rate would have been, since I know it would have been a rip off. By the way, the AT&T operator volunteered that I would get the direct dial rate if I mentioned what I did to get through to AT&T. No surcharge... Moral: Ask for AT&T or hang up. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------------------ To: uunet!bu-cs.BU.EDU!telecom@uunet.UU.NET Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: 28 Jan 89 13:35:22 EST (Sat) From: john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US (John Owens) When my wife and I moved into our apartment in January, we got a number that had been recently given up by Jartran truck rental, who had closed their local office. To make things worse, the number had been Jartran's recently enough to be in the current phone book, published in January, just *after* we moved in. So, naturally, we got large numbers of calls asking if we could rent trucks. After we moved into our house (the apartment was temporary), we decided to go ahead and get the redirect intercept, so people could find us. [We had moved four times in four years; at one point, I could follow a chain of three old numbers where all the redirects were still in place.] Naturally, we still got calls for Jartran truck rental. Typical conversations: Caller: I'd like to rent a truck. Me: I'm sorry, you have the wrong number. Caller: Is this xxx-xxxx? Me: Yes it is, but that's the wrong number. Caller: But I got it from the recording. Me: Well, actually, the number you called to get the recording was wrong. Caller: How do you know what number I called? Me: It used to be our number. [Of course!] Caller: But it says right here in the phone book that yyy-yyyy is the Jartran number. Usually, of course, I wasn't this patient. One day, my wife was sick and stayed home from work. She got almost twenty calls for Jartran that day! [She said she doesn't know why they closed the office; they had plenty of potential business!] So she decided to do something about it, and called the local telco. They suggested redirecting to the special operator, who would ask who was being called and play either the redirect or a disconnect message. This worked out well, and we stopped getting calls for Jartran. A few months later, I got a call from an old friend who said he had had a terrible time trying to get my number. Every time he'd call the old number (long distance), he'd get the special operator, who'd ask who he was calling. He'd try to tell her, but she couldn't hear him, and would hang up. He finally got a local (to him) operator who knew what was happening: the LD company wouldn't open the voice path in the other direction until it got answer supervision and could start charging. She was able to force the path open, and he finally got the number.... One Bell System: it worked. -- John Owens john@jetson.UPMA.MD.US uunet!jetson!john +1 301 249 6000 john%jetson.uucp@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: It sure did work. If they wanted to open the market to a variety of long distance companies, that's fine with me. But why the judge felt he had to bash the smithereens out of the Bell System in the process is beyond me. PT] ------------------------------ To: ingr!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: guy@b11.INGR.COM (Guy Streeter) Subject: Re: Query about Telebit Date: 27 Jan 89 17:13:01 GMT In article boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 26, message 8 > > Do not use a Telebit modem on an amiga, that is if it's over 9600 baud. >Amiga systems use as a standard US Robotics ONLY!... I fail to comprehend these statements. Perhaps you mean to say that some piece of software you are running assumes it is talking to a USR modem, and is also incapable of >9600 baud? Nothing about the Amiga, hardware or system software, prevents th use of its serial port at higher speeds, or requires the use of a USR modem. -- Guy Streeter b11!guy@ingr.com ...uunet!ingr!b11!guy ------------------------------ Date: Sat Jan 28 02:48:19 1989 To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: area code map From: zygot!john@apple.com (John Higdon) On Jan 26 at 19:17, bruce nelson writes: > There weren't any area codes before the 60's. To call long distance, you had > to tell the operator what city and number you were calling. Excuse me. The NPA was established in about 1951. I happen to have a local 1956 telephone directory with an area code map and long distance dialing instructions. I remember that Grandma's phone number was preceded by "816" (she lived in Independence, MO) and then, as now, a "1" was not dialed before long distance. The operator was used only for collect, third party billing, and person to person calls. There certainly were area codes before the sixties! -- John Higdon john@zygot ..sun!{apple|cohesive|pacbell}!zygot!john ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jan 89 14:51:59 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: When DDD Began In the message just before this, John Higdon disputes a comment by another user regards the beginning of DDD (Direct Distance Dialing). He is partly correct, and partly wrong. Like all major improvements to the telephone, DDD was phased in across North America over several years, beginning, as Mr. Higdon points out, in the early 1950's. Area codes and prefixes were assigned everywhere -- even in communities which still had all manual service -- in the late forties, or by 1950 at the latest. Area codes and prefixes were used by rate/route/billing operators long before anyone could actually punch the corresponding buttons to place the call. A good telecom trivia question might be which community was the first to be able to place/receive DDD calls? Higdon is probably correct it was in 1951 or thereabouts; although I am not sure *who* they could dial until at least a few other communities were 'on-line'. During the early to middle fifties, there were some communities 'advanced enough' to have DDD available to them while other communities were still operating a manual exchange. The 'most advanced' DDD-equipped exchanges still had to use operator intervention to call manual systems or other dial systems not yet brought into the DDD program. Then there were communities which had dial service, but the numbering was not standardized. Fort Wayne, IN and La Fayette, IN were two example which come to mind. Typically, it was some GTE operating company whose numbering scheme was out of synch with AT&T's idea of how things were to be numbered. Northern Indiana has been 219 since the beginning; and central Indiana has always been 317; yet until around 1970 or so, long after we here in Chicago could direct dial 90 percent of North America, to place a call to Lafayette we still dialled "211" and passed the request to the operator. She likewise dialed nothing, but instead, plugged into a circuit and waited patiently until someone at the other end screamed "Lafayette!" at her. And Lafayette had local seven digit dialing at that...but no DDD because the local telco there resisted changing the way things were done. Lafayette's telco had a special arrangement with Purdue University: Purdue had automatic dialing on their campus before the town of Lafayette had dial service. In those days you just lifted the receiver and asked for Purdue. From a Purdue extension, dialing "9" brought a click, and silence until a Lafayette operator answered to place the local call, etc. Once Lafayette went dial, seven digit numbers were used with one exception: To reach Purdue you dialed "90" to reach the Purdue operators, or "92" plus the desired five digit extension on campus. Due to local politics, Lafayette would not change Purdue's main number from "90" to a more conventional seven digit number. Until they *did*, they could not have DDD and expect to reach Escanaba, MI or Memphis, TN or anywhere in Alaska with the same ease they reached the Student Union Building. Finally they came around, as did Fort Wayne and a lot of other cities who had all sorts of albiet convenient, but out of synch dialing routines. By the middle 1960's more and more telephone subscribers were able to DDD with fewer and few exceptions. When the original message writer said "...before 1960 you placed your calls with the long distance operator..." he may have been right in the context of *his* telephone exchange. Remember, Richmond, IN and Crown Point, IN went dial for the first time only in 1963. While Chicago started converting to dial in 1939, the job was not complete until 1951 in the city proper, and not until *1960* if you count all the suburbs. We dialed "711" to get northern Indiana suburbs still on manual service (getting an operator in Whiting who finished the job), and "911" to get an operator in the northern suburbs for communities like Fox Lake, IL which finally cut to dial in the early 60's. I guess saying that '...we had area codes and DDD in 1951...' depends entirely on what telco you were on. The first references to it in the Chicago phone book were 1956; and then in a limited way. An area code map was printed, but with the notation that not every place listed could be dialed direct at that time. I think it is safe to say by the middle sixties DDD was pretty much a part of American telephony. With the exception of Nevada toll stations, of course, and the one place in Maine which kept its old fashioned service for a few more years. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sun Jan 29 00:17:31 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA03460; Sun, 29 Jan 89 00:17:31 EST Message-Id: <8901290517.AA03460@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 0:02:27 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #36 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sun, 29 Jan 89 0:02:27 EST Volume 9 : Issue 36 Today's Topics: "Please press pound sign to disconnect your call now" Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards Re: Kredit Kard Kwestions Re: Cellular Setup Re: AT&T 1300 Answering system ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat 28 Jan 89 16:53:46-EST From: INTERMAIL@A.ISI.EDU Subject: "Please press pound sign to disconnect your call now" To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: "Robert Gutierrez / MCI ID: 367-9829" (I lost the original message about the person that used his calling card, and when using the pound, got disconnected from his call & was promped to dial another call.) ---------------------- It seems that the calling card switch that the caller was going through did not receive the signal that the call had been answered (answer supervision), and such, the switch rec'd the pound touch- tone, and disco'ed the call. Even though the terminating switch received answer supervision (which is all that matters for the billing computers), apparently the terminating switch did not pass it up the line to the calling card switch, and such the card switch still thought the call had not been answered. With calling card switches, it is critical that answer supervision be monitored closely, or you run into problems like this. (doesn't AT&T have CCS-6???, or are some AT&T switches still using in-band signalling???). We had the same problems when a lot of our calls terminated onto Feature Group-A circuts, where we had to rely on our switch to monitor the call for ringing tones and telco announcements (alert tones, then the call progress announcement), but now that we terminate onto FG-B & FG-D circuts, that problem was history. Try explaining this to an AT&T billing rep when you get your bill. I'm sure they'll take the call off your bill (it will be obvious, X amount of calls were 1 min, and the last was over 1 minute), but it is a hassle that you have to do that in the first place. ________ (Lick and place "The Usual Disclaimers" stamp here ===>|Place | |Stamp | |Here | --------- Robert Gutierrez MCI Telecommuncations Western Region Trouble Management Center Hayward, California. ------------------------------ To: comdesign!bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@apple.com From: comdesign!ivucsb!steve@apple.com (Stevie Lemke) Subject: Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards Date: 28 Jan 89 21:02:53 GMT Sorry if this has already been discussed (don't know how I could've missed it, but anyway...): Is the four digit PIN on a calling card computed from some sort of algorithm or is it randomly assigned for each phone number? It just seems strange that just about any phone anywhere can instantly tell if you dialed the correct PIN that corresponds to your calling card number. I realize computers are really fast these days and all, but I just thought it might be some sort of algorithm or something. However, that brings up the issue of what happens when someone discovers your number and you have to request a new one, so they can invalidate the old one. I've never had this happen, so I'm not sure what the procedure is. The only thing that got me thinking about this was this: I have a calling card from GTE for my home phone. I recently called AT&T to ask them for one of the magnetic (plastic) cards since my paper one doesn't work in the neat AT&T phones with card readers. I gave the AT&T employee my phone number, but not my LD PIN. She said the card that would be sent to me would have the same PIN as my GTE card. I was wondering if this was some sort of "PIN-sharing" they have worked out, or if they use this "algorithm". I guess it must be a database, but does anyone have any more positive info. on this? ----- Steve Lemke ------------------- "MS-DOS (OS/2, etc.) - just say no!" ----- Internet: steve@ivucsb.UUCP AppleLink: Lemke ----- uucp: apple!comdesign!ivucsb!steve CompuServe: 73627,570 ----- Quote: "What'd I go to college for?" "You had fun, didn't you?" ------------------------------ To: ucbvax!comp-dcom-telecom@ee.UCLA.EDU From: ucla-an!denwa!jimmy@ee.UCLA.EDU (Jim Gottlieb) Subject: Re: Kredit Kard Kwestions Date: 28 Jan 89 17:17:59 GMT In article , black%ll-micro@ll-vlsi.arpa (Jerry Glomph Black) writes: > > First, a comment on the PIN brouhaha: AT&T cards (and BOC cards) always have > had your PIN number right on the card, but as it's a 4-digit number, most I like the way New York Tel does it (I think it's the only thing I like about them). Their calling card has ONLY the PIN on it, at least in cases where the first ten digits are the same as your phone number. This makes the most sense. You already know the first ten. And if someone finds the calling card, with just the PIN it's worthless to them. > I'm a bit perplexed by the 'international' number > on the bottom: 1M,<10-digit phone no.>,<1 digit>. It seems pretty easy to > guess or 'exhaustively' determine the digit for anyone, if it only takes a > maximum of 10 tries! True. It follows a check-digit system like calling cards used to. It _is_ rather easy to figure out (given a few different cards to look at), but it can only be used from outside the US so the potential for abuse is minimized. Though I guess you _could_ hack up a similar number for the country you wanted to call to from here. > A mundane question: I have a Sprint FON card. It gives the 800-877-8000 > number to access the service, but no mention of a 950-1022 or whatever Sprint has eliminated their 950 numbers for calling card use. It is now only for those poor slobs without Equal Access. -- Jim G. E-Mail: or ^^^^^^ V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 ------------------------------ To: gatech!comp-dcom-telecom From: wa4mei!rsj@gatech.edu (Randy Jarrett WA4MEI) Subject: Re: Cellular Setup Date: 28 Jan 89 15:18:47 GMT In article boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 24, message 4 > >Question: How is phase shifting actually involved in communications between >the mobile unit and the switching office ? > >Question: Is it possible to access cellular setup channels and place a >fraudulent call with a ham radio? > >Thanks for your help .. > >Perry I can't be much help in answering your first question but I would like to say something about your second question. There are authorized Amateur Radio (ham) frequencies that are near to the cellular phone channels but the equipment required to access cellular telephone services are very specialized and very different from ham radio equipment. It is probably not possible for a ham to use his equipment to access the cellular services but it would be possible for anyone with the proper knowledge to make changes to cellular phone equipment and make it look (respond with the proper digital codes) like someone elses. So I guess that the bottom line is that no, it is not possible to access cellular channels and place fraudulent calls with ham radio. -- Randy Jarrett WA4MEI UUCP ...!gatech!wa4mei!rsj | US SNAIL: P.O. Box 941217 PHONE +1 404 493 9017 | Atlanta, GA 30341-0217 ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: gotway@inuxa.UUCP (J Gotway) Subject: Re: AT&T 1300 Answering system Date: 27 Jan 89 19:09:31 GMT > We received an AT&T 1300 answering machine for Christmas. > I am happy with the machine, but do not like how many rings > it waits until it answers (about 6). If I had saved all receipts > and boxes and stuff, and if it had been gotten at an AT&T phone > store, I could have gotten an upgrade to one that adjusts the number > of rings until it picks up. > > Anyway, is it possible through a chip or some other modification, to > modify my machine to answer on fewer rings? I realize that my warrenty > would be void, but if it is simple, I'd like to try it. The Answering System 1300 is a basic answering system with a fixed ring setting. It will answer after the 4th ring is received. This is programmed into the microprocessor software, and it cannot be bypassed or changed without coding up a new microprocessor. The only situations that might cause a report of the machine answering after more than 4 rings are: 1) The first ring in the house is really an abbreviated ring (less than 500 msec), so it is not recognized/counted by the machine. Then, the AS1300 will answer on the 5th ring rather than the 4th. 2) The customer is listening to the ringback over the telephone line, and that ringback is not synchronized with the local ringing. Over the line there might be fewer or more than 4 ringbacks, before the machine answers. 3) The customer's particular unit is defective. In this case it should be returned to the AT&T phone center or other retailer for replacement with a new unit. All of the other AT&T Answering System products have a ring select option (usually 2 or 4 rings with toll saver option). The new AT&T 1330 Answering System has a customer programmable ring select from 1-9 rings. -- Jerry Gotway AT&T Consumer Products Labs. P.O. Box 1008 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206 inuxa!gotway (317) 845-4523 or CORNET 338-4523 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Mon Jan 30 02:37:26 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA15685; Mon, 30 Jan 89 02:37:26 EST Message-Id: <8901300737.AA15685@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 1:07:01 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #37 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Mon, 30 Jan 89 1:07:01 EST Volume 9 : Issue 37 Today's Topics: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit Equal Access? My Foot! Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit Date: 28 Jan 89 22:17:04 GMT [Moderator's Note: The information which follows, up to the next note from myself, was provided by Starlink, and Denia Bennett-Howard (Portal handle: 'pooka'). My thanks for this detailed chart. PT] A COMPARISON OF STARLINK AND PC PURSUIT The following list compares STARLINK's outdial access points with those of Telenet. These are the actual cities you can reach by accessing your local dial-in node and issuing the outdial command. As you can see, there are many more STARLINK outdials than there are Telenet outdials. In addition, with STARLINK, you are not restricted to the actual outdial city. You can precede the number to be dialed with a "1" and call any BBS in that area code. You will be billed for the long distance call from the outdial port to the host computer at the local phone company's rates. Outdial Host Numbers Sorted by Time Zone, State, Eastern Time Zone ----------- State/ Tymnet Outdial Telenet Node City Host # Area Code Access Point --------------- ------ --------- ------------ Connecticut Bloomfield 9128 203 Hartford 9128 203 D/CTHAR/12 Stamford 9129 203 D.C Washington 2262 703 D/DCWAS/3/12/24 Florida Fort Lauderdale 7123 305 m Jacksonville 5797 904 m Longwood 7096 305 m Miami 6582 305 D/FLMIA/3/12/24 Orlando 7096 305 m Tampa 5518 813 m D/FLTAM/3/12/24 Georgia Atlanta 8795 404 D/GAATL/3/12/24 Doraville 8795 404 Marietta 8795 404 Norcross 8795 404 Indiana Indianapolis 9349 317 Maryland Baltimore 4600 301 Massachusetts Boston 8796 617 D/MABOS/3/12/24 Cambridge 8796 617 New Jersey Camden 8693 609 m Englewood Cliffs 6319 201 m Newark 7618 201 D/NJNEW/3/12/24 Pennsauken 8693 609 m Princeton 8920 609 South Brunswick 8920 609 New York Albany 9192 518 m Buffalo 9194 716 m Melville 8811 516 m New York 1059 212 D/NYNYO/3/12/24 (for 718, must use 1718 + phone number) Pittsford 6019 716 Rochester 6019 716 White Plains 8571 914 North Carolina Charlotte 6793 704 Research Triangle Park, NC 919 D/NCRTP/3/12 Ohio Akron 8740 216 m Cincinnati 1785 513 Cleveland 4222 216 D/OHCLE/3/12/24 Columbus 9347 614 Dayton 9511 513 m Pennsylvania Philadelphia 9581 215 D/PAPHI/3/12/24 Pittsburgh 7408 412 Rhode Island Providence 9130 401 Virginia Alexandria 2262 703 D/DCWAS/3/12/24 Arlington 2262 703 D/DCWAS/3/12/24 Fairfax 2262 703 Midlothian 7339 804 m Norfolk 6986 804 m Portsmouth 6986 804 m Central Time Zone ----------- Alabama Birmingham 4101 205 Illinois Chicago 8257 312 D/ILCHI/3/12/24 Glen Ellyn 8944 312 m (for 815, must use 1815 + phone number) Kansas Wichita 8013 316 m Michigan Detroit 8794 313 D/MIDET/3/12/24 Minnesota Minneapolis 3494 612 D/MNMIN/3/12 St. Paul 3494 612 Missouri Bridgeton 8978 314 Independence 8615 913 Kansas City 8615 913 D/MOKCI/3/12/24 St. Louis 8978 314 D/MOSLO/3 (for 618, must use 1618 + phone number) Nebraska Omaha 2521 402 m Oklahoma Oklahoma City 9165 405 Tulsa 6605 918 Tennessee Memphis 1551 901 m Nashville 9141 615 Texas Arlington 9337 817 Dallas 2948 214 D/TXDAL/3/12/24 (for 817, must use 817 + phone number) Fort Worth 9337 817 Houston 4562 713 San Antonio 9169 512 Wisconsin Brookfield 9167 414 Milwaukee 9167 414 D/WIMIL/3/12/24 Mountain Time Zone ---------- Arizona Mesa 9532 602 Phoenix 9532 602 D/AZPHO/3/12 Tucson 4751 602 m & SpStnaJct calls must use 1 + phone number [see coverage.txt]) Colorado Aurora 2584 303 Boulder 2584 303 Denver 2584 303 D/CODEN/3/12/24 Utah Salt Lake City ---- 801 D/UTSLC/3/12/24 Pacific Time Zone ----------- California Alhambra 9204 818 m Anaheim 9184 714 Colton, CA ---- 714 D/CACOL/3/12/24 El Segundo 9203 203 m Glendale, CA ---- 818 D/CAGLE/12 Long Beach 9205 213 m Los Angeles, CA ---- 213 D/CALAN/3/12/24 Newport Beach 9184 714 Oakland 8963 415 D/CAOAK/3/12/24 Palo Alto, CA ---- 415 D/CAPAL/12 Pasadena 9204 818 m Pleasanton 9202 415 m Sacramento 9179 916 D/CASAC/3/12/24 San Diego, CA ---- 619 D/CASDI/3/12/24 San Francisco 9533 415 D/CASFA/3/12/24 San Jose 6450 408 D/CASJO/12 Santa Ana, CA ---- 714 D/CASAN/12 Sherman Oaks 9206 818 m Vernon 3173 213 Walnut Creek 9202 415 m Oregon Portland, OR ---- 503 D/ORPOR/3/12 Washington Bellevue 9170 206 Seattle 9170 206 D/WASEA/3 FOREIGN ACCESS: The following countries have direct dial-in access to STARLINK: CANADA ALBERTA:Calgary BRITISH COLUMBIA:Burnaby,Vancouver ONTARIO:Kitchner,Ottawa,Toronto,Windsor QUEBEC:Montreal,Quebec City, Ville St. Laurent (Off peak rates from these cities is billed at $4.00 per hour.) (Other Canadian cities can reach STARLINK via DataPac.) UNITED KINGDOM: (Via Mercury) London (Off peak access from London is billed at $10.00 per hour.) For more information about STARLINK, call 804-495-INFO by modem or 804-495-4693 by voice. [Moderator's Note: As you can see, there are several places reachable via Starlink/Tymnet not reachable by PCP and vice versa. PCP seems to be especially heavy in California, where Starlink has somewhat less coverage in that state. However, Starlink allows calls to Canada and the UK, something Telenet absolutely forbids. The folks at Starlink operate their own Information Service/BBS/Chat at the 804-495-INFO number. One nice thing about it is they give UPI at no extra surcharge. They also offer hookups to Reuter News Service, the Official Airline Guide and a travel/hotel/car rental reservations system. My understanding is that the $10 per month or $25 per month fee, which allows purchase of Starlink at $1.50 per hour or $1.00 per hour respectively, also gives you a certain amount of free time on their own system. Of course, you have to use Starlink to call them, and pay for the Starlink time. Another point which troubles me a little is their use of somewhat misleading or out of context statements describing the cost of their service versus the new rates at PCP. In messages which discuss 'how much you will save' by using their service at $25 plus $1 per hour versus PCP, they are saying that PCP will charge $4.50 per hour after 30 hours, which is only correct if you do not purchase *multiple accounts from Telenet at 30X30*. Quite obviously, two or three accounts from PCP at 30X30 is only $60 or $90 per month. The same 60 hours at Starlink would be either $10+(1.50x60=90)+$100 per month or $25+(1x60=60)=$85 per month, depending on how you pay for it. 90 hours per month would be $10+(1.50x90=135)=$145 per month or $25+(1x90=90)=$115 per month. For heavy users then, multiple accounts with Telenet would still be cheaper than Starlink at $60 on PCP versus $85/$100 on Starlink. The latter is only a bargain for the very casual user of less than around 20 hours per month or the user who wishes to call Canada or the UK. I will get a Starlink account as a supplement to my PCP account and use it for places not served by PCP. And of course, Tymnet/Starlink addressing is much easier; just a four digit number gets your connection versus the longer Telenet scheme. Finally, Starlink allows the placement of calls via an outdial modem to a point outside the local calling zone. Telenet does not. With some clever planning, you can use a nearby outdial to call anywhere. Starlink told me the surcharge for this would be 110% of telco. Starlink versus PCP? You will have to decide, based on your own use and applications. P. Townson] ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From att!ihwpt!peter Subject: Equal Access?? My foot!! Date: 27 Jan 89 15:54:59 GMT Should I ask Harold Green For $30.00? ===================================== Here is a tale of woe. We were in Florida on vacation when I tried to make a call from the hotel room phone to Chicago. Wanting to use the AT&T as a long distance carrier (I am an employee plus I get a discount), I dialed an operator and got an "International Telecharge" operator somewhere in Texas. When I asked to be connected to an AT&T operator, the reply was "we cannot do that" (!!). So I went to a payphone on the street and got exactly the same result!!! The "equall access code" (i.e. 01-288) did not work either. So I asked the ITI operator how can I go about making a long distance call using AT&T, her answer was that if I dial direct using my AT&T credit card, the call would be automatically billed to AT&T. Somehow that did not sound right to me, but I went ahead and dialed DIRECTLY using AT&T card. What choice did I have at that point anyway? Well, you may have guessed it. When the bill came, all the calls were billed as International Telecharge Operator Assisted (!!) calls. The price? About $1.25 a minute for a late evening call from Florida (Marco Island) to Chicago. I can call Europe for less than that! I called Illinois Bell and Southern Bell consumer affair departments and basically their answer was, sorry, but that is the way it is. I guess I am out of 30 bucks and somewhat wiser. But if this is what the deregulation was all about, I think it stinks. Peter Pavlovcik, att!iexist!peter [Moderator's Note: Yep, that is what degregulation is all about. Why don't you write Harold Greene and tell him what a mess he has made of the phone network. Share his response with us, if he deigns to answer you.] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jan 89 02:09:57 PST From: Keith Brown To: lll-winken!ames!killer!vector!telecom-request Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Along these same (wrong number confusion) lines... A local fraternal organization (which should remain nameless except they're probably most- known for their in-lodge bar rather than community efforts) has a number just like our's except for the rolled last digit pair. Well, we're used to the "Is Harry there (spoken just like your grandfather would 'bark' it when he felt ornery at not being able to find his buddy)?" But one day a couple of years ago, one of our local matrons called us accidentally; and in a very stuporous state, wanted all kinds of company. I'd even do, it didn't matter that this wasn't the lodge, or that I didn't belong to the lodge, or that I was, oh, 30 years her junior. As the Teaneck or Brentwood of Oregon, this just isn't what I'd expected from our locals. Oh well, I'd seen The Graduate. -Keith Keith Brown UUCP: {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs ihnp4}!tektronix!reed!keithb BITNET: keith@reed.BITNET ARPA: keithb%reed.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu CSNET: reed!keithb@Tektronix.CSNET CIS: 72615,216 ------------------------------ To: gatech!comp-dcom-telecom From: ut-emx!rick@cs.utexas.edu (Rick Watson) Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: 30 Jan 89 02:48:49 GMT We used to have 454-1212 (remember what 555-1212 is). We got pretty good at just looking up the number in the book for the unsuspecting caller. My roomate would look up the number and then see how much time he could spend getting the caller to talk about the weather in their part of the country, etc. Rick Watson University of Texas Computation Center arpa: watson@utadnx.cc.utexas.edu (128.83.1.26) uucp: ...cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!rick bitnet: watson@utadnx span: utspan::watson (UTSPAN is 25.128) phone: 512/471-8220 512/471-3241 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Tue Jan 31 04:12:11 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA24385; Tue, 31 Jan 89 04:12:11 EST Message-Id: <8901310912.AA24385@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 3:57:50 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #38 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Tue, 31 Jan 89 3:57:50 EST Volume 9 : Issue 38 Today's Topics: Re: USA-Direct Re: USA-Direct Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards Re: Excuses instead of info More Thoughts on Starlink [Moderator's Note: system 'dockmaster' seems to be gone. With it went three users: eshoo@docmaster.arpa; fishman@dockmaster.arpa; neufeld@ dockmaster.arpa. In addition, system 'pioneer.arc.nasa.gov' has been unreachable in recent days. From there we have lost a user: jerry@ pioneer.arc.nasa.gov. Will anyone familiar with these users please notify them to contact me with a new address. Thank you. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 22:13:06 EST From: harvard!ima.ISC.COM!johnl (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: USA-Direct In article gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) writes: >I also fail to see how using USADIRECT saves time or hassle. If you >have to go to a special phone, it almost certainly does neither. It >might save money, but it might not. From the above country X, it is >possible to use a pre-paid phone card or coins at many phones to call >the U.S. at direct dial rates. Depending on how long you talk, it may >be cheaper than USADIRECT. ... I guess you've never tried to make a credit card call from Country X (which, for the purposes of argument, we'll call France.) You pick up the phone, then you dial 19-3311 to make an operated assisted call to North America. (This is in the phone book, but if you have trouble reading French or your hotel room doesn't have that volume of the phone book, that might not be much help.) An operator answers, and you explain what you want, in French, repeating everything about three times if you have an American accent like mine. Fine, they say, we'll call you back. Wait about 1/2 hour. They call you back, then your call is completed. With USA Direct, I dial 19-0011 from any phone and three seconds later a voice says "AT&T, may I help you." You can indeed use a phone card, but the standard 40 unit phone card is only enough for about three minutes and I don't believe you have the opportunity to stick in a fresh card when the old one runs out. You can use 10 franc coins, but the phones don't make change* so if your call costs 11 francs you lose the other nine. It's true that calling card calls from France aren't discounted by time of day (a holdover from the bad old days, these days in France you get the evening rate even from noon to 1PM because everyone's at lunch) and the direct-dial evening rate may be slightly cheaper, but USA Direct is so much easier, particularly if you're traveling on business and can get reimbursed for calls if you have a recipt, that I'll never use anything else. Regards, John Levine, johnl@ima.isc.com * - In Germany, if you use a large coin to make a cheap call, there's a button on the phone you can push, put in the actual amount the call cost, and get your large coin back. Only in Germany do they expect people to understand that. ------------------------------ From: rja Date: 30 Jan 89 12:19:41 GMT To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET Subject: Re: USA-Direct In article , gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) writes: [ stuff deleted here for bandwidth ] > For the country I inquired about, it is the same price every minute > of every day. That rate is fairly reasonable too (except for the > fact that there is no reason that there should not be off peak use > discounts) and the mandatory operator assisted charges. > [ more stuff deleted here] > > Based on the above information, I would say that the 'no extra > charge' is just marketing hype. They set the rates and then > they say there is no *EXTRA* charge. The charges are definitely > not the same from X to USA as from the USA to X, even if both > are operated assisted. > For USA Direct calls placed from Hong Kong, the call is billed at the US rate meaning the same cost as if the call had been placed from the receiving US number, including any time-of-day discounts. This can be a big savings in HK since all calls originating in HK are billed at the 'standard' rate otherwise. The HK Telco is also prone to lie and say that it is cheaper to call from HK to the US than from the US to HK. For 16 hours a day calls from the US are cheaper than calls from HK, and for the remaining 8 hours the cost is the same either way. Moreover, since HK is 12 hours away then afternoon phone calls from HK get billed at the midnight-7am night US rate if you use USA Direct -- this is great for FAXes. My experience is that it is cheaper to use USA Direct during most of the day than it is to call the US directly (whether by cash or phonecard). As an aside, the HK Telco is the least helpful of any Telco/PTT I've had to deal with anywhere in the world. I suspect that each country overseas imposes slightly different rules on AT&T so that looking into each country's situation would be advisable. ______________________________________________________________________________ rja@edison.GE.COM or ...uunet!virginia!edison!rja via Internet (preferable) via uucp (if you must) ______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu Date: Mon Jan 30 09:36:21 1989 From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) Subject: Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards In article comdesign!ivucsb!steve@apple.com (Stevie Lemke) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 36, message 2 > >Sorry if this has already been discussed (don't know how I could've missed >it, but anyway...): > >Is the four digit PIN on a calling card computed from some sort of algorithm >or is it randomly assigned for each phone number? It just seems strange that >just about any phone anywhere can instantly tell if you dialed the correct >PIN that corresponds to your calling card number. A few years back I knew a person who had a matrix (on paper) of the mapping for these numbers. It was _SIMPLE_; only one or two digits of the "PIN" controlled whether the number you entered worked, and those digits mapped to your phone number. The algorythm was also 'dense' in that more than one mapping was valid (I got curious about the table and mapped my own phone number -- the number calculated did NOT match the one the Telco had issued but BOTH worked!) Thus it was possible (but highly illegal) to bill calls to numbers like "1-555-000-0000"! These calls would COMPLETE -- who knows where the bill went to. I assume that eventually these calls would end up in the "no such account" bin, and someone would get interested in them..... The worst part of this, of course, is that given a person's phone number you could bill calls to their line (!) Supposedly the information came from a group of people at a local university that had done a computer analysis on a large number of valid CC #s to derive the algorythm. Who knows if that part was true..... or where they got the "large number of valid CC#s" to start with..... for all I know he figured it out himself. I've no idea if this kind of thing is possible anymore - - but some years ago it certainly was! I would assume the telephone companies have something better than a simple digit-mapping scheme now if it is still based on an internal computation at all. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 22:24:49 EST From: harvard!ima.ISC.COM!johnl (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: PINs and Calling Cards as credit cards In article comdesign!ivucsb!steve@apple.com (Stevie Lemke) writes: >Is the four digit PIN on a calling card computed from some sort of algorithm >or is it randomly assigned for each phone number? ,,, It's random. My cousin who runs a little telco in western Vermont had to write a program for his computer to make up PINs for his few customers who want calling cards. The PINs are all stored in a huge replicated data base. He said that there is a very complicated multi-step procedure to get his updates into the data base. As has been noted before, AT&T shares calling card numbers with the local operating companies, other LD companies generally don't although they are starting to now. Regards, John Levine, johnl@ima.isc.com ------------------------------ To: ulysses!comp-dcom-telecom From: jbh@mibte.UUCP (James Harvey) Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info Date: 30 Jan 89 13:26:36 GMT In article , childers@avsd writes: > In article mcgp1!donn@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Donn Pedro) writes: > > >If I gave out the ringback codes to everyone who asked it would > >not be available for our use for testing. People used it to > >busy out their phones so as not to be disturbed. > > Can you document this, or is this what your supervisor told you to say ? > > > Donn F Pedro {the known world}!uw-beaver!tikal!mcgp1!donn > > -- richard YES, supervisors tell you to say this, it's TRUE. More frequently, people use the ringback numbers as an intercom, (call ringback, wait till somebody upstairs picks up extension, talk). -- Jim Harvey | "Ask not for whom the bell Michigan Bell Telephone | tolls and you will only pay 29777 Telegraph | Station-to-Station rates." Southfield, Mich. 48034 | ulysses!gamma!mibte!jbh ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 03:02:20 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: More Thoughts on Starlink Actually, after 'putting the Digest to bed' early Monday morning with issue 37, I did some more thinking about the pricing. I did this after getting ready for bed when I had my shoes off so I could count higher than ten by using my toes. If you consider strictly the dollar amount -- no other factors -- then Starlink becomes more expensive than Telenet PCP after about 12 hours per month. I would not recommend it to anyone merely as a way to 'save money on data calls'. I'd say the only advantage to Starlink is if you find a place on the chart published yesterday which is not served by PCP which you call regularly. Or, if you want to make use of their own service including the links to the various news services, etc. Your $10 or $25 per month fee is not purely an administrative charge: they do give you time 'for free' on their own system to offset the monthly fee. I'd like to hear the experiences of some of you who subscribe to Starlink after a month or so of using it. They also claim their 'throughput' is much faster than Telenet, meaning you would probably spend less time on line each day. Who knows, maybe you could get done in 12 hours what formerly took 30 hours on PCP? Patrick ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Tue Jan 31 04:43:51 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA26465; Tue, 31 Jan 89 04:43:51 EST Message-Id: <8901310943.AA26465@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 4:25:00 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #39 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Tue, 31 Jan 89 4:25:00 EST Volume 9 : Issue 39 Today's Topics: Re: Query about Telebit Re: 1+areacode Re: 1+areacode Re: When DDD Began Info on Cellular Telephones Cellular Data Comm. from a stationary phone Phones in the movies and on TV Ringback that just won't quit Don't blame Judge Greene Re: Victims of wrong numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU From: desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) Subject: Re: Query about Telebit Date: 30 Jan 89 19:31:09 GMT In article david%ms.uky.edu@E.MS.UKY.EDU (David Herron -- One of the vertebrae) writes: >In article boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) writes: > >> Do not use a Telebit modem on an amiga, that is if it's over 9600 baud. >>Amiga systems use as a standard US Robotics ONLY! I have never found a 9600 + >>baud system that operates with a US robotics. > >[...] But my understanding >with US Robotics modems is that even though they use V.29 there's >a couple of funny things they do that makes the modem basically only >useful with another USR modem. US Robotics COURRIER HST modems use a proprietary modulation scheme which looks like V.29 in the forward direction with a tiny bit of bandwidth down around 300 Hz for a 300 bps reverse channel without echo cancellation. (a scheme like this has been proposed for standardization, and has gone under the temporary name V.asm - asm for asymmetric.) It runs a hacked version of MNP, which you don't really want to turn off. It sounds like a good idea, but it loses because MNP, even for single characters, is just too slow over the 300bps channel. Telebits or ping-pong V.29 modems will give you much better response time. With the Telebit, it can spoof Kermit or UUCP, instead of having MNP fighting your transfer protocol to slow things down. There are a lot of things I haven't explained in this article, but I didn't want to write 5 or 10 pages. E-mail me if you want more discussion on the technical (as opposed to practical :-) merits of various modems. Peter Desnoyers ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) Subject: Re: 1+areacode Date: 30 Jan 89 21:33:06 GMT > It's obvious we're running out of area codes, simply because new services > open up more phone numbers. In the beginning, for example, there was > Centrex. So, instead of a medium office building having 20 phone lines > (and phone numbers), with an operator switching calls in the building, > the building may still have only 20 phone lines to the outside, but > could be using 200 phone numbers for each of the inside phones. What you're describing is NOT Centrex. Centrex runs a line from the CO to each phone. You are describing the traditional PBX with DID. -Ron ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: 1+areacode Date: Mon Jan 30 19:25:12 1989 From: tanner@ki4pv (Dr. T. Andrews) The explanation that the "1+" enable distinguishing between area codes and exchanges is nice, but not entirely clear. Consider North Jersey. One site I call there has an exchange of 615. Another site I call has an area code of 615. (From here, no problem. I supply the area code before the 615 exchange.) In NJ but out of the local area for dialing exchange 615, what happens when the machine dials 1+615 ... ? Does it ring through after 4 more digits, or does it wait for 7 more? (Does it have a time-out in case only 4 follow?) --- ...