From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 2 02:50:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA22090; Tue, 2 Apr 1996 02:50:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 02:50:49 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604020750.CAA22090@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #151 TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Apr 96 02:51:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 151 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays (Stuart J. Zimmerman) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Ron Elkayam) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Pavel Beker) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (John Higdon) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Dan Ryan) Re: Sprint and Fridays (Steve Travis) Re: Sprint and Fridays (Robert McMillin) Re: Sprint Goes Postal (Stanley Cline) Re: Sprint Saga Continues (ldlcoop@bnr.ca) Re: Sprint: Bait and Switch? (Linc Madison) Re: Sprint? More Like "Walk Slowly" (Mark Smith) MCI Free 800 Number F&F Promotion - Not Exactly What it Seems (Mike Fox) New List: Netizens Association Discussion (Michael Hauben) Talking Clock Changes Phone Numbers (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 17:15:49 -0500 From: f_save@SNET.Net (Stuart J. Zimmerman) Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays It sounds like Sprint is going to get a large number of complaints on Fridays are Free. The FCC provides informations on filing complaints at its web site (http://www.fcc.gov). A relevant excerpt follows: "TELEPHONE SERVICES (Common Carrier Bureau) -- If you have a problem with a telephone company or other company providing these services, you should first try to resolve your problem with the company providing the service or the company billing you for the service. If this is not successful, then you should file a complaint with the proper regulatory agency. For example, complaints about services provided within a state (intrastate) should be filed with the Public Utility Commission for that state. Complaints about services provided between states (interstate) should be addressed to the FCC Common Carrier Bureau, Consumer Complaints, Mail Stop Code 1600A2, Washington, D.C. 20554. The telephone number is 202-632-7553. You may file either an informal complaint or a formal complaint with the FCC. The FCC established the informal complaint process to make it easy for consumers to file complaints about telephone carrier services and for carriers to act promptly, where possible, to satisfy such complaints. Informal complaints are NO LESS important than formal complaints, which are more complex to file, require a $140 filing fee, and which may take an attorney's service. Informal complaints are simply easier to file." An informal complaint is basically just a letter. You should include any relevant facts including the name of the carrier, note what you think the carrier did wrong, and what remedy you are seeking. The FCC will ask the carrier to respond. If the carrier satisfies you, the file is closed. Otherwise the FCC may get involved. Carriers do not like these complaints because they have to respond, and the FCC tracks and may release the number of complaints against carriers. Stuart Zimmerman Fone Saver, LLC Phone: 1-800-31-FONE-1 Web: http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver E-Mail: f-save@snet.net ------------------------------ From: relkay01@fiu.edu (Ron(ell) Elkayam) Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Date: 01 Apr 1996 21:10:24 GMT Organization: The People's Voice, 305-937-6468 Joel M. Hoffman (joel@exc.com) wrote: > So you can make $50 worth of calls every Friday, nothing else during > the week, and pay only tax. (How much is tax, by the way? On > $1,000 it could add up!) No ... You'll pay $50 total (no tax) since you didn't make any calls during non-Friday days (and you definitely didn't break the $1000 barrier). Unless, they give you the $1000 free on their end ONLY, but you still pay the federal excise, local and state taxes??! I'd call them RIGHT NOW to clarify, but their business office is closed today. Oh, BTW, I hope everybody notices that some months have five Fridays while others have onlyfour. It's best to know what you billing cycle is (mine is 5th -> 4th) so you don't treat the current billing month as a four-Friday month while it really has five Fridays; that would mean you PAY for the calls on the fifth Friday. W/love, | Owner & Programmer: The People's Voice BBS @ 305-937-6468 | No pregnant women or heart-conditioned senior citizens are Ron | allowed. Under 42 must get parents' permission to call. Miami, FL | "THIS IS WHAT YOUR MOTHER ALWAYS WARNED YOU ABOUT" ------------------------------ From: pbeker@crl.com (Pavel Beker) Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Date: 01 Apr 1996 12:01:15 -0800 Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) writes: > Ken Leonard recently wrote: (He pointed out that the rate quoted was a night rate, not a day rate, and yet ...) > One of their TV commercials, which shows a man making a phone call > during what is obviously sometime in the afternoon (from a phone > booth), has a sticker on the phone booth door saying something like > "Sprint Sense - Just $.10 a minute". [ . . . ] Weekend. =) This is NO worse than "RATEGATE" or any of the hundreds of other various deceptive advertising / promotions every LD carrier does ... Paul (PS: Weekends are 10c/min, sunny or not, so technically, the call could happen...) ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 10:39:38 -0800 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News randolph@coax.net (William Randolph) writes: > I was not aware that there was ever a Pic'ing charge. Are you saying > that if I am Pic'd to AT&T and I manually Pic to Sprint 10333 that > there is a 40 cent charge? The 80 cent AT&T access charge you're > speaking of is calling card access isn't it? Small point of order here. PIC (Preferred Interexchange Carrier) is the service a particular line uses by default. To change the PIC, the local telco must reprogram your line in the central office. When one dials a carrier (10XXX) code to circumvent the PIC, it is generally referred to as "casual" usage of the carrier. Any given line can only have one PIC (or no PIC), and it cannot be changed by the user on the fly. John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 | http://www.ati.com/ati | ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 01:01:02 PST From: Dan Ryan Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Can there be anyone who still thinks that Sprint Sense makes any sense for Sprint? My own experience of the end of the offer was returning home after three days out of town on Thursday night to find the telegram which I gather everybody else has received. But better than that, my long distance service had been cut off. Any attempt to dial long distance got a Sprint recorded message telling me to press 1 for a customer