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner or... {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Jan 89 22:21:02 EST From: harvard!ima.ISC.COM!johnl (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: When DDD Began In article telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >I think it is safe to say by the middle sixties DDD was pretty much a part >of American telephony. With the exception of Nevada toll stations, of >course, and the one place in Maine which kept its old fashioned service >for a few more years. I thought that Catalina Island, offshore near Los Angeles, had a manual exchange until about 1978. It was reputed to be the Bell System's last manual exchange. Regards, John Levine, johnl@ima.isc.com [Moderator's Note: I don't know when Avalon, CA (the town on the island) went dial. Was it as late as 1978? What about Martha's Vineyard, MA and Nantucket Island, MA? I know Vineyard Haven and Edgartown had manual service until sometime around the early seventies. PT] ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: dauksa@ecf.toronto.edu (Linas P Dauksa) Subject: Info on Cellular Telephones Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 20:47:50 EST I am preparing a presentation on Cellular Telephones and am having difficulty finding technical information on the subject. The purpose of my presentation is to explain to a "layman" how a cellular telephone and the cellular network function. I would appretiate any references to books or periodicals that may be out there. Any information would be greatly appretiated. ------------------------------ To: husc6!comp-dcom-telecom@husc6.harvard.edu From: soi!sam@husc6.harvard.edu (Sam Lipson) Subject: Cellular Data Comm. from a stationary phone Date: 30 Jan 89 05:36:36 GMT I've read the discussion of cell-switch delays that was recently posted to this group, and I'm wondering what guarantees you have when you're stationary that you won't get switched to another cell. Presumably if there's no cell switching going on, you should be able to use a normal (i.e. not designed for cellular use) modem to send bits. Would this work? Is signal strength a good indication of whether you're safe from hand-off? Please send replies by mail, I'm suumarize if there's interest. Sam Lipson Software Options harvard!soi!sam soi!sam@harvard.harvard.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 12:28:58 PST From: laura_halliday@mtsg.ubc.ca To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Phones in the movies and on TV I saw something interesting in a TV show the other day. A lawyer, finding his client dead of a drug overdose didn't pick up the phone and dramatically say ``Operator, get me the police'' - he dialed 911 instead. This was the first time I've ever noticed a movie or TV character do this. Could this be the result of phone company pressure? I find it difficult to believe that producers would voluntarily give up a few seconds of drama unless they were forced to. The subliminal advertisers who place products in movies (e.g. Reese's Pieces in _E.T._) seem to be missing out on a new gold mine. Imagine the possible effect on AT&T's long distance business if the hero in a hit movie could be (conspicuously) seen dialing 10288 in the course of phoning somebody... - laura ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 08:20:12 EDT From: eli@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM (Steve Elias) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Ringback that just won't quit 10 or 15 years ago, in a suburban boston exchange, a friend and i discovered ringback codes... 981-xxxx worked in our area... here's where things get strange: sometimes the ringback just would not stop. you could pick up the phone, leave it offhook for a minute, hang up -- and the ringback would start again... and even stranger: sometimes, the ringback would be a continous ring -- not the normal intermittent bell. this didn't happen very often... steve elias (eli@spdcc.com) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 09:39:09 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Don't blame Judge Greene Peter Pavlvcik complains about ITI providing misleading information regarding pay telephone charges and service and the Moderator suggests Peter write to Judge Greene. Don't waste your time. The outrageous charges are the result of policy decisions taken by the FCC prior to divestiture (e.g. deregulating resale). If you want to complain to anyone, it should be to the FCC or to the local PUC. I note that ITI has been banned from operating in Ohio by the Ohio PUC because of the type of misleading practices Peter describes. Marvin Sirbu Carnegie Mellon University internet: ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu bitnet: ms6b+%andrew@CMCCVB [Moderator's Note: But it was Harold who opened the door to this kind of abuse. Certainly the FCC played a role in it; but everyone, including the FCC, took the lead from His Onery, Judge Greene. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jan 89 01:01:28 EST From: levitt@zorro.FIDONET.ORG (Ken Levitt) Subject: Re: Victims of wrong numbers To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu In our town there were two exchanges, 655 and 653. After having one of our numbers for 9 years, we suddenly started getting numerous wrong numbers. It turned out that a new catalogue showroom store had just opened and had the 653 number corresponding to our 655 number. When I complained to the store manager, he suggested we change our phone number. I told him that we had been using our number for 9 years and he had been using his for two weeks but this failed to convince him to change his number. I also pointed out that he would be loosing a lot of business if many of his calls were routed to an unfriendly phone number. Nothing changed his mind. Many of the calls were similar to ones reported in previous Telecom Digests and I did find myself takeing phone orders for merchandise. Usually I just told people that we don't take phone calls and hung up. Finally, I changed the message on our answering machine to a very generic one and left the machine on all of the time. One of the funniest messages that I ever got was from one of the store's employees saying that he would not be into work that day. After two years of this the store went out of business. All was quiet for a year or so and then we started getting a lot of calls for Tommy. The calls came at strange hours, the people sounded kind of spacey, and even though there seemed to be a wide variety of people calling when I answered the phone, no one ever left a message on the machine. I came up with a theory that Tommy must be a drug dealer. For a while when people called for Tommy, I told them that he wasn't in and asked them if they wanted to leave a message. No one would ever leave a message. Then the calls died down and I forgot about Tommy until this week when we found a message on the machine saying "Tommy, this is your mom, please call me.". You would think that Tommy's mom would be able to tell that the voice on the tape was not Tommy's. Ken Levitt FidoNet: 1:16/390 (Mail accepted 01:30-07:00 est) UUCP: ...harvard!talcott!zorro!levitt INTERNET: levitt%zorro.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Wed Feb 1 02:17:14 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA12299; Wed, 1 Feb 89 02:17:14 EST Message-Id: <8902010717.AA12299@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 1:15:31 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #40 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Wed, 1 Feb 89 1:15:31 EST Volume 9 : Issue 40 Today's Topics: General purpose, programmable phone switch Re: Alternative Operator Services? Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: Cellular Setup Re: 1+areacode Ringback-a-rama [Moderator's Note: Yesterday I mentioned that 'dockmaster' seems to be history. I'd like to reconnect with those users if anyone knows how to reach them otherwise. Now today I find via half a dozen mail-daemons (automated postmaster replies) that 'decwrl.dec.com' is troubled. That is the location of long-time user Mr. Covert and the distribution list he carries. Let's hope they will be back on line soon! P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 30 Jan 89 18:07:05-CST From: Clive Dawson Subject: General purpose, programmable phone switch To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu More and more often over the last several months, we have seen messages to TELECOM inquiring whether or not a box exists which will do "x", where x is some function dealing with counting the number of rings on a line, connecting two lines together in various configurations, automatically answering, automatically dialing, etc. It seems clear that a good market exists for a general purpose, programmable phone system which would allow the user to implement custom versions of all the "x"es mentioned above. Consider a system which you could connect to two or more phone lines, together with a processor and a programming language which would direct the system to perform various "primitive" actions such as: . pickup line n . hangup line n . wait for line n to ring k times . wait for k rings on line n . connect line m to line n . input a tone sequence from line n . output a tone sequence to line n . wait for dialtone on line n and possibly even: . input sound-bite a from line n . output sound-bite a to line n etc. Such a system would allow you to implement various customized call screening functions, call forwarding functions, call-back functions, etc. Here are some brief sketches of sample tasks, leaving out most of the gory details: Call screening: Silence bell; Wait for line 1 to ring 5 times; pickup line 1; input tone sequence; if tone sequence equals xxxxxxx, activate bell with ring pattern y. Remote calling function (insecure version): Wait for line 1 to ring 1 time; pickup line 1; pickup line 2; wait for dialtone on line 2; connect line 2 to line 1. Remote calling function (more secure): Wait for line 1 to ring 1 time; pickup line 1; input tone sequence from line 1; if tone sequence = yyyyyyy then: pickup line 2; wait for dialtone on line 2; connect line 2 to line 1. Remote calling function (very secure, with call-back): Wait for line 1 to ring 1 time; pickup line 1; input tone sequence from line 1; if tone sequence = yyyyyyy then: hangup line 1; pickup line 2; wait for dialtone on line 2; send tone sequence abcdefg to line 2; wait for 3 rings on line 2; pickup line 1; wait for dialtone on line 1; connect line 1 to line 2. The above examples are very sloppy, but you get the idea. There would have to be mechanisms to detect busy signals, etc. (One thing I'm not sure about is how to detect when a remote phone hangs up; is there an in-band signal for this?) I suspect that all of this functionality exists in one form or another in various answering machines, automatic dialers, call screening boxes, etc. The question is, has anybody thought of putting it all into a single box and making it programmable by the user? There. Now I've added my own "Is there a box which will do x?" question to the list! :-) Clive Dawson ------- ------------------------------ To: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu From: usenet@bbx.UUCP (USENET manager) Subject: Re: Alternative Operator Services? Date: 30 Jan 89 15:54:21 GMT In article <1363@moscom.UUCP> jgp@moscom.UUCP (Jim Prescott) writes: >The problem at hotels isn't that you might get routed though some bozo LD >company but that the hotel is a reseller of telephone communications and >can thus charge whatever they want to. One of the more obnoxious setups >that I know of is charging customers 175% of the AT&T day rates for all >guest calls while placing the call with the hotel's low-cost WATS lines. >Even calls that don't cost the hotel anything (locals, credit card, reverse >charged etc.) can get a surcharge tacked on. > The problem that I have had is that even the lobby phone might be passed through one of the dippy LD companies. The only clue that you might get is that the 'thank you' message doesn't say the whole string of 'thank you for using AT&T' - just the thank you part. The only technique I've found is to wait after the tone and force a human operator to come on the line - at that point I can usually insist on getting an AT&T operator. At least the call is only billed at operator assisted rates and not the horrible surcharge some of the LD resellers will apply. BTW - if you want to see some *really* horrible phone charges I've got some old hotel bills from a trip 2 years aro in Germany. The room charge was about $100.00 a night - my 40 minute call to the U.S. cost $400.00. I fought it and won back the hotel charge - all $350.00 of it. I think that the German PTT has modified some of its rules since then - but I seldom call from a hotel - and only long enough to pass a message and have the other end call back. -- Russ Kepler - system admininstrator for bbx - Basis International SNAILMAIL: 5901 Jefferson NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109 UUCP: {backboneishsite}!unmvax!bbx!russ PHONE: 505-345-5232 ------------------------------ To: ulysses!comp-dcom-telecom From: jbh@mibte.UUCP (James Harvey) Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: 31 Jan 89 17:46:55 GMT In article , cucstud!wb8foz@uunet.UU.NET (David Lesher) writes: > The classic had to be Mike Royko, columnist for the [Chicago Tribune]. > AT&T had new 800-xxxxxxx customer service number. Alas, Mike's home phone > was 312-xxxxxxx. He wrote a nice piece about how he was going to tell all the > people calling they didn't deserve service and he would see to it they were > disconnected, and various other threats. Seems to me Ma ended up taking out > an ad in his paper, next to his space to beg forgiveness. > > > [Moderator's Note: Actually, it was his office phone. The [Chicago Tribune] > centrex is 312-222. His private number 312-222-3xxx was commonly dialed by > people wanting AT&T at 1-800-222-3xxx. These were people who failed to dial > the 1-800 first. AT&T frequently advertises in the Chicago papers, but their > ad in this instance was to remind people to 'dial 1-800 first, when calling a > toll-free number.' I think the easiest telephone number to remember in the > world must be the Tribune classified ad-takers: 312-222-2222. P. Townson] > > ----------------------------- > I thought this number was disconnected in most areas. The reason I heard was that there is a defective dialer chip that is/was very popular in cordless phones with automatic redial function, memory etc. The defective chip would fail in such a way that it would take the phone off hook and start dialing twos all by itself. -- Jim Harvey | "Ask not for whom the bell Michigan Bell Telephone | tolls and you will only pay 29777 Telegraph | Station-to-Station rates." Southfield, Mich. 48034 | ulysses!gamma!mibte!jbh [Moderator's Note: It is still listed in large, colorful bold print on the front page of the advertising tabloid they insert in the paper each day. "Dial 222-2222 to place your ad now!" The number and whatever it hunts to terminates in an ACD in the Classified Ads Department. 3000-4000 phone calls are received daily at 35 'advertising counselor' positions, so it is possible they would not recognize a wrong number if they got one. PT] ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) Subject: Re: Cellular Setup Date: 31 Jan 89 21:01:57 GMT Because the EPCA is a crock, that's why. Just because they pass a law doesn't mean people will stop doing it. Actually, in all likely hood if you are probing the police bands what you probably detected is the cheapo cordless phone frequencies in the 46 and 49 MHz range. Real Cellular calls are in the 800 MHz range. Very few scanners actually cover this. A few have had this range specifically blanked out (like the Radio Shack, but it's just a matter of pulling a diode out to get them back). You don't even need a scanner, just tune an old UHF TV set up to Channel 81-83. -Ron [Moderator's Note: An old UHF TV with those channels won't work as well as one of the radios which play television audio only. In this country you can buy them for the VHF channels, but I beleive they are illegal per FCC rules where UHF is concerned. A company in Toronto makes the kind which cover the UHF band, and specifically covering channels 80-83 or thereabouts. But their mail order advertising clearly states 'not for sale in the United States. We cannot fill orders to the USA'. They were selling them here like hotcakes for awhile, until Uncle Sugar put the heat on the Canadian govern- ment to help enforce FCC rules down here. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 12:04:14 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: 1+areacode To answer Tanner: To reach the 201-615 prefix from anywhere in the 201 area (even if long distance), you would dial only 615-xxxx. This is not confused with calling area 615 in Tennessee, because that requires 1-615-xxx-xxxx. On direct dial calls, you apparently NEVER depend on timeout. In some areas, you dial (or used to dial) 1+number to call long distance within your areacode. This held for Maryland (also in 703 area in Va.) outside the DC area, but now there are N0X/N1X prefixes in the Washington DC area, so that usage of 1+number was changed to 1+areacode+number, using your own areacode. (DC and suburbs had used areacode+number for long distance, even within 301 or 703, but this also changed to 1+areacode+number.) In areas NOT having 1+number usage, the leading 1 means that what follows is an area code. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 09:49:23 EST From: Jerry Glomph Black To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Ringback-a-rama May I politely request that the moderator suspend the discussion on ringback codes (or at least excise references to specific numbers). The number in the following message (Jan 31 digest) is a working exchange in Suburban Boston. I know that, because it's mine! With that complaint, my childhood ringback in Philadelphia (20 yrs ago!) was 579-(wait for dialtone)-6-(hang up). >>From: eli@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM (Steve Elias) >Subject: Ringback that just won't quit > >10 or 15 years ago, in a suburban boston exchange, a friend and >i discovered ringback codes... 981-xxxx worked in our area... >here's where things get strange: >sometimes the ringback just would not stop. you could pick up >the phone, leave it offhook for a minute, hang up -- and the >ringback would start again... >and even stranger: sometimes, the ringback would be a continous >ring -- not the normal intermittent bell. this didn't happen very often... [Moderator's Note: You're right. It has really been milked enough. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Thu Feb 2 02:51:03 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA29382; Thu, 2 Feb 89 02:51:03 EST Message-Id: <8902020751.AA29382@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 2:26:27 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #41 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 Feb 89 2:26:27 EST Volume 9 : Issue 41 Today's Topics: Re: Cellular Fraud Re: Cellular Setup Re: Cellular Setup Re: Cellular Setup Re: Cellular Setup [Moderator's Note: This issue of the Digest is devoted entirely to the mail I've received on cellular phones and some of the problems involved with them. Part two of the Digest for 2-9, to be issued in a few minutes will continue discussing the problems encountered when attempting to use AT&T long distance service from hotels and payphones, etc. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: mcsd!killer!comp-dcom-telecom From: tim@Athena.UUCP (Tim Dawson) Subject: Re: Cellular Fraud Date: 1 Feb 89 19:21:42 GMT In article smb@research.att.com writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 34, message 3 > > > It is not impossible to change ESN in a phone, but is > extremely difficult since it is manufactured physically into > the unit, and is not generally documented by the manufacturer > is public domain documnets for security reasons. > >Well -- maybe it's harder today, but a couple of years ago the N.Y. Times >reported a fairly wide-spread business doctoring the id chips in phones. >They said that the oddest thing was not that it was happening, but that >it was decentralized -- lots of small-scale stuff, by lots of different >folks who knew how to operate PROM burners. They didn't find what they >expected: a few centralized shops with sophisticated crooks. > > --Steve Bellovin Steve: I made this statement based on having primary exposure to Motorola cellular phone equipment where: 1) The prom with the ESN is potted into the radio cabinet. Therefore you cannot tell what kind of prom is in use. 2) The leads coming off the prom come out on a ribbon cable in random order to plug into the motherboard, so you can't necessarily determine how to access/read the prom. 3) The format by which the data is blown into the prom is also undocumented. This prom (at least on Motorola phones) is NOT the same chip as the NAM which is readily available/documented to the world. Are you sure that the above comment did not refer to changing the Mobiles phone number, which is stored in the NAM, not with the ESN?? Also, on newer phones the ESN is burned into a prom area in the Logic Module in the phone, which is a custom LSI which handles all the functionality of the phone, making it virtually impossible to change since these devices are not alterable or available to the general public. Heck, even if somebody DID get a hold of one, they would be stuck with the ESN blown into it at manufactuing, since they are built with an ESN in them. Once again let me state that I do not know how other vendors of cellular equipment handle this, since my only knowledge base is having worked for Motorola in the Cellular product area. Also, as an additional side note, cellular systems (Motorola again) are typically set up to reject or flag multiple calls from the same ESN or Mobile number, since this an impossible situation with the concept of the unique ESN. Hence, the system operators get informed of this type of fraud in a pretty big hurry if the questionable unit is used much. Once again, I have no idea about what other vendors of Cellular Equipment do or do not do, so I could be all wet as for as they go. -- ================================================================================ Tim Dawson (...!killer!mcsd!Athena!tim) Motorola Computer Systems, Dallas, TX. "The opinions expressed above do not relect those of my employer - often even I cannot figure out what I am talking about." ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) Subject: Re: Cellular Setup Date: 1 Feb 89 16:03:29 GMT In article ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: >X-TELECOM-Digest: volume 9, issue 40, message 4 > >Because the EPCA is a crock, that's why. Just because they pass a law >doesn't mean people will stop doing it. Actually, in all likely hood >if you are probing the police bands what you probably detected is the >cheapo cordless phone frequencies in the 46 and 49 MHz range. Real >Cellular calls are in the 800 MHz range. Very few scanners actually >cover this. A few have had this range specifically blanked out (like >the Radio Shack, but it's just a matter of pulling a diode out to >get them back). > Actually, when I picked up phone conversations over the police scanner before the call was initiated I heard a series of tones, beeps, and rings. The call was made and I heard the conversations. I know it was from mobile phones, nothing can convince me other wise. I know all this since particular conversations said theat they were in their car, or wherever. if this is all true? then there is a possible dangers that these tones could be recorded and broadcasted over the same band width with a little electronic experience and high quality recording equipment. That can't be right that would be too simple. ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) Subject: Re: Cellular Setup Date: 1 Feb 89 19:09:12 GMT > [Moderator's Note: An old UHF TV with those channels won't work as well as > one of the radios which play television audio only. In this country you > can buy them for the VHF channels, but I beleive they are illegal per FCC > rules where UHF is concerned. This comment tacked on to my posting is wrong. Those radios usually have the same piece of crap receiver for the audio that most TV's have. Receivers covering that band are not illegal. The main reason is that it is expensive to add the expanded UHF feature to these cheap radios. However, many manufacturers shy away from putting the cellular bands in their radios now either fearing law suits or that they are manufacturers of cellular equipment. Calling the EPCA an FCC rule is a bit inaccurate. It's congressional tomfoolery. POSTERS NOTE: It would be much nicer if Pat had something that it would be enclosed as a seperate "message" in the digest rather than tacking on comments to other people's messages. [Moderator's Note: Your suggestion is well taken. It is not the 'piece of crap audio' that mattes so much as it is that the circuitry in televisions is different that the circuitry in radios. Yes, EPCA is one thing, and FCC rules are another. The telcos have repeatedly complained to the FCC about people listening to cellular phone calls. PT] ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: davef@brspyr1.brs.com (Dave Fiske) Subject: Re: Cellular Setup Date: 1 Feb 89 19:23:15 GMT In article , boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) writes: > > You mentioned that there are set guidlines to the frequenciest that > cellular phone services are allowed to use, however; when I had been > futzing with my police scanner I had been able to hear cellular phone Chances are you were hearing conversations being made with a CORDLESS phone, as opposed to cellular. The cordless phones use frequencies in the 40-50 MHz range, which most scanners cover. > conversations. I am familiar with the laws that allow anyone to be able > to listen to radio waves via radio sets. But why would they allow > phone conversations to be set in these bands where anyone with a police > scanner can eavesdrop? There was a court case which decided the issue of privacy of cordless phone conversations. These guys were arrested, having been overheard by police arranging a drug deal using a cordless phone. Their attorney argued that this constituted eavesdropping by the police, but the judge ruled that they should have known they could be overheard. Cordless phone conversations are not considered confidential. Since this case, there has been a bit more publicity and manufacturers' warnings about the lack of privacy when using cordless phones. When I lived in an apartment complex, I was setting up the frequencies for my scanner, and found someone talking on the phone once. (I don't recall the precise frequencies right now, but all you have to do is look in the descriptions of the cordless phones in the Radio Shack catalog.) Once in a while I would check to see if anybody was talking on the phone, but most of the time it was just teenagers chatting, until, inevitably one of them would say they were coming right over to the other's apartment. If they had done that first, they could have saved a phone call! In reality, most people's phone calls are pretty boring, so the novelty of listening in wears off quickly, and this is probably as effective as any regulation would be in keeping eavesdropping to a minimum. :^) Also, keep in mind that it hasn't been all that long since people had party lines, where eavesdropping is as simple as lifting the receiver. -- "FLYING ELEPHANTS DROP COW Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) PIES ON HORRIFIED CROWD!" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 13:59:23 PST From: Jeff Woolsey Subject: Re: Cellular Setup In article ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: >You don't even need a scanner, just tune an old UHF TV set up to >Channel 81-83. >[Moderator's Note: An old UHF TV with those channels won't work as >well as one of the radios which play television audio only. In this >country you can buy them for the VHF channels, but I believe they are >illegal per FCC rules where UHF is concerned. A company in Toronto >makes the kind which cover the UHF band, and specifically covering >channels 80-83 or thereabouts. I have an old Pioneer TVX-9500 TV Sound Tuner that gets those channels. At first I didn't know what I was listening to up there, but it was interesting. This same tuner also gets NOAA weather stations when channels 7, 8, 9, and 10 are all selected at the same time. -- -- When it comes to humility, I'm the greatest. -- Bullwinkle J. Moose Jeff Woolsey woolsey@nsc.NSC.COM -or- woolsey@umn-cs.cs.umn.EDU ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Thu Feb 2 04:11:50 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA04734; Thu, 2 Feb 89 04:11:50 EST Message-Id: <8902020911.AA04734@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 3:22:10 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #42 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 Feb 89 3:22:10 EST Volume 9 : Issue 42 Today's Topics: Ripped off by the long distance carrier Hotel (and pay-phone) Horrors Re: Equal Access?? My foot!! Internat'l calling card woes A Modest Proposal Re: Don't blame Judge Greene A Response to Mr. Sirbu [Moderator's Note: This is part two of the Digest for 2-2-89. I've grouped together several messages from readers complaining of thier difficulty in making a straight-forward long distance call. I am also pleased to share a letter recieved from Marvin Sirbu criticizing my earlier comments on the MFJ. Mail continues to run heavy; I am about two days behind in postings. Bear with me. P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 02:21:42 EST From: finn@eleazar.Dartmouth.EDU (Andy Behrens) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Ripped off by the long distance carrier On a recent trip to Connecticut, I made several phone calls from my hotel, charging them to a calling card. I didn't think to ask which long distance carrier would be used. (Yes, I should have known better). I got my phone bill today. One of the calls would have cost about $6 if I had placed it through an AT&T or Sprint operator -- and even less if I had dialed it directly. Telesphere/T.E.N. charged me $18.45. Do I have any recourse? What happens if I tell my local telephone company that I won't pay that portion of the bill? (They are billing me "as a service to Telesphere"). For that matter, does anyone know the address of the Connecticut Public Utilities Commission? -- Live justly, love gently, walk humbly. Andy Behrens andyb@coat.uucp internet: andyb%coat@dartmouth.edu uucp: {harvard,decvax}!dartvax!coat!andyb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 12:34:53 EST From: Jerry Glomph Black To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Hotel (and pay-phone) Horrors Yes, hotel thievery for LD calls is a time-honored tradition, e.g., >The problem that I have had is that even the lobby phone might be passed >through one of the dippy LD companies. The only clue that you might get >is that the 'thank you' message doesn't say the whole string of 'thank >you for using AT&T' - just the thank you part. > >The only technique I've found is to wait after the tone and force a human >operator to come on the line - at that point I can usually insist on getting >an AT&T operator. At least the call is only billed at operator assisted >rates and not the horrible surcharge some of the LD resellers will apply. > This is why it's not such a bad idea to get a credit card from one of the LD companies which is accessed through an 800-number. Most major hotel chains charge ->ZERO<- for 800- calls. Most (yes, I know, not all) COCOTS will let you get through free to 800- numbers. The most nasty COCOTS kill the tone generator after the call, so if you're not carrying a DTMF beeper (does anyone out there? They cost a few bucks.) you can wait for the Sprint (or whomever) operator to answer, so you pay normal op-assist rates. Much better than hotel or COCOT rates. There are a few 'can't-get-there-from-here' situations, like those nasty COCOTS at highway (GOTCHA!) rest areas, but in general, a little flexibility (and patience) pay off. ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: boottrax@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Perry Victor Lea) Subject: Re: Equal Access?? My foot!! Date: 1 Feb 89 15:52:44 GMT In article anon@nowhere.uucp writes: > >Well, you may have guessed it. When the bill came, all the calls were >billed as International Telecharge Operator Assisted (!!) calls. The price? >About $1.25 a minute for a late evening call from Florida (Marco Island) >to Chicago. I can call Europe for less than that! > I was in the same situation when I tried using my ATT calling card from a phone up in Minneapolis. THe phone was assignbed to the MCI long distance service.. I never made the call and just quietly charged the guys house for the long distance call. ( He's my best friend, so he expects me to pull stunts like that). I couldn't understand why it was so hard to dial a 1800 and enter a calling card number from an MCI phone? ------------------------------ To: att!comp-dcom-telecom From: harvard!gatech!ihlpb.ATT.COM!kerns (Kerns) Subject: Internat'l calling card woes Date: 1 Feb 89 22:42:24 GMT I had another problem with International Calling Cards. While in Europe last month, I had no trouble using a public telephone in France and Germany - and getting connected to a US operator using my trusty AT&T calling card. In Switzerland, you can't use a public phone on the street, but must go to a PTT office where they can connect you. But Austria was a different story. On a public phone on the street I couldn't use my calling card, because the operator had to call me back - and there are no numbers on public phones. So I went to the PTT office and explained that I wanted to call a US number using my international calling card. They claimed there was absolutely no way they could do it. (They were willing to collect the call charge right there, or make a collect card.) So I called from my hotel, and was hit with a 300% surcharge when I checked out. $70 for my hotel bill, $90 for my phone call - about 15 minutes worth. Last time I call anyone from a hotel, especially in Europe. John Kerns AT&T Bell Labs ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 10:59:17 PST From: HECTOR MYERSTON Subject: A Modest Proposal To: Telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu It seems to me that: (1) Many people want to use AT&T Calling Cards from various places but cannot (2) AT&T is losing revenue because of (1) It does not take an MBA to figure out that it would be the advantage of both frustrated users and AT&T if a universal, non-blockable means of dialing an AT&T operator existed. How?, a Local Exchange Number ala FG A?, a 950- FG-D number?, 800 ?, 900?. ?????? The problem is not just that some AOS are crooks, it is also that AT&T is as imaginative in its services as the water company. ------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 12:13:51 -0500 (EST) From: Marvin Sirbu To: telecom-request@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Don't blame Judge Greene PT- How could Harold have "opened the door to this kind of abuse" if it was authorized by the FCC prior to any act taken by Judge Greene? To assert that "everyone, including the FCC, took the lead from His Onery, Judge Greene" is to ignore the fact that it was in 1969--five years before the Antitrust suit heard by Judge Greene was even filed!-- that the FCC authorized competition in long distance, and 1980, more than a year before the decision to break up AT&T was made, that unlimited resale was authorized, opening up the market for alternative operator services companies. Remember also that the Modification of Final Judgement is a Consent Decree. That means, it is a decision which was agreed to by the parties (the Justice Department and AT&T) and presented to the court for its approval. Judge Greene never proposed divestiture, Assistant Attorney General Baxter, and AT&T President Charles Brown did. And they did so not under pressure from Judge Greene, but in order to derail legislation then pending in Congress which would have been even worse! (See for example Temin, Peter, "The Fall of the Bell System," (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1987). There are many things one can blame on Judge Greene (continuing restrictions on RBOC participation in information services, for example), but there are many parties in the story of telecommunications policy evolution: and the FCC, the Justice Department and the Congress have been messing around since long before Judge Greene got involved. You do a great service in moderating the telecom digest, but please, check your facts before flaming. Marvin Sirbu Professor of Engineering and Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 03:19:41 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: A Response to Mr. Sirbu Dear Mr. Sirbu, Your participation in our little Digest is deeply appreciated. Persons with your background in telecom are always valued resources in discussion groups such as comp.dcom.telecom/[Telecom Digest]. But I think you misunderstood me. I have NEVER spoken against competition in long distance services. Some of them are woefully inadequate for my needs; many of them promise 'savings over AT&T' which never actually materialize. But so be it. Nor have I ever objected to the *right* of AOS companies to operate, as worthless as they are, and as deceptive as they are in their operations. Yes of course the FCC approved alternative LD services in 1969. I remember well that MCI's first application to Illinois Bell was fraudulent on its face; claiming they wanted merely to have 'limited service between Chicago and St. Louis for a few selected customers'. But I digress: all are free to compete, but why did Judge Greene feel that AT&T had to be broken up in the process? A built in bias against AT&T was prevalent throughout the procedings. You rightly noted the end result was a Consent Decree. Are you forgetting that if I held a gun to your head you would 'consent' to anything I requested? It has been claimed that AT&T signed off on the decree because they wanted to go into the computer business. A casual glance at that side of the business today would show that it has been a miserable failure for the company. Either some very poor business judgment was used to 'decide to enter the computer business' or else there was more to it than my former neighbor Charlie Brown wanted to discuss. You reference Peter Temin's account, and while it is comprehensive, Mr. Temin was not without his own axes to grind. I should talk, huh! Perhaps you saw my essay on the subject which appeared in [Telephony Magazine] and [EMMS Newsletter] at the time. As to the exact chronology of events, I don't think it is all that important which came first and which came later. A word from Harold Greene at any phase of the proceedings carried a lot of weight. And the word from Harold was you can dump on AT&T with impunity in his courtroom. Even the largest corporation in the world deserves to be treated ethically and fairly. Again, my thanks for your participation here. Patrick Townson TELECOM Digest Moderator ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Fri Feb 3 02:04:36 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA08488; Fri, 3 Feb 89 02:04:36 EST Message-Id: <8902030704.AA08488@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 1:45:22 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #43 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 Feb 89 1:45:22 EST Volume 9 : Issue 43 Today's Topics: Subscriber's Line Cross-connected Re: 1+areacode Re: 1+areacode Re: 1+areacode Info on Spectrum products: Bridge and Span Re: cheap & easy circuit backup re: Cellular Setup Re: Info on Cellular Telephones Re: Excuses instead of info [Moderator's Note: This is part one of two parts for Friday, 2-3-89. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ron Watkins Subject: Subscriber's Line Cross-connected To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 07:09:09 EDT Having just received my ATT phone bill, I note there were 10 long distance calls that I didn't make...matter of fact, this second phone line has never had a "phone" on it....just my modem (and I only call one number). ATT service insisted that I or my wife made the calls, and even if we didn't, they couldn't do anything and referred me to New England Telephone. NET service was extremely helpful and even called those numbers (asking if they received a call from us...no, they don't know us...etc), thus NET belives that my wires are "cross connected" somewhere... My question is..if I "cancel" this number and get a new number...would that correct the cross connection at the central office (if the cross connection is there)...and if the problem persists (perhaps we notice that next month the same phone numbers are on the bill) then does it show that the cross connections is in the lines running down the street ? (dividing the problem in half). I was only concerned because NET said the problem is very hard to find and it could persist for months.... I live in Boxboro MA and I'm not even sure where my service comes from... thank you Ron ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 12:40:17 EST From: harriss@Alliant.COM (Martin Harriss) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: 1+areacode I think there may have been another reason for prefixing area codes with '1'. On exchanges which were not register controlled, it was neccesasry to discriminate between a local and long distance call at the beginning of the dialled number. On a step by step strowger switch, for instance, you would dial 1 and be stepped to the 1st level. Connected to this level would be trunks to your LD switching center which would suck in all the subsequent digits and route the call appropriately. This scheme would also work for calls within your area code which were not local. I'm not sure under what circumstances this was done, but I'm pretty sure that it did happen sometimes. Perhaps someone on this newsgroup knows more? Martin Harriss {linus,mit-eddie}!alliant!harriss ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: westmark!dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: 1+areacode Date: 3 Feb 89 02:47:17 GMT In article , tanner@ki4pv (Dr. T. Andrews) writes: > The explanation that the "1+" enable distinguishing between area > codes and exchanges is nice, but not entirely clear. > > Consider North Jersey. One site I call there has an exchange of 615. > Another site I call has an area code of 615. (From here, no problem. > I supply the area code before the 615 exchange.) > > In NJ but out of the local area for dialing exchange 615, what happens > when the machine dials 1+615 ... ? Does it ring through after 4 more > digits, or does it wait for 7 more? (Does it have a time-out in case > only 4 follow?) A reply from North Jersey: >From anywhere in the 201 (North Jersey) area code, to anywhere else in the 201 area code, we dial only 7 digits. So if I were calling that site from here, I'd dial 615-xxxx, even though it's a toll call to Middletown from Warren. If I were trying to call area code 615, I would have to dial 1+615-xxx-xxxx. For an operator-assisted call to Middletown, NJ, I'd dial 0+201+615+xxxx. There is nothing ambiguous, and nothing requiring a time-out. If it begins with 1 or 0, it has ten more digits. If it begins with 2-9, it has six more digits. This is the dial-plan recommendation for all of the North American numering plan --- but some places don't do it yet, because they don't need to, yet. In most of the United States, 1+ is permitted, even where it is not required, for all area-code calls. (What is going away is 1+7 digits for intra-npa toll calls, as that _is_ ambiguous.) -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Date: Thu Feb 2 11:21:16 1989 From: goldstein%delni.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388) Subject: Re: 1+areacode tanner@ki4pv (Dr. T. Andrews) writes, >The explanation that the "1+" enable distinguishing between area >codes and exchanges is nice, but not entirely clear. >Consider North Jersey. One site I call there has an exchange of 615. >Another site I call has an area code of 615. (From here, no problem. >I supply the area code before the 615 exchange.) >In NJ but out of the local area for dialing exchange 615, what happens >when the machine dials 1+615 ... ? Does it ring through after 4 more >digits, or does it wait for 7 more? (Does it have a time-out in case >only 4 follow?) The North American Numbering Plan specifies that "1+" indicates that an area code is coming, NOT a toll call. Some telcos used 1+ to indicate TOLL coming, because stepper switches could simply cut through to a smarter toll switch when 1 was dialed. But that custom was never followed in New Jersey. If I pick up a phone in NJ and dial 907-9971, I get Teaneck. 1907 gets Alaska. Easy, no? Never a timeout. Hence 1615 will always wait for 7 more digits, while 615 will wait for 4 more digits. ----- ------------------------------ To: mit-eddie!comp-dcom-telecom From: mit-amt!jrd@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Jim Davis) Subject: Info on Spectrum products: Bridge and Span Date: 2 Feb 89 00:53:12 GMT I am considering buying a cellular telephone modem made by Spectrum Cellular of Dallas Texas. This modem, called "the Bridge" uses a propriatry error correction protocol (SPCL) and is capable of buffering and retransmission. If it works, it will be worth it, since thus far I've had nothing but trouble using ordinary modems with cellular phones. Cellular phone lines are noisy and subject to unpredicatable brief drops in audio. Even 300 baud modems (ick) are subject to noise. I'd like to know if anyone out there has experience with this product. Spectrum says that some of the Bell companies are reselling this technology under the Bell name. That's a nice endorsement, but I've never seen an independant product review. I would be grateful to hear your comments. If mail does not work, I'll take collect calls at 617-253-0314 -- Internet: jrd@media-lab.media.mit.edu Phone: (617)-253-0314 USMail: E15-325, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139 ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) Subject: Prices For Cellular Phones Date: 30 Jan 89 21:37:16 GMT Your prices for Cellular telephones are a little inacurate. A luggable, as opossed to handheld, telephone is only about $500. The phone service here is only about $11 for the yuppie plan. ------------------------------ From: judice%kyoa.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (L Judice / 201-562-4103 / DTN 323-4103) Date: 2 Feb 89 10:51 To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: re: Cellular Setup In regards to the write who found mobile telephone calls in the VHF-HI band, these are probably IMTS calls (Improved Mobile Telephone Service, the pre-cursor to cellular). IMTS operates in the 152 Mhz band, and I believe in one or two UHF and VHF-LO bands. /ljj ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: westmark!dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Info on Cellular Telephones Date: 3 Feb 89 02:56:17 GMT In article , dauksa@ecf.toronto.edu (Linas P Dauksa) writes: > I am preparing a presentation on Cellular Telephones and am having difficulty finding technical information on the subject. The purpose of my presentation > is to explain to a "layman" how a cellular telephone and the cellular network > function. I would appretiate any references to books or periodicals that > may be out there. Any information would be greatly appretiated. The Bell System Technical Journal (now called AT&T Technical Journal) Vol 58, No 1, Part 3, January 1979, is an entire issue devoted to Cellular Telephony - then known as AMPS (Advanced Mobile Phone Service). It explains the theory, the development history, the initial service tests, and the hardware. This volume is probably orderable from: The AT&T Customer Information Center 1-800-432-6600 -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: davef@brspyr1.brs.com (Dave Fiske) Subject: Re: Excuses instead of info Date: 2 Feb 89 18:53:50 GMT In article , jbh@mibte.UUCP (James Harvey) writes: < In article , childers@avsd writes: < > In article mcgp1!donn@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Donn Pedro) writes: < > < > >If I gave out the ringback codes to everyone who asked it would < > >not be available for our use for testing. People used it to < > >busy out their phones so as not to be disturbed. < > < > Can you document this, or is this what your supervisor told you to say ? < YES, supervisors tell you to say this, it's TRUE. More < frequently, people use the ringback numbers as an intercom, (call < ringback, wait till somebody upstairs picks up extension, talk). In Connecticut, back in the '60s, we used to dial 1199 to make the phone ring to be able to talk to someone who was upstairs, etc. My father used to like to do this, and put on phony voices to try and fool other members of the family. I myself once came up with the idea of, as the family was leaving to go shopping, dialing the ringback number as I left the house. An hour later, when we returned, I watched in glee as the rest of the family rushed to unlock the door. "Hurry up! The phone is ringing." It never occurred to us that we might be tying up phone company resources, so I can imagine, with lots of people doing this wantonly, it could easily become a problem. Even now, a friend of mine leaves his phone off-hook if he leaves the house while he's expecting a call. He seems to figure that if people get a busy signal they're more likely to call back than if they think he's not home (?). He did this once when I was there, and the phone started making all its electronic barking noises, then the recording, and I said something about it. His attitude was that it couldn't possibly hurt anything, which doesn't explain why the phone company has gone to such trouble to put all those warnings on there. -- "FLYING ELEPHANTS DROP COW Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) PIES ON HORRIFIED CROWD!" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Fri Feb 3 02:42:20 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA10879; Fri, 3 Feb 89 02:42:20 EST Message-Id: <8902030742.AA10879@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 2:29:46 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #44 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 Feb 89 2:29:46 EST Volume 9 : Issue 44 Today's Topics: Re: Phones in the movies and on TV Re: Phones in the movies and on TV David Letterman's Use of 900 Service Call Restricter Re: When DDD Began Wrong Number Problems Coming This Weekend [Moderator's Note: This is part two of two parts for Friday 2-3-89. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: portal!cup.portal.com!David_W_Tamkin To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Phones in the movies and on TV Date: Thu, 2-Feb-89 19:23:15 PST Laura Halliday wrote: H> I saw something interesting in a TV show the other day. A lawyer, H> finding his client dead of a drug overdose didn't pick up the H> phone and dramatically say ``Operator, get me the police'' - he H> dialed 911 instead. This was the first time I've ever noticed a H> movie or TV character do this. Could this be the result of phone H> company pressure? I find it difficult to believe that producers H> would voluntarily give up a few seconds of drama unless they were H> forced to. Some comments: 1. The use of 911 got the attention of Hollywood in large part from Richard Dreyfuss's frantic "Call 911! Call 911!" in "Down and Out in Beverly Hills" when he discovers Nick Nolte attmpeting suicide in their pool. 2. The writers and producers of the show Ms. Halliday saw might be too young to remember days when one asked the operator for the police, even if they are old enough to remember dialing seven digits for them. 3. The lost "few seconds of drama" can be recovered easily by having the character search for the phone or get an uncooperative 911 operator. 4. 911 is so widespread now that asking the operator might seem anachronistic. Moreover, it might be that the particular scene was set in a large city with many viewers who would write in that there is 911 service there and that the character should have known it. 5. Maybe the days of 555-NXXX are going the way of KLondike 5 before it. On a recent episode of a syndicated sitcom (the sort of pap I thrive on), the lead character was trying to get through to a woman he had dated twice but who had been hanging up on him all week. His ex-wife was visting and offered to try calling her for him. The dialogue continued like this: Ex-wife: "What's her number?" Protagonist: "Press `redial'." David_W_Tamkin@cup.portal.com ... sun!portal!cup.portal.com!David_W_Tamkin ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: davef@brspyr1.brs.com (Dave Fiske) Subject: Re: Phones in the movies and on TV Date: 2 Feb 89 19:05:52 GMT In article , laura_halliday@mtsg.ubc.ca writes: > I saw something interesting in a TV show the other day. A lawyer, > finding his client dead of a drug overdose didn't pick up the > phone and dramatically say ``Operator, get me the police'' - he > dialed 911 instead. This was the first time I've ever noticed a > movie or TV character do this. Could this be the result of phone > company pressure? I find it difficult to believe that producers > would voluntarily give up a few seconds of drama unless they were > forced to. My guess would be that they figure 911 is universal enough now that people will understand what is being dialed. If the guy just dialed the regular number for say, the LA Police Dept., people not from LA might not realize it. Hence, "get me the police." Another technique for letting the audience know what is going on is that callers generally say "Hello, Police Department?" Of course, in real life, we wait for someone to answer on the other end before we say anything, plus a phone in any sort of office is usually answered with some identifying phrase (not just "hello") so the caller knows at once who they have reached. I also saw a comedian on TV recently who pointed out a bit of phone behavior in the movies. If someone gets hung up on, they always hold the receiver and give it a real puzzled or disgusted look. Has this ever been observed in real life? -- "FLYING ELEPHANTS DROP COW Dave Fiske (davef@brspyr1.BRS.COM) PIES ON HORRIFIED CROWD!" Home: David_A_Fiske@cup.portal.com Headline from Weekly World News CIS: 75415,163 GEnie: davef ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU From: decvax!decwrl!apple!denwa!jimmy@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Gottlieb) Subject: David Letterman's Use of 900 Service Date: 1 Feb 89 04:11:26 GMT In article , kg19+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kurt A. Geisel) writes: > Pretty soon, they may try to get us to pay to find out how the story > ends. The one that makes me maddest is the way they go about using (900) service on "Late Night With David Letterman." They use AT&T's mass announcement (900) service with a feature that allows a small number of calls to be answered live. But since everyone is calling to get on the air, not to hear the "You didn't get through" recording, this feature shouldn't be used. The result is that people are charged 50 cents for each ATTEMPT. They should instead use a regular number or an (800) number, so that viewers do not have to pay for busies. -- Jim G. E-Mail: or ^^^^^^ V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 10:21:50 EST From: harvard!cs.utexas.edu!cos.com!mgrant (Michael Grant) To: bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@cs.utexas.edu Subject: Call Restricter Somone was looking for one of these a while ago to keep his kids from abusing the phone. I think this is probably what you need. Hello Direct in San Jose California is marketing a call controller which disallows calls to certain programmable numbers. Here's what it says under specifications: "Factory settings: Disallows: 976, 1 or 0 followed by 976, area code + 976. 900, 1 or 0 followed by 900. 1 + area code (long distance). 411; 1 followed by 411, 555; 1 or 0 followed by 555; 1 or 0 followed by area code and 555 (directory assistance)." "Major Features: - All factory settings are user reprogrammable - Single line unit: allows/disallows up to 23 idfferent phone numbers of 21 digits, or other combinations of phone numbers up to 484 digits. - Remote Programming with user-selectable security codes. - Time Limit set by user to limit calls from 1 to 15 minutes - 5-digit security passcode set or changed by user, remotely or on-site, protects Call Controller programming. - Override passcode: Confidential 4-digit code that your selected personnel enter to override restrictions on individual calls. - Touch-Tone or Rotary programmable." The single line unit is contained in a small unmarked box approximatly 1.5 x 2 x 1 inchs (4 x 5 x 2.5 cm). The price is $129 Quantity 1. They also have 30 line and 120 line capacity models which block even more numbers. Contact Hello Direct at 1-800-444-3556 or 1-408-435-1990 for more info. I am not connected with this company in any way. -Michael Grant ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@decwrl.dec.com From: jbn@glacier.stanford.edu (John B. Nagle) Subject: Re: When DDD Began Date: 30 Jan 89 17:15:14 GMT As many telecom readers probably know, area codes and direct dialing were originally implemented so that the originating toll operator could set up the call and have it routed automatically, rather than manually dealing with distant toll boards to set up the circuit. But Direct Distance Dialing was only offered to subscribers after AT&T Long Lines had most of its system automated. Thus, when DDD did appear in a locality, one could generally call most places in the Bell System immediately. The accounting system for DDD originally involved paper tape punches (the "Automatic Accountant"), a very special purpose electronic calculator that took in the paper tape, computed the toll, and punched a standard IBM card, and large farms of IBM tabulating equipment to sort the cards and generate the customer bills. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: Kenneth_R_Jongsma@cup.portal.com To: telecom-request@xx.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Wrong Number Problems Date: Thu, 2-Feb-89 15:40:54 PST Recently, a company competing with our local operating company published a phone book. As an inducement to use the directory, they created a "free" service, similar to 976 service. That is, you dial a local number, wait for an answer, then dial any one of 1000 different codes to get a short recording with movie schedules, nationwide weather, tv schedules, etc. Today, the local paper reported that people are skipping the middle digits. Instead of 957-4468 1000, they dial 957-1000. This of course is driving the people with the more popular numbers (such as Joke of the Day and All My Children Update) up the wall. We are talking over 50 wrong numbers a day! Of course, the company has volunteered to pay the costs of changing the person's number, but noone wants to do that. I expect things will die down as people learn how this works, but for the time being, it's a real hassle. It's also funny, if you aren't on the receiving end: "A local casket company, for instance, has been getting errant calls from users looking for updates on "All My Childre." I talked to a man at the casket company, who didn't want himself or the business identified. But he told me, in so many words, that when he answers the phone, the line goes dead. I'm sorry. That's not funny." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 02:26:54 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Coming This Weekend I have three excellent items planned for weekend issues of the Digest tomorrow. 1) MCI Horror Story: Is MCI in cahoots with a shady AOS secretly, without their subscribers knowing about it? 2) David Tamkin further evaluates Starlink, the new alternative to Telenet PCP. 3) Another round in the Judge Greene vrs. Telecom Moderator saga. Plus information on the AT&T 'rate cap' plan; and one user's response to rude telemarketing services. Distributed at various times on Saturday. Patrick ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sat Feb 4 00:25:36 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA13084; Sat, 4 Feb 89 00:25:36 EST Message-Id: <8902040525.AA13084@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 0:11:51 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #45 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Feb 89 0:11:51 EST Volume 9 : Issue 45 Today's Topics: MCI Horror Tales Moderator's gratuitous Greene-bashing Re: Equal Access?? My foot!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 02:12:11 EST From: ll-xn!columbia!dasys1!ecorley@cucard.med.columbia.edu (Eric Corley) To: bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom@cucard.med.columbia.edu Subject: MCI Horror Tales THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS REPRINTED FROM THE WINTER 1988-89 EDITION OF 2600 MAGAZINE, A PUBLICATION THAT DEVOTES MUCH OF ITS SPACE TO THE STUDY OF COMPUTER HACKERS. QUESTIONS CAN BE DIRECTED TO 2600@dasys1.UUCP or 2600, POB 752, MIDDLE ISLAND, NY 11953, OR 516-751-2600. It all started with what sounded like a friendly phone call in October: "Hello, this is Patricia from MCI. We noticed that you presently have an account with MCI and we wanted to let you know that we'll be offering 'one plus' service in your area starting December 10th. We'd like to verify your address." The nice lady then read us our address, which was one hundred percent correct. She then said another person would call us to confirm this information. That call came within minutes and was almost identical in content. A couple of weeks later we got another one of those calls on another of our lines that had an MCI account attached to it. But this time the second call never came. In early December, equal access came to our phone lines. We decided to check the status of those two lines that had gotten the calls. We dialed 1-700-555-4141. And guess what? They had both been claimed by MCI. Surprised? We weren't. In fact, when those calls come in, we EXPECTED them to try and pull this scam we'd heard so much about. They made one big mistake though -- they tried it on us. We always listen very carefully when phone companies call us. And we can say very definitely that MCI never asked us if we wanted to choose them as our long distance carrier. All they asked us to do was to verify our address. OK, so it was a sloppy representative. Maybe even a corrupt one. How can you condemn an entire company because of the actions of one person? That's quite easy. It happened more than once. Different representatives called different phone numbers and gave the same little speech. And we've found out that other people have gotten the same treatment. This indicates to us that these representatives are reading a script that tells them NOT to ask the customer whether they actually WANT MCI's "one plus" service. Address verification, after all, is a much less controversial issue. Perhaps MCI feels they're taking a calculated risk here. They only seem to make these calls to people who already use MCI in some form. Maybe they feel these people won't raise a fuss when they discover who their long distance company is. In fact, they may never even discover that MCI is their carrier since they most likely have been getting MCI bills in the past. Remember, these are people who have already been using MCI's services. Regardless of whether or not it pays off, it's distressing to see such dishonest tactics on the part of a major company. This isn't our only gripe with MCI. We had been using an account on MCI's 950-1986 dialup. In November we paid the bill a few days late (it was under $10). Well, lo and behold, they disconnected our code without ANY warning. When we asked them to reconnect it, they said they would have to handle our payment for 10 days first. Ten days went by and the code was still down. We asked again. This time, they said they were phasing out that service, so they couldn't reconnect us. But they came up with a bright idea. We could use our 14-digit MCI Card code instead of our old 5-digit code. "It's just as easy to remember," they said. Clearly, they have the right