representative. Presumably due to the thousands of other irate customers, this doesn't work and neither does their regular customer service line. So not only do I not have Friday free service, but I have no service at all, except by pic'ing to another carrier. I immediately called MCI who had contacted me with a rather attractive offer a few days ago and switched to them. A change of carrier around here takes over a week, so Sprint has left me with not even their residential service for that time. Anyone know if Sprint's luckless customer representatives, who must have had the worst few days of their working lives, are now going to be asked to cold call their unhappy former customers in a few weeks? But I guess we all knew before that Sprint doesn't care a whole bunch about its employees ... _ _ 681 Cambridge Drive / \ __ / \ __ Santa Barbara, CA 93111 / / /_/ /| / /__/ /_/ /_/ /| / (805) 967-3177 /__/ / / / |/ / \ / / / / |/ danryan@econ.ucsb.edu ------------------------------ From: stravis@glass.toledolink.com (Steve Brack Stravis Shawn Travis) Subject: Re: Sprint and Fridays Date: 02 Apr 1996 03:21:20 GMT Organization: Toledo Internet Access, Inc. A useful tactic might be a polite letter to Sprint, questioning their legitimacy as a business, and explaining that further payments of Sprint bills cannot be processed without a copy of their articles of incorporation, and their vendor's license. Steve Brack - stravis@glass.toledolink.com ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: Sprint and Fridays Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 06:39:56 GMT On 28 Mar 1996 11:34:01 PDT, Pat said: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yeah, that would be sort of nasty. > People making calls *today, Friday* who have not yet seen the 26 > minute notice of cancellation sent out to them. So next month they > get this huge bill for calls and when they complain, Sprint says > 'tough luck, sucker! Your weekday calls were not balancing out with > your Friday calls so we reneged on our contract. We gave you 26 > minutes notice to get the required documentation to our office. Now > you can sue us if you like but we know you won't since it is a long > involved procedure you cannot afford. PAT] Do you really think so? Sprint extended its customers credit. If the customer didn't pay because of a legitimate, documented dispute, payment may not have to be made immediately -- or ever, which is what I expect will happen. Incidentally: I've been a long-time Sprint residential customer. I've stayed with them for years, through the switch disasters in South Carolina, the free faxmodem caper, and now this. It's almost enough to make me take that $100 check now sitting in the wastebasket from AT&T and switch. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Sprint Goes Postal Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 02:37:08 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services keith@tcs.com wrote: > customers. We are therefore writing to obtain verification of your > business status. The acceptable forms of documented verification > include: > An official document containing both the Tax ID number and the > Company Name (Examples include: Tax Returns, Notice of Tax ID) This still leaves open the question of: o "work-at-homers" who may in fact have a valid EIN (in the format 58-xxxxxxx, not 255-xx-xxxx), such as myself (an EIN is REQUIRED for those who pay employees, get a business license, etc. in this area) and can provide it and still get free Fridays on their "personal" lines _without_Sprint_ever_knowing_ o corporations based in someone's home who MAY run on residential lines (I know an ISP like this!) o nonprofit organizations (churches, fraternities, etc.) who qualify for "residential" rates from most LECs. Do most fraternities, or pastors at home, make business calls? Probably not. They are making no sense (PUN INTENDED) whatever with their "requirements". Does their tariff cover situations like these? They are ambiguous to say the least. Basing tariffs on such vague business "requirements", rather than on the requirement of a "business" rate LEC line, has caused all this confusion. I'm surprised the FCC didn't ask for clarification of their exact eligibility rules. They are just playing hardball with their customers. AT&T surcharges casual callers and increases rates all the time and cut off my calling card twice w/o notifying me ... MCI surcharges casual callers (otherwise, they're fine) ... Sprint tariffs are vague/they play hardball and discriminate and their cellular division (before they spun it off) hates roamers ... LDDS Worldcom still recognizes 205 for 334 in Mobile, AL (yes, they STILL do!) and can't get their network together. I can't say that my current LD carriers play such shenanigans. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 23:41:52 GMT From: ldlcoop@bnr.ca Subject: Re: Sprint Saga Continues Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, TX Pat, I thought I should bring this to your notice, The local Southwestern Bell recently sent me a letter saying that my long distance bill has increased three times and that my service will be disconnected within four days if i did not pay $360 as deposit besides paying a $650 bill. The fact was that I had shifted to Sprint (like many even I think I had fallen as a bait to the butterly marketing and shifted to Sprint on getting confirmed that even residential lines can avail the facility), and Sprint was to have sent me the bill. Later with panic I called SWBT and had to talk to four representatives for two and a half hours and wait on hold to get the Sprint represen- tative only to be questioned continously whether it is a business line or not. Finally when I told the conversation that went between me and the marketing rep. they agreed to waive the bill and said that my Friday calling program stands terminated. The sad part of it was that the representative to whom I talked to did not return my calls and when I said that a friend of mine was willing to join Sprint he gave me a call and so I took the oppurtunity to discuss my problem but he arrogantly put the phone down ... My question is can someone promise something and then take back their word and then when we call back their behaviour is rude. It is pretty contrasting to how they talk before we shift to their carrier ... I just wanted to bring this to the reader's notice that they should never at the first instance believe unless they get something in writing from any person or company which promises to give a unbelievably good deal like the one Sprint offered (one couldn't say Sprint has given something because they never abided by their promise; in fact it is a breach of promise.) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, they cannot legally break their word and back out of promises they made in their advertising, etc. However, their defense in a legal action against them might be that the representative had no authority or right to make such promises to you to begin with; that you made false or misleading statements to the rep to induce the rep to commit on behalf of the company to the program in which you were incorrectly and without tariff authority enrolled; and that the tariff specifically forbids you to be in the program in question. Anytime there is a misunderstanding or an improper arrangement set up in violation of the tariff, then in all instances, the tariff will prevail. The above is all a moot point anyway; they know that no one kicked out of the Business Sense program has the resources to sue them and win. Do *you* have a good attorney who is a skilled practioner in communications law? They're not really concerned about what you think. An informal complaint filed with the Federal Communications Commission might get you some relief. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Sprint: Bait and Switch? Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 21:11:54 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , srkleine@midway. uchicago.edu (steven r kleinedler) wrote: > An issue that might be relevant: given that those Mailgrams some of us > have been getting inform us that our Sprint accounts will be converted > to Sprint Sense, couldn't some argument be made that this is a bait > and switch tactic? > BTW, since you asked, Pat, my first bill showed that the first four > Fridays had roughly $320 in calls. I expect the next one, of the last > three Fridays, to be around $240. I didn't sign up for the "Fridays Free" program, because the advantage of Friday for free is more than balanced in my case by the higher rate the other six days a week. However, the tactics Sprint is using brought to mind a recent discussion I had with their reps about the regular "Sprint Sense" program and its "cash back" provision. I finally got around to calling the stupid 800 number to sign up for the cash back program on Sprint Sense, and I demanded to know why they didn't just automatically sign me up for it, since in essence they just added a new feature to the existing program. In brief, the question boils down to, why would ANYONE ever want to have Sprint Sense WITHOUT the cash back deal? Maybe you don't make enough calls to qualify, so it does you no good, but it does you no harm and maybe as the months go by you'll peek above that magic $25/month threshhold. The reps INSISTED that they couldn't switch me to a new plan without my express permission! (Never mind that they did exactly that when they arbitrarily cancelled a previous discount plan, and then switched me "by default" to a plan that, again, no one in his/her/its right mind would ever choose.) Of course, AT&T's marketing slime woke me at 8:30 the other morning trying to sell me health insurance. Yippee. A couple of years ago, while I was in Europe for ten months, my credit union converted my checking (share draft) account "by default" from one with no monthly charge and no per-check charge to one with a $6/month service charge plus $0.35/check I wrote plus a charge for coming to the teller in person plus a $1/month charge for *having* an ATM card (whether I used it or not!) plus a $1/transaction charge if I used it. Again, why would ANYONE ever choose this account over any of the others offered?? Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: Mark Smith Subject: Re: Sprint? More like "Walk Slowly" Date: Mon, 01 Apr 96 11:59:31 EDT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ In article , write: > I'm about ready to ditch them all entirely for Working Assets > as my LD carrier ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well surprise! Working Assets will get > you Sprint in disguise. WA is a big reseller of Sprint. It sounds like > Sprint may have really bungled up the Free Friday promotion. This may > even be more of a scandal for them than the 'free fax modem' promotion > a couple years ago. Long time readers will recall that one stunk up > the place pretty bad also. PAT] I'd just like to come to the defense of Working Assets as a happy customer. WALD has always handled my customer service requests immediately. They also have covered for their marketing mistakes. A year or two ago, they offered a $10 credit towards any customer whose name was mentioned by another new customer. I added a new line to my home, and wanted the $10 for adding a new line (because I could have set up a separate billing and gotten the credit anyway). They credited it to me grudgingly, but this year when I did the same, I got the $10 credit automatically. It seems that they learned that customers would be willing to double their billing for the credit, so they wised up and gave it to new lines as well. Working Assets may use Sprint's equipment, but their customer service is of a higher quality than any other company out there. Mark Smith [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, I am sure they are quite good; probably because they do everything but actually supply the circuit; the wire between point A and B. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Fox Date: 01 Apr 96 14:25:59 GMT Subject: MCI Free 800# F&F Promotion - Not Exactly What it Seems Maybe some of you have seen MCI's ads in which they are giving away a personal 800 number and 100 free minutes to people who switch to the new F&F plan. I called to sign up for this and just got my materials. Once the fine print is known, the deal isn't quite what it seems. First, the free 800 number. One of the ads clearly shows Whoopi Goldberg giving a little girl a card with her personal 800 number on it: 1-800-xxx-xxxx. No four-digit extension is shown. However, lo and behold, the 800 number they give you has a four-digit extension. So you're actually sharing your "personal" 800 number with up to 9999 people. They call it a security code, but when I called MCI to ask them to change the "security code" to something I could better remember, they told me that the code I wanted was taken. Then the guy fessed up that they had had overwhelming response to the free 800 number promotion, and they only have one 800-nxx space for 800 numbers, so people are sharing. I guess this is OK, it will reduce the wrong number and wardialed calls on my personal 800 number that I have to pay for. But I wanted to get one of these numbers for my fax machine; however it's really not practical because most fax machines I know of can't dial extensions, err, I mean security codes. Then there's the 100 free minutes. The ads, and even the brochure that they sent me, said "100 free minutes", not "up to 100 free minutes." But the fine print of my materials sez "up to 100 free minutes." The even finer print explains that it's 100 free minutes at off-peak rates only, the maximum value of free minutes you can get is the value of 100 minutes at off peak hours, and once you have used $21.25 or something like that worth of free time, you're done, even if it wasn't 100 minutes. Rather disappointing. I've been an MCI customer for over ten years and I've never had a complaint with them until this. And it's still not a bad deal; the