to phase out their services and replace them with less desirable ones. But once again, it's the way in which they did it. MCI jumped at the first opportunity to take away our old code instead of being up front and letting their customers know that as of a certain date this service would be terminated. Being sneaky about it doesn't do anyone any good. The Real Scam We've saved the best for last. When we discovered that MCI had selected themselves as our long distance carriers, we decided to experiment a little. One of our experiments involved trying to make an operator assisted call ("zero plus") on an MCI line. MCI doesn't offer operator assisted services. So we were curious as to what would happen when we tried to do this. What happened was a big surprise. We got the same little fading dial tone that we got on AT&T -- in other words, the prompt to enter our AT&T calling card number. We entered the card number and were astounded to hear a recording say, "Thank you for using NTS." NTS? Who the hell were THEY?! And what were they doing accepting AT&T calling card numbers on MCI lines? We'll skip all of the drama and simply tell you what we found out. NTS is an Alternate Operator Service (AOS) company. They handle calls from hotel rooms and privately owned payphones. Their rates are often double those of AT&T. And it seems that in various parts of the country, MCI has a clandestine relationship with these people. We say clandestine because we're in the habit of reading all of the literature from every phone company that serves our area. And nowhere has this little "service" been mentioned. We have yet to find anyone in MCI who is even aware of this arrangement. On the other hand, NTS (based in Rockville, Maryland) is quite proud of the MCI connection. All of the NTS operators (who can trick anyone into believing they're really from AT&T) are aware that they provide service for MCI "zero plus" customers. Why does MCI use an AOS? We can't imagine. But we can tell you the effects. If you decide to call someone collect from your phone and MCI happens to be your long distance carrier, the person who accepts on the other end will wind up with one hell of a surprise when they get the bill. You'll be the one getting the surprise if you forget that MCI doesn't have operators and you attempt to place an operator-assisted or calling card call through them. The most likely scenario, though, would be something like this: you visit a friend and need to make a phone call from his house. Since you don't want to make your friend pay, you dial it "zero plus" and bill it to your calling card. How are you to know that your friend selected MCI as his long distance carrier and that you've just been swindled by an AOS? Perhaps MCI's new slogan can be: "We bring the thrill of hotel phones right into your own home!" Now we should point out that this "NTS Connection" doesn't work everywhere. In some areas you get recordings when you try to make "zero plus" calls using MCI. We need to know where it does work. You can find out at no charge by dialing 10222-0 followed by a ten digit phone number (you can use your own). If you hear a fading dial tone, it means you're about to be connected to NTS. You can stay on and ask a whole lot of questions if you want. Let us know if it works in your area. (You can do the above even if MCI isn't your primary carrier -- the 10222 routes the call to MCI. You must have equal access in your area in order to try this.) There's really not much more to add. We are demanding a public statement from MCI addressing the issues of signing up unsuspecting consumers and billing their own customers exhorbitant rates for operator-assisted calls without telling them. We don't expect to ever get such a statement. Several years ago, we printed a story about MCI's electronic mail system, MCI Mail, which had a policy of terminating accounts that had received mail not to MCI's liking. We called it a flagrant invasion of privacy to peruse the mail of their own paying subscribers. The president of MCI indicated that he couldn't care less. So all we can say right now is that it would be a very good idea to boycott MCI for all of the above reasons. A company that resorts to such devious methods of making money and that treats its customers so shabbily is not worthy of the historical significance its founders achieved. We would appreciate it if this article was spread around in whatever ways possible. ------------------------------ From: goldstein%delni.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein dtn226-7388) Date: 2 Feb 89 09:35 To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Moderator's gratuitous Greene-bashing Time to set flame on. >From: Marvin Sirbu >Subject: Don't blame Judge Greene >Peter Pavlvcik complains about ITI providing misleading information regarding >pay telephone charges and service and the Moderator suggests Peter write to >Judge Greene. Don't waste your time. The outrageous charges are the result of policy decisions taken by the FCC prior to divestiture (e.g. deregulating >resale). If you want to complain to anyone, it should be to the FCC or to the >local PUC. I note that ITI has been banned from operating in Ohio by the Ohio >PUC because of the type of misleading practices Peter describes. Marvin knows what he's talking about! Unfortunately, a young whippersnapper who has nicely volunteered to moderate this newsgroup has totally confused cause & effect with the following gratuitous bash at his Honor, Judge Harold Greene: >[Moderator's Note: But it was Harold who opened the door to this kind of >abuse. Certainly the FCC played a role in it; but everyone, including the >FCC, took the lead from His Onery, Judge Greene. PT] Let's get the facts straight. The FCC ordered AT&T to remove its tariff prohibition against sharing and resale in the late 1970s. This led to the immediate elimination of Full Business Day WATS and (with some struggle) Telpak. The Department of Justice sued AT&T for antitrust violations in the 1950s. A 1956 Consent Decree forced Western Electric out of commercial markets but left the "Bell System" monopoly intact. AT&T was not happy with this as they wanted to sell 3B computers, etc. The DOJ reopened the AT&T case in the late 1970s because AT&T was still displaying questionable behavior vis a vis antitrust law. The Reagan administration, ideologically motivated, allowed AT&T to put on its "Bre'r Rabbit" hat and dictate the terms of its being thrown into the briar patch. AT&T got rid of the marginally-profitable (then) BOCs and was freed to sell all the 3Bs they could. (Turns out the briar patch was pretty dead, but that's justice.) Judge Greene changed the agreement to make it better for consumers. He allowed the BOCs to keep yellow pages. He allowed the BOCs to sell equipment. He made sure that the BOCs and consumers had a fighting chance. The BOCs were allowed to perform billing on behalf of long distance carriers, as they had done all along for their previous-parent, AT&T. In fairness, any LD carrier could pay for billing service. The FCC and NOT the Judge permitted totally unregulated resale. The FCC authorized AOSs. The FCC authorized COCOTs. Since COCOTS could use AOSs, and anybody could pay the Bells to bill (this was meant for MCI et al), unregulated AOSs put obscene charges on your phone bills. Some states prohibit BOCs from putting bills for unauthorized vendors on their bills. Complain to your state DPU/PUC/whatever. The FCC should put a stop to it, but they won't so long as the current regime is in control and there's no pressure. The Judge is the only defense we have. STOP BASHING HIM! fred (I speak for me.) ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@ames.arc.nasa.gov From: claris!edg%bridge2.3Com.Com@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: Equal Access?? My foot!! Date: 3 Feb 89 02:30:39 GMT ... posters tale of trying to get the AT&T operator deleted >(i.e. 01-288) did not work either. So I asked the ITI > > Peter Pavlovcik, > att!iexist!peter > Peter, Next time, please try 10288 rather than 01288. -edg -- {decwrl|sun|oliveb}!CSO.3com.com!Edward_Greenberg Ed Greenberg -or- 3Com Corporation {sun|hplabs}!bridge2!edg Mountain View, CA 415-694-2952 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sat Feb 4 01:37:59 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA17812; Sat, 4 Feb 89 01:37:59 EST Message-Id: <8902040637.AA17812@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 1:05:16 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #46 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sat, 4 Feb 89 1:05:16 EST Volume 9 : Issue 46 Today's Topics: Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit [Moderator's Note: The phone numbers to call for information/signup at Starlink are (voice) 804-495-4693 and (modem 3/12/24) 804-495-INFO. In case you missed the earlier message in the Digest on Monday, 1-31-89, Starlink brokers Tymnet circuits with a program much like PC Pursuit. Their rates are $10 per month plus $1.50 per hour or $25 per month plus $1.00 per hour. It seems to be a good bargain for the very casual (less than 13 hours per month) user. P Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com!David_W_Tamkin@harvard.harvard.edu To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit Date: Thu, 2-Feb-89 19:05:29 PST Patrick Townson commented on Nia Bennett's comparison of Starlink and PCP: B> You can precede the number to be dialed with a "1" and call any BBS in that B> area code. You will be billed for the long distance call from the outdial B> port to the host computer at the local phone company's rates. Is the 1 needed for Starlink or is Ms. Bennett thinking of how things work in area code 804, where telcos require it for non-local intra-NPA calls? B> Outdial Host Numbers Sorted by Time Zone, State, They still copy Tymnet Information's error in placing Detroit in the Central Zone. I've pointed that out to Nia. B> California B> Alhambra 9204 818 m B> Anaheim 9184 714 B> Colton, CA ---- 714 D/CACOL/3/12/24 B> El Segundo 9203 203 m B> Glendale, CA ---- 818 D/CAGLE/12 B> Long Beach 9205 213 m B> Los Angeles, CA ---- 213 D/CALAN/3/12/24 B> Newport Beach 9184 714 B> Oakland 8963 415 D/CAOAK/3/12/24 B> Palo Alto, CA ---- 415 D/CAPAL/12 B> Pasadena 9204 818 m B> Pleasanton 9202 415 m B> Sacramento 9179 916 D/CASAC/3/12/24 B> San Diego, CA ---- 619 D/CASDI/3/12/24 B> San Francisco 9533 415 D/CASFA/3/12/24 B> San Jose 6450 408 D/CASJO/12 B> Santa Ana, CA ---- 714 D/CASAN/12 B> Sherman Oaks 9206 818 m B> Vernon 3173 213 B> Walnut Creek 9202 415 m The California list seems to show a lot of gaps for Starlink, but notice that the Vernon and El Segundo outdialers cover the territory of CALAN; that Alhambra/Pasadena and Sherman Oaks cover that of CAGLE; that Anaheim and Newport Beach cover that of CACOL and CASAN; that CAPAL's territory is reachable from the Walnut Creek Tymnet outdialer. There are, to my knowledge, only four PCP cities not covered by Tymnet's outdialers: NCRTP, UTSLC, ORPOR, and CASDI. T> However, Starlink allows calls to Canada and the UK, something Telenet T> absolutely forbids. Starlink allows calls *from* Canada via Tymnet Canada's indials and *from* the UK via Mercury's indials. They also take calls from ConnNet indials to Tymnet, so they are a local call everywhere in Connecticut. Nia has told me that a Starlink account can access any domestic DAF connected to Tymnet (though you may get a separate billing from the DAF provider). I don't know whether international addresses are surcharged or locked out. T> My understanding is that the $10 per month or $25 per month fee, which T> allows purchase of Starlink at $1.50 per hour or $1.00 per hour respectively T> also gives you a certain amount of free time on their own system. Of T> course, you have to use Starlink to call them, and pay for the Starlink T> time. Galaxy BBS charges $2 per hour, but the first two hours each month are free for Starlink customers. Their explanation is that two hours is an allowance for Starlink customers to check their current billing and keep up with news and announcements. PCP gives no way to check on running usage. Another point Starlink advertises is that they can get you a new password in fifteen minutes. (It would be better yet if Starlink account holders could log into Galaxy BBS and change their own passwords, but it's still an improvement over PCP, except that PCP staffers frequently bend the rules and give you a new password, for better or worse, over the phone.) T> Finally, Starlink allows the placement of calls via an outdial modem to T> a point outside the local calling zone. Telenet does not. With some clever T> planning, you can use a nearby outdial to call anywhere. Starlink told me T> the surcharge for this would be 110% of telco. 100% or 110%? There is a discrepancy here. At any rate, *Tymnet*, not Starlink, appears to restrict these to calls within the area code, since Tymnet Information's description of the outdial service states that you must use an outidaler in the same area code as the number you want to reach. David_W_Tamkin@cup.portal.com ... sun!portal!cup.portal.com!David_W_Tamkin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 Feb 89 23:27:19 EST From: David A. Kingsland To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit I would take exception to the moderators comment about "Starlink allowing calls to Canada and the United Kingdom" Tymnet (and so Starlink) allows calls *FROM* Canada and the UK *TO* anywhere in the 48 states. We have not implemented the outdial service here in Canada because there hasn't been enough demand. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 01:00:10 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit Both Mssrs. Tamkin and Kingsland pointed out something which I missed in my initial, admittedly quick evaluation of Starlink: International calls can be made *from* the UK and Canada, not *to* those countries. Tamkin asks for clarification on the surcharges for calls made from the Tymnet outdialers: Several months ago I made a call to Tymnet when I was considering signing up with them. At that time, their sales representative discussed the use of the outdialers with me, and quoted me the 110% of telco rate. He said I would pay for the phone call, and a 'surcharge' for the billing and extra record keeping which had to be done. When I was in chat last Sunday morning with the fellow at Starlink, we discussed the outdialers, and he said Starlink customers would be billed for any phone calls made from the outdialers outside the local calling area. I briefly mentioned to him my conversation of several months earlier and the 110 percent quote from Tymnet, and if I am not mistaken, he responded by saying, 'Tymnet may put some small surcharge on the phone call'. Using that as my authority, and remembering the earlier comments of the Tymnet representative, I beleive the effective charge will be 110 percent, that is, unless Starlink has some other arrangement with Tymnet on this point allowing phone calls to be handled at no extra surcharge above the cost of the call itself. A problem I see with the use of the outdialers to make extended area calls is that only on rare occassions is an intra-state call going to be less expensive than an interstate one. That is, a call from San Jose to a nearby (but considered long distance) town in California will easily cost me the same thirteen cents per minute that calling from Chicago via Reach Out would cost. And, I would be paying for the Tymnet circuit also. I think at the very least you could expect charges of 10-15 cents per minute on any intra-state call. My reaction is that this 'feature' of Tymnet's service is not particularly valuable, considering how inexpensive long haul interstate calls have become at night. The $10 minimum fee per month on Starlink is attractive for persons who use this type of thing no more than 12-13 hours per month. As I pointed out in my previous message, 60 hours on PC Pursuit is $60; the same 60 hours on Starlink is either $85 or $100, depending on the package you choose. If international calls outbound from the States were allowed -- apologies for my earlier misreading of this! -- then Starlink's 'pay per hour for what you use' plan would be valuable, since Telenet does not offer international calls to PC'ers regardless of what we are willing to pay. To access my mailbox on West Germany's [Tele-Box Mail Service], I now dial direct via AT&T. Likewise, for my occassional visits on Mercury, I dial direct to the UK. Too bad neither Telenet nor Tymnet will market this service; they certainly have the circuits available. Without the international access to UK and Canada, Starlink actually becomes less valuable to me, and as I said earlier, dialing an intra-state call from an outdialer is not where one will find any savings. I'm still waiting for my package to show up from Starlink (it has been a week), and when it arrives I will sign up, but probably confine my usage to the places not served by Telenet. Again, those phone numbers to call for more information or to signup: Voice 804-495-4693 Modem 804-495-INFO They bill to various credit cards, and they also offer a 'check-free' option. The fellow I spoke with last Sunday was most cordial, and spent about an hour in chat with me, discussing Starlink. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sun Feb 5 00:12:08 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA02848; Sun, 5 Feb 89 00:12:08 EST Message-Id: <8902050512.AA02848@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 89 0:03:11 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #47 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Feb 89 0:03:11 EST Volume 9 : Issue 47 Today's Topics: FCC Report: Cable/Telco competition, Gateway trials AT&T Rate Cap Decision Postponed Re: Nuisance phone calls Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 11:46:40 PST From: harvard!ames!well!rh (Robert Horvitz) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: FCC Report: Cable/Telco competition, Gateway trials FCC Commissioner Patricia Diaz-Dennis charmed about 100 Washington lawyers, reporters, trade association representatives and consumer activists at a "brown bag lunch" Thursday (2 Feb) as she argued that the American public would benefit from competition between cable-TV and telephone companies in the development of broadband services. She may not have changed many minds, though, because fundamental questions about how such competition would be structured were left unanswered. At least initially, "video services are the most promising area of competition" between cable and telcos, the Commissioner asserted. "For consumers, the promised land would be video on demand" - no need to rent tapes or wait for the network to schedule a particular program. One-way broadband delivery coupled with 2-way narrowband signalling thus might be the way such systems would start off. But Ms. Diaz-Dennis wouldn't predict the kinds of services that might prove popular later on. The FCC should encourage cable systems to experiment with optical fiber, she said, to start validating the predictions made by the industry in numerous filings at the Commission. On the other hand, telcos shouldn't be allowed to enter the broadband service field simply by buying existing cable systems, she cautioned. She favors requiring telcos to build new systems from scratch. She also felt that telcos entering the broadband field should be required to operate as common carriers, and to the extent that broadband services are unregulated, the system costs should not be added to the phone system rate-base. During the question period following her presentation, Gene Kimmelman, head of the Consumer Federation of America, asked if cable TV companies offering competing broadband services would likewise have to act as common carriers. Ms. Diaz-Dennis said she'd reached no conclusion on that yet, but recognized it would be a big change in the way cable systems operate. Would prices for broadband services be regulated or set by competition? Would they be allowed to subsidize - or be subsidized by - other communications services? Would channels have to be set aside for community organizations and free public access, as most cable franchises now require? What about the impact on over-the-air broadcasting and FCC spectrum allocation decisions generally? These questions were addressed - inconclusively. They are, of course, difficult ones, with no clear consensus yet on the proper answers. We'll just have to wait for the results of the Commission's current inquiry on telco entry into the field of cable. In other FCC news, NYNEX has petitioned for a ruling on whether the company's proposed gateway, "INFO-LOOK," can be considered as a "basic service." NYNEX had listed it as such in its Open Network Architecture plan last winter, and recently tested it successfully in Vermont. The NYNEX petition, filed on 17 January 1989, argues that INFO-LOOK is different from other proposed gateways, (which are generally considered "enhanced" rather than "basic" services), and is more analogous to existing "basic" network services such as directory assistance. Should the Commission not rule on this issue, NYNEX asks permission to conduct a 3-year trial of its "basic gateway" anyway. Finally, the Commission approved a waiver request by Southwestern Bell, to allow market trials of enhanced voice and data gateway services in Houston, Texas for approximately one year starting 1 March 89. The Commission added that other Bell regionals can conduct similar trials in their service areas if they meet these conditions: the trial lasts less than 8 months; costs are allocated according to the approved Cost Allocation Manuals; end users must be informed that prices and services available during the trial may not be available later on; competing enhanced service providers (ESPs) must receive equal access at equivalent prices for all basic services used in the trial; ESPs are informed of the trial's start at least 90 days in advance; and CPNI and network disclosure rules must be observed. The Bell companies must also notify the Commission 90 days before commencing a trial, describing the service and how the above conditions will be met. For more information, see "Memorandum Opinion and Order," CC Docket No. 88-616, released 30 January 1989. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 23:35:44 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: AT&T Rate Cap Decision Postponed A decision by the Federal Communications Commission on a rate-cap method of pricing for AT&T long distance services had been scheduled for last week, but after getting pressured by a few congressmen, Commissioner Dennis R. Fitzpatrick has decided to defer action on the proposed changes for at least two months. Since the early 1960's, the government has allowed AT&T a certain profit beyond its costs. The FCC had proposed replacing this 'rate of return' regulation with one which would place absolute ceilings on the cost of calls via AT&T. The new plan would have also been used by the seven Bell companies as well. Under the new plan, AT&T and the Bells would have been allowed to raise or lower their rates at will. Raises would have been limited to an amount 3 percent less than annual inflation. In return, the companies would have been allowed to keep any internal cost-cutting as profit. The FCC believes that this plan will encourage greater efficiency and innovation in the telephone industry. Other carriers besides AT&T/Bell would be invited to set their rates by the same formula, and the Commission believes that if all the carriers opted for this method, the savings to the customers would be about $1.6 billion over four years. AT&T had been strongly hoping for a decision one way or the other this past week. In a press release, they expressed their disappointment and frustration at Dennis Patrick's latest decision to wait at least until March before ruling. Patrick admitted earlier this week he had been approached by 'some' members of Congress and strongly urged to defer any decision on changes. Now why do you suppose 'some' members of Congress would feel so strongly against the plan? Perhaps some of you can tell me. Sign me a curious young whippersnapper, Patrick Townson ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) Subject: Re: Nuisance phone calls Date: 31 Jan 89 16:16:06 GMT In article , glee@cognos.uucp (Godfrey Lee) writes: > >>I believe the time has come to do something about nuisance phone calls. > >I found after I installed an answering machine, that junk callers > >usually hang up when they realize they got an answering > >machine. > > Problem is that there are more and more automated phone solicitations. With > these you don't get the satisfaction of hanging up on them, and if you have > an answering machine, you get junk filling up your tape! > > I do sense some consumer rebellion on this though, I got a few of them about > a year ago, but lately have gotten none, what is the situation in the rest > of Canada and in the U.S.? I too think it's time to do something about unsolicited calls from both machines and humans. I firmly believe that "blind calls" should be prohibited. How about a statute that would prohibit anyone from using the phone to solicit business, contributions, or any other support from anyone unless the person or organization being called was either a) presently doing business with the caller or b) had shown positive interest in the caller's organization within the last six months. I know that this is really very wishfull thinking, but wouldn't it be nice? Presently I respond to automated solicitations in one of two ways. 1) Since most of the machines use a VOX to control the recording of the victim's responses, I let them listen to a local radio talk show until their system times out. 2) I leave EXTREMLY obscene messages for whoever gets to transcribe the victim's responses for followup. Such messages usually suggest unique things that they might attempt with their automated equipment. I've even thought about renting some of this equipment and having it call all the state legislators' work and home numbers repetitively until they get the message. Any other ideas? -- _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261 ------------------------------ To: rutgers!comp-dcom-telecom@cucard.med.columbia.edu From: eravin@dasys1.UUCP (Ed Ravin) Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: 4 Feb 89 05:38:42 GMT Numerous messages have been posted to TELECOM about what happens when by coincidence misprinted, mis-announced or common dialing errors produce telephone numbers that arrive at some undeserving victim's home instead. One thing I didn't see posted was what happens when someone calls a BBS and say "Hey, man, great new board at 123-4567. Call it now!" and mistypes a few digits in the process. Whoever lives at the wrong number gets a mountain of modem calls, usually at 3 AM or whenever the BBS junkies are awake. Alas, there is a malicious variation of this, where someone posts a number and claims it is a new BBS when it is really the home phone of someone they want to harass. This happened in New York several years ago by a fellow nicknamed "the wimp" who had a hobby of trying to crash BBS's and harass sysops. The most diabolical twist was a message he posted one day under a false name that said "New hacking/phreaking bbs! Call 123-4567. First twenty callers get a working CompuServe account". The number posted was the home phone of a sysop this guy didn't like. Responsible sysops do not let messages from unknowns get posted without validation, and usually call the proposed number to see if it is really a bbs before allowing it to be visible to the users, but not all bbs's are so responsible. -- Ed Ravin | cucard!dasys1!eravin | "A mind is a terrible thing (BigElectricCatPublicUNIX)| eravin@dasys1.UUCP | to waste-- boycott TV!" --------------------------+----------------------+----------------------------- Reader bears responsibility for all opinions expressed in this article. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sun Feb 5 00:56:50 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA06153; Sun, 5 Feb 89 00:56:50 EST Message-Id: <8902050556.AA06153@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 89 0:30:48 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #48 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Feb 89 0:30:48 EST Volume 9 : Issue 48 Today's Topics: numbers in use but not recognized yet modems over cellular connections the "$11 yuppie plan" 1199 in connecticut curious timeout on 0+ 1+Area Code Ringback as intercom Starlink Re: More Thoughts on Starlink Large coins and cheap calls Re: USA-Direct [Moderator's Note: I call this issue 'cleaning out the mbox' because I have deliberatly gone through the mailque and selected *lots* of short items which had been waiting for processing. In doing so, I've cut the TELECOM Digest mail backlog down and given you a very wide range of subject matter in this issue. For next: A little later today you will receive a special mailing from me. It will not be under the TELECOM Digest banner for reasons which will be apparent when you recieve it. PT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 10:36:13 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: numbers in use but not recognized yet A reader previously wrote of being in a new area code (508 in Massachusetts) and learning that some people in distant areas could not yet call 508 area. This apparently also happens with prefixes. Once in Maryland before 0+number went away, I attempted to dial 0-850-xxxx and it got rejected; 850 was a rather new prefix in the Baltimore-Washington Int'l airport area. And someone else in Maryland could not call 202-994 prefix (long-distance, to DC). (I.e. both calls required help from a human operator.) Was there a similar experience with people on N0X/N1X prefixes? (I.e. some people in distant areas had calls to such prefixes rejected by their local equipment?) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 13:12:59 EST From: jsol@bu-it.BU.EDU To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: modems over cellular connections I would advise against using modems on Cellular phones. The "unpredictable brief drops in audio" are the cells switching off (which can sometimess happen when you are stationary). There was alot of push in the early days about cellular computer technology, but right now it is alot of wind. If you do want to try the modem, make damn sure you can return it if it doesn't work. --jsol ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 13:14:11 EST From: jsol@bu-it.BU.EDU To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: the "$11 yuppie plan" That doesn't count usage. My "yuppie plan" costs $0.00/month, and $0.65/minute for usage. Needless to say if you use it alot it can get very expensive. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 13:18:10 EST From: jsol@bu-it.BU.EDU To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: 1199 in connecticut On Step-by-Step exchanges in CT, 119X was the ringback (you got different rings depending on which digit you dialed last. 1192 gave you continuous ring, for example). On ESS and crossbar it was something else, I believe 99X-XXXX where XXXX was the last 4 digits of your number, and the X in 99X was an arbitrary check digit on a per prefix basis. My best friend had the best of me for years. He lived in Bethany which was crossbar, and all I had was step. Then we moved to Hamden and I got my very first ESS line (it was a #1ESS). CT has a package named Totalphone, which is speed-calling 8, call waiting, call forwarding, and 3-way calling. I won the feature-game with that one (smile). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 13:21:19 EST From: jsol@bu-it.BU.EDU To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: curious If people are so sure that 1+number is going away, can they explain how Step switches will handle that? I believe that the 355A Step machines in Central and Western Mass aren't being replaced anytime soon, so this is a real question. We just had an area code split here 617/508, so I'll bet 1+number will go away in 617 but that's because all the switches are electronic (or crossbar). I believe the 355A step machines will have equal access too, but that won't require modification to the machine, only an interface to the toll switch. --jsol [Moderator's Note: Jon Solomon, a/k/a jsol, was formerly Moderator of [TELECOM Digest], and the founder of this journal in 1981.] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 12:46:02 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: timeout on 0+ On direct-dial, you apparently NEVER depend on timeout. But on some cases of 0+, you do: 0 by itself will time out and call your local operator. I noticed 0+number in use, according to the phone book, in 213 area after introduction of N0X/N1X prefixes and before the 213/818 split; only the timeout distinguished between, say, 0-413-xxxx and 0-413-xxx-xxxx (this was just about my very first note to Telecom!), and this is still in use, right? The 2nd area to get N0X/N1X prefixes was New York City (then all in 212), and in late 1980 I noticed that 0+ within 212 now required 0+212+number (area code 212 was printed on the instruction card for this). The explanation received via Telecom was that some of the New York equipment couldn't handle the 0-xxx-xxxx stuff via timeout, so the area code requirement was put in for areacode-wide uniformity. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 89 10:52:17 PST (Friday) From: Swenson.PA@Xerox.COM Subject: 1+Area Code To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu On a local radio news report about the upcomming addition of 1+area code to ac 415, the reoprter said that this leaves area code 408 (southern part of San Francisco pennsula +) the only area in the US that does NOT require 1+area code. Is this correct? Bob Swenson Swenson.PA@Xerox.com ------------------------------ From: cantor%evetpu.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (David A. Cantor) Date: 3 Feb 89 23:43 To: telecom_digest%evetpu.DEC@decwrl.dec.com Subject: Ringback as intercom In Vol 9 Iss 38, James Harvey (jbh@mibte.uucp), referring to ringback codes, writes: >...More frequently, people use the ringback numbers as an intercom, (call >ringback, wait till somebody upstairs picks up extension, talk). In the bad old days (mid-50s, Everett, Mass.), I recall the phone book had a paragraph which said to call the business office for instructions for calling another party sharing your party line. I had a friend who had a party line, and did just that. Guess what code they gave him. Ringback (911-wait for tone-6-hang up). (That's how I learned about the ringback code and how I got interested in this sort of thing.) Years later, when moving from one part of Arlington to another, I had "duplicate service" (same phone number at two addresses simultaneously) for a few days. I talked the phone company representative into giving me the code I could dial so that I could speak to a roommate at the other residence. They gave me the ringback code and asked me not to use it except for the purpose of calling someone at the other residence. Dave C. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Feb 89 21:51:16 HST From: kahuna!newton@csvax.caltech.edu (Mike Newton) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Starlink Starlink claims one small advantage over PCP for a small population -- PCP refused to allow calls from Hawaii, while Starlink claims they do. Starlink, however, did not serve the city i was interested in, so Reach Out America is still the cheapest for me. - mike (newton@csvax.caltech.edu CSO Observatory, Hilo Hawaii 808 935 1909) ------------------------------ To: uunet!comp-dcom-telecom@uunet.UU.NET From: van-bc!sl@uunet.UU.NET (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) Subject: Re: More Thoughts on Starlink Date: 3 Feb 89 18:01:01 GMT In article telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) writes: >I'd like to hear the experiences of some of you who subscribe to Starlink >after a month or so of using it. They also claim their 'throughput' is >much faster than Telenet, meaning you would probably spend less time on line >each day. Who knows, maybe you could get done in 12 hours what formerly took >30 hours on PCP? I havn't used either in the past few years, but Tymnet used to have a reputation for pumping data a bit more efficently than Telenet. As I remember Tyment is *not* an X.25 network internally. Does anyone out there have some uptodate info? -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532 ------------------------------ From: Mark Brader To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 02:53:45 EST Subject: Large coins and cheap calls > * - In Germany, if you use a large coin to make a cheap call, there's a > button on the phone you can push, put in the actual amount the call cost, > and get your large coin back. Only in Germany do they expect people to > understand that. The newer coin phones in Britain, which in the cities means most of them, also have this feature. However its use in this way is not documented; you have to figure it out. Is this a case of expecting people to understand it, or expecting people not to understand it? (The button is marked "follow-on call" and the documentation says it is to let you make an additional call or calls on the same deposit of money. However, it is also noted that when you hang up you get back the largest amount of your unused money that can be made from the coins you deposited, and that you can add additional coins at any time. Hence, the button can be used in the manner described for the German phones.) Of course, this is never a problem in either the US or Canada, because in neither country do the phones take coins above 25 cents ... not even now that we have a circulating $1 coin in Canada. (Well, no phones that I've ever seen, anyway.) Mark Brader "'You wanted it to WORK? That costs EXTRA!' SoftQuad Inc., Toronto is probably the second-place security hole utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com after simple carelessness." -- John Woods ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU From: decvax!decwrl!apple!denwa!jimmy@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Gottlieb) Subject: Re: USA-Direct Date: 4 Feb 89 01:11:54 GMT In article , gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) writes: > Based on the above information, I would say that the 'no extra > charge' is just marketing hype. They set the rates and then > they say there is no *EXTRA* charge. I think what they mean is that you _know_ what the rate will be. You don't have to worry about any local surcharges. > I also fail to see how using USADIRECT saves time or hassle. If you > have to go to a special phone, it almost certainly does neither. I have found it to be wonderful, especially when I did not know my AT&T International Calling Card number. If you call collect or person-to-person, you can leave a easily leave a message. Foreign operators may know phone lingo, but try conveying a message. You can use your regular Calling Card number. And, as previously mentioned, you can check the quality of connection before proceeding (this was often necessary when calling from Australia). And then, sometimes it's just nice to speak fluent English to someone (we're not talking Australia here). -- Jim G. E-Mail: or ^^^^^^ V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Sun Feb 5 02:43:24 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA13207; Sun, 5 Feb 89 02:43:24 EST Message-Id: <8902050743.AA13207@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Sun, 5 Feb 89 1:36:44 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: Special Announcement To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu Special Announcement Sun, 5 Feb 89 1:36:44 EST Telebit Modems Today's Topics: Re: Telebit Solution to Rate Increase [Moderator's Note: I tossed around what to do with this item for quite awhile, and decided even though it is basically advertising for Telebit Modems, it is something readers should be aware of. Its size would have required an entire Digest, something I was unwilling to give it when you consider the commmercial nature of the product. Many of you may have not known that Telebit has restarted its offer to sysops and will find the message which follows to be important. I specifically did not number this mailing, so that if you consider it the essence of 'junk mail' you can stop reading now and pitch it out, without having a missing issue of the Digest. If you want to keep this for further reference, then you can do that also. I am passing along the message I received from Mr. Lawrence intact. I -- and I assume Mr. Lawrence -- have no financial interest in the product. This special mailing is simply FYI. If you already know about it, then pitch this. Patrick Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 4 Feb 89 1:40:24 CST To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: Telebit Solution to Rate Increase From: wpg!russ@uunet.UU.NET (Russell Lawrence) I received the following (long-delayed) announcement from Telebit several days ago. In view of the PCP rate increase, I had to take a long hard look at the projected news feed costs at my site and have decided that a TB+ modem will pay for itself in a few months... especially at half price. For anyone who's serious about the news, this new Telebit promotion should take most of the sting out of the PCP rate increase. -- Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000 {uunet,killer}!wpg!russ ============================================================================== Telebit Corporation Revision 1.00 01 JAN 1989 ============================================================================== /******* TELEBIT/UUNET INTERNET DOMAIN NAME DISCOUNT PROGRAM ********/ (IDNDP) The Telebit Corporation, in conjunction with UUNET Communications Services, is offering a special 50% promotional discount off the list price of TrailBlazer Plus modems to qualified organizations using Internet domain names. Networks like Usenet and BITNET where domain names may not be the precise addressing scheme may also qualify. Telebit has demonstrated its commitment to the UNIX marketplace with its specific support for the UUCP protocol and the support of TrailBlazer modems on the USENET. This announcement signals Telebit's extended support for the use of its products in dialup TCP/IP environments. UUNET Communications Services will be assisting Telebit with the program's administration as well as the distribution of dialup TCP/IP software. /*********************** * WHO CAN PARTICIPATE? ***********************/ Any autonomous organization legitimately participating on the Internet by use of Internet domain names can qualify. The organization must be physically located within the 50 United States or Canada. One or two Telebit TrailBlazer Plus modems may be purchased at a 45% or 50% discount off the US or Canadian list price. Discount levels are determined by payment method and will be explained below. PTT restrictions and distribution contracts prohibit Telebit from directly selling modems outside the United States. Telebit Technologies of Canada, has agreed to extend the terms of the Internet discount program to all Canadian sites. Other international users are encouraged to contact Telebit Inc. for local distributor information. A similar program may be offered through local distribution on a per country, per demand basis. For the sake of this program, Internet participation will be defined by an organization's participation in the Domain Name Service. Any organization with a registered domain name advertised by a network name server will be immediately