number is free and they're giving me free time. It's just not as good as their commercials show, and I think the commercials are a bit misleading. Mike ------------------------------ From: hauben@inibara.cc.columbia.edu (Michael Hauben) Subject: New List: Netizens Association Discussion Date: 2 Apr 1996 05:36:24 GMT Organization: Columbia University Reply-To: hauben@columbia.edu NEW LIST ANNOUNCEMENT: NETIZENS ASSOCIATION During a recent trip to Japan, I met a number of networking enthusiasts who were interested in spreading the Internet in Japan. They found the Netizen concept to be helpful in their efforts. One student who I met in Tokyo, Hiroyuki Takahashi, suggested that there was a need to form a Netizens Association. This association could work towards educating people and helping them to gain literacy in both the technical and social aspects of working, living and playing on the Net. In addition, this Netizens Association would function as a forum to bring people together to protect and advance the Net as a new public commons and global community. I propose to work towards forming a prototype for a local Netizens Association chapter. The success of a few such chapters could lead to the spreading of chapters focused around educational institutions or communities. This would be in conjunction with efforts by people working for similar goals in other countries across the globe like Japan, and Canada. (From Towards a Netizens Association: Proposed Netizens List Charter) In response to these common goals, it was proposed that a Netizens Association be formed. Such an association would fill two purposes, 1) to bring together netizens interested in nuturing the net and 2) to spread knowledge and literacy to those not on-line. To that purpose, the majordomo mailing list netizens@columbia.edu has been created. This list will begin the discussion towards the principles, goals and questions for such an association. I would hope local Netizen Association chapters would form based on this list. These associations could help spread Net Literacy and encourage both new and old users to contribute to the Net. Look to the WWW page: for more information. How to Join: send an e-mail message to netizens-request@columbia.edu with the message body of subscribe
netizens If this does not work, send e-mail to majordomo@columbia.edu with a message body of subscribe
netizens If neither way works, write me at netizens-owner@columbia.edu Michael Hauben Teachers College Dept. of Communication Netizens Netbook http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/ WWW Music Index http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/music/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Many of you will recall that Michael Hauben wrote to the Digest not too long ago about his trip to Japan and the people he met there. At the time there was a discussion about the possible formation of a "Netizens Association" and I am glad to see he has decided to accept the challenge. I wish him best of luck with it and with his mailing list. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:09:01 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Talking Clock Changes Phone Numbers The phone number for the Naval Observatory Master Clock voice announcements has been changed. Calls to 202-653-1800 now reach a recorded intercept message saying: "Thank you for calling the Defense Department Tempo (?) network. The number you have dialed, two oh two, six five three, one eight hundred has been changed. The new number is 202-762-1401." That seemed strange to me but I dialed it and got the clock. So, you may wish to make a note of it also. Apparently the number for computers to call remains the same as it always was. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #151 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 11:08:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA14523; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:08:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:08:21 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604031608.LAA14523@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #152 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 11:08:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 152 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (David S. Greenberg) FCC Rate Filings (was Re: Sprint and Fridays) (Keith Jarett) UC Berkeley Short Course on High Speed LAN Technology (Harvey Stern) BellSouth's FCC Annual Access Tariff Filing (Mike King) Caller ID and DID Trunks (Glenn Foote) No Payphone Calls After Dark? (Van Heffner) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mgreeny@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (David S. Greenberg) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: 3 Apr 1996 08:49:26 -0600 Organization: Greeny's Bar & Grill Christopher L. Davis writes: Ahhh, sounds like AmeriWreck up here in Chicago. A few weeks ago, I began have troubles with my home mailman, so I started switching all my mail over to a PO box I have. Ameritech for my home use said "sure no problem...". AmeriWreck cellular however gave me some song and dance routine about not allowing that to be done because of the potential for fraud. I ended up arguing with the fool for about 30 minutes until he agreed to put it in the system. Then I called the business office back the next day to make sure it went thru -- it did. We'll see at the end of the month ... The other wonderful thing AmeriWreck has been touting is the PIN. The PIN is 'free', confidential, blahblahblah ... yeah right. How many people are going to use the same PIN for their phone as they do for their ATM cards and everything else? How can the PIN be confidential when it's transmitted in the clear over the airwaves? I have flat out refused to get YET another number that does little to prevent fraud (well, at least until the pirates out there get a software upgrade or two) ... Besides which, I usually keep my phone off and have the autolock enabled ... So I already have to enter a PIN everytime I turn the thing on -- WHY oh WHY would I want to enter a PIN everytime I make a call? I would be more than happy to have to use the PIN everytime I turn the phone on, but not everytime I make a call. It's bad enough to try dialing while driving, but to have to enter a PIN (or speed dial it) right after sending the number is going to be a real pain in the tail. I for one plan on cancelling my service if they force this crap on me. And if they say I can't break my contract, then I'm going to sue them for breach of contract. And I can't wait until someone causes a nice major pileup on the xpressway and blames it on having to enter the PIN in their phone. Am I correct in assuming that there is a device out there that 'fingerprints' the antenna of the phone and if the 'print' doesn't match (i.e. cloned phone) that it kills the connection? If so, why doesn't AmeriWreck use that rather than inconveniencing their customers. Oh, and don't even get me started on the 'Interconnect Charge' they started with ... Just waiting patiently until I can go with a different local provider ... for home ... for cellular. Mac, PC, UNIX, etc. Guru at Large.. Internet: mgreeny@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However Cliff McGlamry says it may not be possible to break the contract simply because the carrier still continues to provide the essence of what the contract is about, namely cellular service. He says the fine print in the contract gives them the right to change some of the operating parameters and that the customer is responsible for having equipment which works correctly. PAT ------------------------------ From: keith@tcs.com Subject: FCC Rate Filings (was: Re: Sprint and Fridays) Date: 2 Apr 1996 21:32:18 GMT Organization: TCSI > As you can see they have changed their policy. I in fact called up > Sprint Business and was told that yes indeed what I was told in early > February that as a non-business customer I could use Sprint as long as > I paid the higher rates, but that since then the higher authorities at > Sprint have changed their minds and that more importantly if Sprint > does not enforce their new policy of offering this service to > businesses only they will be in serious trouble with the FCC. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > The truth is the FCC does not care who enrolls for what program. > Sprint is saying that to pass the buck and try to get out of the mess > they created by their own marketing decisions and lack of coordination > with their customer service representatives. And here's the proof, Patrick. On page B12 of the March 22, 1996 {Wall Street Journal} is a story that the FCC has proposed eliminating rate filings by long-distance telephone companies, under authority granted it by the new telecom bill. Choice quotes from the article: "The FCC long considered the public filings a potential means of price collusion and unnecessary to protect consumers." "Indeed, the commission has largely ignored the rate filings since last fall when it declared AT&T Corp. a 'non-dominant' carrier." So Sprint isn't fooling anyone by pretending that the FCC is forcing it to cut off residential users of Business Sense, many or most of whom never claimed to have businesses. It's Sprint's decision all the way. BTW, has anyone faxed back to Sprint that: 1) they do not have a business at home, 2) they never claimed to have a business, and 3) they expect Sprint to honor its freely entered agreement? If so, what was the result? Keith Jarett [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I imagine the result would be that Sprint would claim in reference to (3) that the representative had no authority to enter into such an agreement and that the tariff flatly prohibits it and therefore they are cancelling it. Now what happens after that if someone chooses to push further, I do not know at this point. This is still a fairly new problem. PAT] ------------------------------ From: southbay@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: UC Berkeley Short Course on High Speed LAN Technology Date: 2 Apr 1996 22:37:14 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley U.C. Berkeley Continuing Education in Engineering Announces 2 Berkeley Nationwide Short Courses on: LEADING EDGE LAN TECHNOLOGIES (April 25-26, 1996 Boston, MA) (May 15-16, 1996 Herndon, VA) COURSE DESCRIPTION As LAN Technologies have matured, their use has expanded both in numbers of installations, and in the demands placed on them by emerging applications. This has spawned the growth of a multitude of options for new, high-performance LANs. This course takes an in-depth technical look at many of the technologies that may be applied to solve network growth problems, both today and in the future. The instructor, Rich Seifert, is a developer and co-author of many of the industry standards for LANs and internetworking. The course examines the application and operation of all of the available options for deploying next-generation LAN systems. Topics include: Interconnecting LANs, LAN Switches, Virtual LANs High-Speed LAN Alternatives: IEEE 802.3/Fast Ethernet: 100Base-T, IEEE 802.12/100VG-AnyLAN, ANSI X3T12: FDDI/FDDI-Over-Copper (CDDItm), Asynchronous Transaction Mode (ATM LANs), Wireless LANs. Emphasis is placed on real-world tradeoffs of cost, product availability and interoperability in a confusing evolving market. This course is appropriate for development engineers and managers, network planners and administrators, MIS managers, product marketers, and support personnel responsible for making decisions regarding the deployment of next-generation LAN equipment. This course is not a primer in networking; some familiarity with existing LAN technologies and application environments is assumed. Lecturer: RICH SEIFERT, M.S.E.E., M.B.A., is President of Networks and Communications Consulting, formerly with Digital Equipment Corp. and Industrial Networking, Inc., he was responsible for the development of the Ethernet physical layer and specifications, as well as Token Bus Factory LAN products. He is co-author of the IEEE 802.1, 802.3, 802.4 and Fast Ethernet standards, and is currently working on Wireless LANs, Internetworking, Protocol design, High Speed networks and new network architectures. A much sought after lecturer, Mr. Seifert teaches courses on networking for the University of California at Berkeley and many private companies. Networks and Communications Consulting works with a number of firms developing and manufacturing network products. LEADING-EDGE PROTOCOLS (April 23-24, 1996 Boston, MA) (May 13-14, 1996 Herndon, VA) COURSE DESCRIPTION This comprehensive course covers the very latest advances in Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) including: Ipv6 and transition strategies from Ipv4, smoothe address management, BOOTP and Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, problems and issues for large IP networks, video server requirements, multicast, bandwidth reservation (RSVP) design and application, IP working with ATM. Lecturer: BEN TSAO is a leading expert in network protocols and network design. As Director of advanced technology for GIWA International, he specializes in meeting and exceeeding tactical and strategic business objectives through the effective use of information technology. Tsao brings 20 years of teaching and real-world experience to the classroom. He has taught Advanced Data Communication courses to over 5000 IS professionals in the US, Canada, Europe, and China. For more information (complete course descriptions, outlines, instructor bios, etc.) send your postal address or fax to: Harvey Stern or Jennifer Keup U.C. Berkeley Extension/Southbay 800 El Camino Real Ste. 220 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tel: (415) 323-8141 Fax: (415) 323-1438 ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: BellSouth's FCC Annual Access Tariff Filing Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:42:09 PST Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 