qualified to purchase a total of two Telebit TrailBlazer Pluses. In addition all UUNET members immediately qualify to purchase modems as long as they have not previously purchased 2 modems on the Telebit Usenet Discount Program. Autonomous organizations residing as third level sub-domains, nodes or some other form of demarcation not directly reachable via an Internet Domain Name Server may also qualify for the program by demonstrating on their applications the nature of their autonomy and their relationship to a second level domain reachable via a domain name server. [2] /************* * For example: **************/ A large university may list a single second level domain (foou.edu) as the only way to reach all campus machines. However, within that campus domain there potentially exist multiple autonomous organizations, i.e. College of Computer Science (cs.foou.edu), Dept. of Engineering (eng.foou.edu), Department of Foo (foo.foou.edu), etc. In the case of a very large company with internal, autonomous divisions, each could qualify under the program rules. However, it must be shown that the division operates as a completely separate entity. For instance, the Chevrolet and Pontiac divisions of General Motors, (chevrolet.gm.com, pontiac.gm.com). Two pseudo domains exist on the Internet that do not fit exactly into the Domain Name structure. They are Usenet (UUCP) and BITNET. In the case of BITNET, individual node sites that constitute an autonomous organization would qualify under the program. In the case of Usenet, organizations that HAVE NOT previously purchased 2 modems on the Telebit Usenet Discount Program may qualify by reporting their existing domain name or by registering a domain name for their site. UUNET provides a low, fee based service for the the registration of a domain name. If you are a UUCP site without a domain name and would prefer registration be taken care of for you, contact UUNET at the below addresses. The program is designed as a promotion. This allows individual organizations an opportunity to experience Telebit's TrailBlazer Plus high speed modems at an attractive price. It is not designed as a mechanism to fulfill an organization's entire modem requirements. If your organization resides as a third or lower level domain and gains access to the Internet indirectly via a higher level organization you must supply the nature of your organization's autonomy and describe the relationship to that higher level domain. A brief explanation of your organization's autonomous relationship to a second level domain should suffice. Telebit reserves the right to validate each application using the criteria described herein, granting or refusing sale accordingly. A total limit of four (4) modems per second level domain may be enforced if it is deemed by Telebit that all autonomous organizations within that domain have been satisfied. [3] /****************************** * THE TELEBIT TRAILBLAZER PLUS *******************************/ The Telebit TrailBlazer is the most advanced dialup communications technology on the market today. TrailBlazer offers compatibility at 300, 1200 (V.22 and Bell 212), and 2400 bps. In high speed (PEP mode), the TrailBlazer can operate at 18,000 bps on ordinary dialup phone lines, (over 16,000 bps throughput). TrailBlazer's patented multicarrier technology dynamically adapts to phone line quality and delivers the highest throughput possible for each individual line. In August 1987, Telebit announced enhanced features that are designed to allow the TrailBlazer to work optimally with UUCP, Kermit, XMODEM, and YMODEM protocols. In addition, the modem may be configured, by use of an S register, to perform the compress/decompress algorithms (based on Unix's 4.0 compress) in real time, WITHIN the modem. /************************ * Standard Dialup TCP/IP *************************/ With the release of Berkeley 4.3, a framing protocol known as Serial Line Internet Protocol (SLIP) has spread throughout the Internet. Several System V, VMS, MAC and PC vendors have picked up on the protocol and are supporting it as well. The protocol is documented in RFC 1055. Basically the protocol specifies a method for framing IP packets with a magic character and escaping that character and the escape character in the data stream. The protocol does not address issues of connection establishment, host authenticity, or things like data integrity or data compression techniques. However, execution of SLIP across high speed dialup modem links has proven very useful to a number of IP users. FTPs can deliver 1000-1600 characters per second (cps). Performance depends on your system and the version of TCP that you are running. SMTP runs quite well. Interactive applications, telnet and rlogin, perform with noticable character delay, the result of very large packet sizes associated with each character typed. /******************* * New Dial Up TCP/IP ********************/ The good news accompanying this announcement is about the recent work to produce a new dialup IP protocol that employs header prediction and compression techniques. This code dramatically reduces the packet overhead associated with small, interactive packets like those produced by telnet or rlogin. At the time of Release 1.0 of this document the public availability of this new code is undefined. However, it is the intention of Telebit and UUNET to make available all known working versions of standard SLIP. In addition it is our intention to demonstrate and serve to distribute all new dial-up IP source code as soon as it becomes available. Further we will provide documentation and installation instructions for all versions that we distribute. Please mail to Telebit or UUNET as instructed below to acquire the latest information regarding these developments. [4] /************************************************** * TRAILBLAZER PRICES, DISCOUNTS AND RESTRICTIONS: ***************************************************/ PRODUCT NAME MODEL# LIST PRICE PREPAY/COD PRICE NET 30 PRICE TrailBlazer Plus T2SAA $1345 $672.50 $739.75 Those purchasing the modems on COD or pre-payment terms are eligible for a 50% discount off the list price. Those who wish to pay on 30 day payment terms will receive a 45% discount off list price. Each autonomous site may purchase a maximum of two (2) units at this special promotional price. Government or Educational institutions with tax exempt status will be excused from sales taxes. However, as these units are not designed for resale, no resale numbers can be accepted in lieu of sales tax. Sales tax must be collected in all states where Telebit has sales offices. These include MASSACHUSETTS, NEW YORK, VIRGINA, GEORGIA, ILLINOIS, MICHIGAN, TEXAS, and CALIFORNIA. A $20.00 shipping and handling charge per unit is added to all orders. Delivery is 30 days ARO. Telebit reserves the right to substitute functionally equivalent products for those ordered on this program. /***************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************** ****************** THIS OFFER WILL EXPIRE APRIL 30, 1989 ****************** ****************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************/ [5] /************************ * HOW TO PLACE YOUR ORDER *************************/ Orders are accepted by filling out the enclosed order form along with one of the following: 1) your purchase order indicating Net 30 terms OR 2) your purchase order and indication of type of prepayment (check, credit card or indication to pay C.O.D.) This option enters the order, but if it is not C.O.D., the modem(s) will not ship until prepayment has been received. OR 3) your prepayment or indication to pay C.O.D. (this option enters the order and will ship as soon as modems are ready) and mailing it to: Telebit Corporation ATTN: IDNDP Program Coordinator 1345 Shorebird Way Mountain View, California 94043-1329 Voice phone: (415) 969-3800 FAX Number: (415) 969-8888 or sending a copy of the form below, via email, to: Internet mail address: idndp@telebit.com UUCP mail address: {uunet,sun,pyramid,ames,hoptoad}!telebit!idndp Orders will be shipped 30 days ARO. ORDERS SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO UUNET COMMUNICATIONS. However, information about this program or other UUNET services may be requested from: UUNET Communications Services P.O. Box 2685 Fairfax,VA 22031-0685 +1 703 876 5050 idndp@uunet.UU.NET or uunet-request@uunet.UU.NET uunet!idndp or uunet!uunet-request ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERNET DOMAIN NAME DISCOUNT PROGRAM (IDNDP) ORDER FORM COMPANY NAME:________________________________________________ YOUR NAME: __________________________________________________ STREET ADDRESS: _____________________________________________ CITY: _____________________STATE:_______________ZIP:_________ VOICE PHONE NUMBER:_____________________________ CORPORATE HEADQUARTER'S ADDRESS AND PHONE (if different from above) STREET ADDRESS: _____________________________________________ CITY: _____________________STATE:_______________ZIP:_________ VOICE PHONE NUMBER:_____________________________ YOUR ORGANIZATION'S INTERNET DOMAIN NAME:_________________________________________________ (If not a second level domain, please provide a brief explanation as to your organization's autonomy and relationship to the second level domain). ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ YOUR INTERNET MAIL ADDRESS (for email): ______________________________________________________________________________ METHOD OF PAYMENT:(Check one) C.O.D.____ Prepay ____ Net 30____ Product Name Model# Qty. IDNDP Price Total Price ______________________________ ________ ____ _____________ _____________ ______________________________ ________ ____ _____________ _____________ Tax ____________ Shipping (Qty x $20.00) ____________ Total Balance Due ____________ -------- ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest ********************* From telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU Mon Feb 6 00:41:48 1989 Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA25025; Mon, 6 Feb 89 00:41:48 EST Message-Id: <8902060541.AA25025@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Mon, 6 Feb 89 0:16:15 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #49 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 Feb 89 0:16:15 EST Volume 9 : Issue 49 Today's Topics: Starlink/Tymnet vrs. PC Pursuit: Plot Thickens Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit Re: General purpose, programmable phone switch Re: General purpose, programmable phone switch Looking for good DISA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 89 23:58:35 EST From: telecom@bu-cs.BU.EDU (TELECOM Moderator) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Starlink/Tymnet vrs. PC Pursuit: Plot Thickens Well, I got the Official Agreement in the mail over the weekend. There were a few 'minor points' I had not known about, and will discuss them in this message. Nothing is quite as simple as it seems. 1. SIGN UP FEE: Starlink gets $50 to sign up. I was advised to enclose a check for that amount when I returned my check-free authorization form. This is in addition to the $10/$25 per month maintainence fee. Telenet/PC Pursuit charges $30 to sign up for *new* users. If you are an existing user, the fee to open additional accounts between now and May is waived. As pointed out earlier, the '$4.50 per hour after 30 hours' charge on Telenet is only if you don't buy adequate bundles of time to begin with. You have from now until May to decide how many such accounts, or bundles of time are appropriate for your use. 2. CALL DETAIL: Starlink will post a message for you on their bulletin board system telling you the *total amount* to be charged to your account each month. Call detail costs $5 extra per request. I do not know if the call detail then comes in printed form, or simply as another email message. Telenet/PC Pursuit will provide call detail free of charge to all users who exceed their monthly allowance, be that 30, 60, 90 hours or whatever. It will come in printed form in the mail as a credit card debit advice prior to the charge going through. Call detail will not be available until April or May, however overtime won't be billed until May. Between now and then, users can adjust their account status as they see fit. 3. PASSWORD/ID CHANGES: Starlink charges $20 for each time this is done. Telenet/PC Pursuit does not charge for password/user id changes at the present time, according to a lady I spoke with in their Customer Service group on Sunday night at 10 PM. 4. ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL: Starlink will give two hours of free time each month to access Galaxy BBS; to read your account status and I assume conduct other business with them. After that, the charges are $2 per hour, plus $1/$1.50 for the obligitory connection via Starlink. In my chat a week ago, I was told the DDD lines into Galaxy will be discontinued soon, and all calls will have to come via Starlink. Telenet/PC Pursuit gives free access at all times to the Net Exchange. Admittedly, Net Exchange is not in the same league as Galaxy, but you would think the folks at Galaxy might figure out a method to accept collect calls via Starlink specifically to deal with Starlink user enquiries. That, or leave their 804 numbers open for calls via PC Pursuit or DDD. 5. MINIMUM USAGE PER CALL/GRACE PERIOD: Starlink has a five minute minimum connect time with an outdialer. According to the Agreement, if you connect to an outdialer and disconnect without connecting to a host computer, five minutes will be charged. Apparently the fact of the BBS or whatever you are calling being busy is not relevant. I do not know how, or if they plan to adjust the billing for out of order telco lines and out of order modems, etc. Telenet/PC Pursuit understands that there are frequent problems in connecting from an outdialer. Per their memo in mid-January, an automatic forgiveness of one minute will be applied across the board on all outdial connections. If the modem is out of order; the telco line is down; or the remote host is busy/having snit fits or whatever *IF YOU DISCONNECT WITHIN ONE MINUTE YOU WILL NOT BE CHARGED. This is reminiscent of the way Sprint/MCI handle things, lacking the call supervision ability of AT&T. 6. ABOUT THOSE TELCO CHARGES FROM THE OUTDIALER: Starlink was originally advertised saying that 'calls outside the local area' of each outdialer would be accepted and billed to your account at telco rates. I noted that in a conversation with a Tymnet sales rep several months ago, I was quoted 110 percent of telco; the surcharge covering billing administration, etc. David Tamkin questioned this in an article a few issues ago; and it is still unresolved. But the Agreement said a little bit more on the subject: Here is just the way it reads: "In some cities, there are surcharges imposed by the local telephone company called MESSAGE UNITS. *These charges are also billed to you.* You are responsible for all long distance charges made from the outdial port to a host computer." End of quote. No kidding! Any telco NOT charging message units now? So now we find we will not only pay for long distance (or one plus, or whatever) made from the outdials at 100-110 percent of telco rates, but we will also pay for local message units on local calls if it is a community which has them. If Tymnet was not able to convince the local telco that they were really using residence service (ha ha!) then the outdialers are business lines, subject to business rates. In Chicago, business telephones pay units on a minute by minute basis even for local calls. Units cost 4-5 cents each here. If a call goes to a suburb, then it may cost 3-5 units *per minute* -- or about 12-20 cents *per minute*. I can call via Reach Out America anywhere for 13 cents a minute without having data network charges on top of that!! Telenet/PC Pursuit makes no charge for calls from the outdialers. They are careful about where they let you call, but using Chicago as the example once again, a call from downtown to Oak Park, which is dialable through a PC Pursuit outdialer, is timed, with so many units per minute. This is perhaps the most damning aspect of the Starlink plan: I have to assume the agreement means what it says: Subscribers will pay for local unit charges in communities were they are charged. And whose word do we take on that: Tymnet of course. Not that they are dishonest; not by any means. But lines have been known to not get disconnected properly, and telcos have been known to incorrectly bill these things. My thinking now is that unless you are a *very, very casual user* of data networks, you would be best to stick with Telenet. And don't think for one minute that 'being able to make extended area calls via the outdialers' is going to be any bargain. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: ki4pv!tanner@bikini.cis.ufl.edu To: uflorida!bu-cs.bu.edu!telecom Subject: Re: A Comparison of Starlink and PC Pursuit Date: Sat Feb 4 08:52:41 1989 The area codes shown on the comparison appear bogus. Neither Longwood nor Orlando are in 305 any more. The northern part of 305 got split off and is now 407. Dr. T. Andrews, Systems CompuData, Inc. DeLand PS: Longwood? Come on, why not just say Sanford. No one outside of the area is likely to know where Longwood is. --- ...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner or... {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu From: westmark!dave@rutgers.edu (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: General purpose, programmable phone switch Date: 3 Feb 89 04:49:33 GMT A recent article in this group asks about a general-purpose programmable telephone switching system. Basically, a PBX designed to let the end-user design the call-processing features. Check out Redcom (they're in New York state, but I've forgotten the city, and I don't have the info handy). They sell building blocks of the kind described... A general-purpose programmable digital switch, implemented as a backplane with available trunk, station, and other interface modules. An RS-232 interface is available. If your computer is connected to that interface, it can receive a text message for every event detected by the switching machine (every switchhook state-change, touch-tone detected, trunk ring or seizure signal, etc.). By sending messages to the switching machine, your computer can control signalling and switching functions. Basically, a PBX in kit form, with an external call-processor. Check it out! -- Dave Levenson Westmark, Inc. The Man in the Mooney Warren, NJ USA {rutgers | att}!westmark!dave ------------------------------ To: watmath!comp-dcom-telecom From: vances@egvideo.UUCP (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: General purpose, programmable phone switch Date: 4 Feb 89 05:00:00 GMT In article AI.CLIVE@MCC.COM (Clive Dawson) writes: >More and more often over the last several months, we have seen >messages to TELECOM inquiring whether or not a box exists which >will do "x", where x is some function dealing with counting >the number of rings on a line, connecting two lines together >in various configurations, automatically answering, automatically >have to be mechanisms to detect busy signals, etc. (One thing I'm >not sure about is how to detect when a remote phone hangs up; is there >an in-band signal for this?) there is a device made by Mitel Datacom called the SMarT-1 (sic) which has precision tone detectors, DTMF generators, DTMF recievers, control (loop or ground start), as well as a bidirectional rs-232c port. it is quite flexible in programming and could be used to help you accomplish many different ideas. it was designed to handle complex routing situations using varied carriers. as for the 'detect when a remote phone hangs up' question, this is called CPC or 'Calling Party Control' and is often found on normal loop start lines. when a caller hangs up the circuit to the phone that was rung is reversed in polarity for a short period of time (milliseconds). many answering machines watch for this and reset when a caller hangs up. the trouble is that it is'nt part of a normal tarriffed service so you can't count on it. on a ground start line (as is used on a PBX) it is much simpler and _is_ an integral part of the service, when the other end hangs up, whether you called or answered, the loop is broken. >I suspect that all of this functionality exists in one form or another >in various answering machines, automatic dialers, call screening >boxes, etc. The question is, has anybody thought of putting it all >into a single box and making it programmable by the user? well the SMarT-1 is quite programable, but that would depend on the user :-) -vance shipley ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU From: decvax!decwrl!apple!denwa!jimmy@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Gottlieb) Subject: Looking for good DISA Date: 5 Feb 89 06:26:04 GMT Does anybody know of a decent DISA unit that doesn't use switched-gain amplification? Buscom makes one, but their use of switched-gain makes it unacceptable for data, or even decent voice. The alternative is to buy a PBX that has a DISA feature, but even the Panasonic KX-T1232, the cheapest of the lot, would cost about $1500 to equip this way and that's a little more than I wanted to spend. For those so uninformed, a DISA (Direct Inward System Access) unit, also called a "WATS Extender", allows dial-up access to a remote PBX or CO dial tone. I would also like to find a device that will take one PBX trunk and one station, and convert it to a 2-wire E&M Tie Trunk, for use in those situations where a PBX is not equipped with special E&M Trunk Cards. If anyone knows of anything along these lines, please let me know. Thanks... -- Jim Gottlieb E-Mail: or or V-Mail: (213) 551-7702 Fax: 478-3060 The-Real-Me: 824-5454 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest *********************