08:49:43 -0500 From: BellSouth Subject: BellSouth's FCC Annual Access Tariff Filing Reply-To: info@corp.bellsouth.com BellSouth .......................................April 1, 1996 ATLANTA -- Tomorrow, April 2, BellSouth (NYSE:BLS) is filing its sixth Annual Access Tariff under the FCC's Price Cap incentive regulation plan. These new rates become effective July 1, 1996. In this filing, BellSouth's overall access rates will be essentially unchanged from the 1995 filing level, despite 2.5% inflation in 1995 and a $90 million increase in allowable costs. These rates will continue to include additional voluntary rate reductions below the overall "Price Cap" levels permitted, amounting to $63 million this July. These voluntary extra rate reductions are but one more reflection of BellSouths ability to compete. The FCC's Price Regulation plan provides the incentive for Local Exchange telephone companies like BellSouth to improve earnings if a company can exceed the plan's annual efficiency gain targets. Again this year, BellSouth is electing the highest efficiency improvement target, 5.3%, which maximizes the plan's annual rate reductions for customers. The Price Regulation plan's 5.3% option also provides the highest opportunity for BellSouth to improve earnings from its efficiency gains. It also means the real (inflation adjusted) cost of telephone service will decline by 5.3 percent. Including these rates, since the start of FCC Price Regulation in 1991, BellSouth has reduced interstate switched access rates permitting approximately $800 million in savings to long distance customers had the long-distance companies reduced basic rates instead of raising them in virtual lock step. Under FCC Price Cap regulation, the cumulative value of these interstate switched access rate reductions indicates savings of approximately $2 billion. These access rate reductions have been implemented despite a rise of 16.6% in consumer price inflation for 1991 through the end of 1995. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BST), provides telecommunications services in the Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. With headquarters in Atlanta, BellSouth serves approximately 21-million local telephone lines and provides local exchange and intraLATA long distance service over one of the most modern telecommunications networks in the world. BACKGROUND On Tuesday, April 2, 1996, BellSouth will file with the FCC adjustments to rates for interstate services. The FCC requires carriers subject to price cap regulations to file revised access tariffs reflecting proposed rates and to make appropriate adjustments to the Price Cap Indices. This filing adjusts certain rates in BellSouth's FCC No. 1 (Access Services Tariff) for Switched and Special Access Transport Services. The rates filed are scheduled to become effective July 1, 1996. However, the FCC staff will study the filing and other parties will be allowed to submit comments prior to approval. __________________________ Annual Access Tariff Revisions -------------------------- Q. Are you filing a rate increase or decrease? A.We are filing an increase of 0.03% to these rates.The overall effect of this is a revenue increase of approximately $300,000. Q. What is the productivity offset? A. The productivity offset is used in the Price Cap formula to represent the FCC's expectation that productivity improvements in the company will exceed those in the economy in general. In simple terms, it encourages the company to do substantially better than simply offsetting inflation when it sets interstate prices. Q. Why is BellSouth choosing the 5.3% productivity offset this year? A. BellSouth has to assess many factors in making its selection. Factors such as increased competition and the impact of national telecommunications legislation had to be considered. We then determined that the 5.3% offset best met the needs of the company. Q. The general trend the last several years has been to decrease rates. Why is BellSouth increasing rates this year? A. This rate change is negligible (three one-hundredths of one percent) and overall interstate access rates remain $63 million below the allowed price cap. ### For Information Contact: Joe Chandler, BellSouth Telecommunications (404)529-6235 Bill McCloskey, BellSouth Corporation (202) 463-4129 ---------------------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) Subject: Caller ID & DID Trunks Date: 2 Apr 1996 15:20:10 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet I'm posting this for a friend who has some interesting questions about Caller-ID, Call Blocking, and Related Services in Ameritech Land (Ohio). [They have a legitimate well documented need for this service.] He is responsible for several PBX systems (ROLM), which use DID (Wink Start) Trunks and Regular Central Office PBX (Ground Start) trunks for outbound calls. At least two of the PBXs are fed using T1 from the central office. Certain of his company's personnel are being told (privately ... "over the transom" so to speak) that they must change out this system to Centrex in order to receive Caller-ID information and to effect Call Blocking (as these are not offered to DID customers). Since this change would effectively scrap a few hundred-thousand dollars of equipment, which is otherwise working perfectly, he is reluctant to accept this statement at face value. Nor is he willing to enter into an agreement which would require several thousand more per month in operating cost (not to mention station hardware) to get a Centrex system. There would be only a minor cost to upgrade some of the ROLM systems. Ameritech is somewhat "less than helpful" in this situation, as you might expect. From what he relates to me, it appears to me that response to his inquires at Ameritech are sluggish as best, and at worst either non-existent or misleading. I am semi-retired from this area of the Consulting Business, so I am a little rusty on the technical details of providing Caller-ID to DID circuits. If he needs it, I have offered to step back in, or to recommend someone else, if that would be better for him. They are not yet at that point. In fact, I don't even see this as a Consultant type of problem, although that may change. I would love to hear from anyone who is using Caller-ID on DID Wink Start trunks (Any Switch, AnyWhere but especially in Ameritech Territory). Any comments? ** Glenn "Elephant" Foote ...... glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 04:39:25 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: No Payphone Calls After Dark? BellSouth Wants South Carolina Approval to Turn Pay Telephones Off Overnight By Wendy Warren, The State, Columbia, S.C. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Apr. 3 -- Some pay phones across the state would stop working at night, if BellSouth gets its way. According to the phone company, a few businesses have complained that nearby pay phones encourage drug sales, prostitution and loitering. So BellSouth has asked state regulators for permission to temporarily turn off pay phones if businesses request it. Phones might be turned off overnight or for a few hours during the day. BellSouth didn't say Tuesday which businesses want nearby pay phones turned off. But, the company said, signs on the affected phones would reveal when the phones work and when they don't. Emergency 911 calls would go through, even while the phones are turned off. BellSouth says it is just asking for something that its business customers want: control over their grounds. "We are trying to give those folks the flexibility to deal with some less-than-pleasant situations," said Gregg Morton, a spokesman for BellSouth. But pay phones that don't work could leave other callers stranded, unable to call anything but 911 from some pay phones. Travelers could be frustrated by phones that only work in the daytime. And people who don't have phones in their homes could find their only access to telecommunications gone for hours at a time. "I would be really concerned if they cut off pay phones in the evening in certain areas," said Sue Berkowitz, co-director of the South Carolina Legal Services Association. "They could be cutting off any kind of access to phones for some people." Consumer advocates also are concerned that BellSouth would turn off a pay phone at the request of a business, without input from the police. BellSouth says it will study a phone's call patterns before turning the phone off, but won't request input from the police. In the past, the PSC has allowed pay-phone companies to change the way pay phones work to stem drug sales or other crimes. But, in those cases, the PSC only stopped incoming calls to those phones. And it always required a letter from a law-enforcement agency requesting the change. Police like it that way. "You need to do a lot of research before you jump on something like that," said Warren Gall, a captain with Myrtle Beach police. He asked the PSC to stop incoming calls to one pay phone, which he believed was used to sell drugs and hire prostitutes. Limiting phone use works, Gall said -- if it is part of a larger crackdown. When he asked the PSC to stop incoming calls to a pay phone at a convenience store on Highway 501, he also told the owner to install a fence and post no-trespassing signs. He even moved a police team into the neighborhood. "I think it's always needed to keep any and every legal means of disrupting drug activity and vice activity," Gall said. BellSouth's request is now being considered by the state's Public Service Commission. Tuesday, the commission decided to mull over the matter for another week before voting on it. But one commissioner said Tuesday that he wasn't sure the PSC should stop requesting a letter from police before changing a phone's operation. Dukes Scott said that BellSouth's request seemed broad. Businesses "might have people they just don't like using the pay phones," Scott said. "It's giving a lot of discretion to BellSouth." But BellSouth said that it didn't want to turn off pay phones indiscriminately -- and neither do businesses, which are paid for keeping a pay phone on the premises. Similar arrangements have been approved in all of BellSouth's nine Southeastern states, except North and South Carolina, Morton said. "I think it's really an effort to respond to what our customers are asking for," Morton said. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #152 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 11:55:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA19789; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:55:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:55:05 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604031655.LAA19789@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #153 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 11:55:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 153 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Tony Pelliccio) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Steve Bagdon) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Bob Goudreau) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Eric Kammerer) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Thomas P. Brisco) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Garrett Wollman) Cellular Telephone PIN's and Authentication - View from UK (Greg Eaton) Re: LD Carrier Bribes (Phil Stanley) Re: LD Carrier Bribes (John A. Weeks III) Re: LD Carrier Bribes (Stuart J. Zimmerman) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: 3 Apr 1996 21:35:20 -0500 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. In article , Our Esteemed Moderator Writes:> > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the carriers > do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. Voiceprints are > supposed to be unique. This would solve a couple of problems. One is > the accident rate supposedly attributed to dialing while driving. The > voiceprint would also help out with the fraud problem since the switch > would only recognize the phone owner's voice to go with the ESN. You > would speak to the phone saying something like "Dial, five five five > one two one two send." Your unique voiceprint would go to the tower > and either it would be acceptable or it would not be. Using a combin- > ation of voiceprint and what has been termed the 'RF print' unique to > each phone -- in combination of course with the ESN -- should help > cut down on fraud. PAT] The problem with voiceprint technology is that a simple thing like a cold renders the system worthless. Ever try voice dialing with a cold? There probably exists technology that gets around the problem but the cost is probably prohibitive. Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR As offensive as I wanna be. kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 08:33:20 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN diamond@interserf.net (Dave Perrussel) said: > Both Bell Atlantic and Cellular One -- the carriers in the metro Washington > DC area -- force you to use it. > So, you're out of luck no matter what service you're on. > Hopefully it will stop "cloning" of ESNs -- but I doubt it. :) To the best of my knowledge (up to now), *no* SID uses the control channels to transmit the PIN, all systems use the voice channels. For the good radio designer/operator, this is a day's work to break this system -- first RECC, then FOCC, then FOVC, then capture PIN -- child's play. Since my experience is in programming and analysis, and not radio technology, the free-world should feel safe. :) But someone out there *does* have this capability, and they *are* doing it. Even if the carrier were to figure out some way to get the phone manufacturers to design a control channel transmitted pin (which could have been alleviated with encrypted ESN transmissions), then it would have to be compatible with control channels on SIDs that *don't* have the switching software upgrades. Backward engineering the control channel changes would be a day's work -- two at most. Remember, the best way to *feel* secure is to know how *not* to feel secure. then ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) said: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the carriers > do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. Voiceprints are > supposed to be unique. This would solve a couple of problems. One is > the accident rate supposedly attributed to dialing while driving. The > voiceprint would also help out with the fraud problem since the switch > would only recognize the phone owner's voice to go with the ESN. You > would speak to the phone saying something like "Dial, five five five > one two one two send." Your unique voiceprint would go to the tower > and either it would be acceptable or it would not be. Using a combin- > ation of voiceprint and what has been termed the 'RF print' unique to > each phone -- in combination of course with the ESN -- should help > cut down on fraud. PAT] All good ideas. But you are looking at updating a 1000 SIDs, with hundreds of cells per SID -- think of the capital cost required to get the cells up to date with this technology. And by the time that AMPS had this capability, PCS will be here and the capbility won't be needed anyway. I think the cellular providors are hoping that PIN use will alleviate the *worst* of the fraud, then PCS will solve the problem entirely. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net Katharine aNd Steve Bagdon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 96 09:59 EST From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Organization: Excelsior Computer Services In article is written: > A better solution might be to store the PIN in a speed dial memory and > just send it from there when needed. I've seen two ways to handle PIN's, one moderately inconvenient, and one very inconvenient. On one system, a PIN must be sent every time the phone is powered on a used for at least one call. Additional calls don't require the PIN to be re-entered. That's not so bad. But on my (Nynex) system, I have to enter the PIN after EVERY phone call. The really big problem with this is that is makes re-dial useless -- I can only redial the PIN. (And, as I've mentioned before, anyone who steals the phone just hits redial and my PIN pops up on the screen.) Is one system considerably safer than the other? Joel (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:14:31 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Dave O'Shea (dos@panix.com) spaketh thusly: > I'll be amused to see the first case where a carrier is named as > co-defendant after a particularly horrid car accident attributed to > someone being inattentive while dialing that second string of digits. > A decent PI lawyer would *pay* for the opportunity to have some > carrier type on the stand, asking him in an oh-so-sincere voice "So > Mr. Jones, while you may have saved, oh, FOUR MILLION DOLLARS (wink, > nod, towards jury) in fraud, did the safety implications of making > drivers dial twice figure into that equation, and why did you make > your customers responsible for covering up a design flaw in your > security system?" Count me among the people who would be horrified and disgusted by such a case, not amused by it (although I do find humor in the oxymoronic phrase "decent personal injury lawyer" :-)). People need to be responsible for their own actions instead of always looking for some other party to blame. The fact is, if using your cellular phone (whether listening, talking, dialing a PIN or dialing some other number) diverts so much of your attention that you are no longer able to drive well, then you have no business trying to do these two things simultaneously. Either hang up the phone and concentrate on the driving, or else pull over to complete your call. I'd rather not see US states introduce laws like the ones now found in several countries which prohibit drivers from using handheld mobile phones. For most people, hitting a speed-dial button is no more difficult than fiddling with the car radio or climate system, and conversing on a handset is no more dangerous than using a CB microphone or talking to passengers in the same vehicle. I'd like to see common sense prevail. But if enough irresponsible people abuse their vehicles and phones and cause enough stupid accidents, I expect that lawmakers will be goaded into passing just that sort of rigid law. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 96 09:20:17 PST From: erick@sac.AirTouch.COM (Eric Kammerer at Sac Net) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the carriers > do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. Voiceprints are > supposed to be unique. Voice prints aren't all that reliable. They are negatively affected by environmental noise. They don't work nearly as well with high-pitched voices. If you have a sinus infection or cold, your voice print will be different. Voice print equipment is not cheap, nor is it part of the switch. A very significant investment would be required to mandate voice print security. Who do you think would end up paying for it? OTOH, such equipment does increase the airtime of a call, (especially with retries) so it could generate a lot of extra airtime minutes. In the near future, carriers will be able to confirm roamer PINs at the same time they verify the roamer -- the additional data transfer is tiny. Now, to do this with voiceprints would require huge data transfers, and identical systems at both ends (Probably even identical software). Not very practical. Final issue, if I loan my cellphone to my wife today, she can make a call -- with or without a PIN requirement. That is not true for voiceprints. If I have a heart attack, she couldn't call for help. True, the carrier could do special routing for 911, but special routes increase costs, and increased costs get passed on to the customer. Now, voice activated dialing is another matter. It can be very helpful, as long as you keep in mind the limitations described above. Some carriers are providing that service today. Eric Kammerer erick@sac.AirTouch.com ------------------------------ From: Thomas P. Brisco Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 13:36:46 -0500 Organization: IEEE Lest we forget: For people who read the manuals, I believe that most manuals indicate that you should neither dial nor operate a cell phone while operating a vehicle. Some states have explicit laws covering this. Interesting lawsuit indeed ... Tp ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: 2 Apr 1996 11:49:24 -0500 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , CLIFFORD D. MCGLAMRY <102073.1425@compuserve.com> wrote: > Of course, if you really want to deal with [cellular fraud], write > your congressman and tell him you think that cloned phones should > carry the same penalties as counterfit money for manufacturing or > mere possession. Or even better, write your congressbeing and tell it you think that cellular carriers should be required to implement /real/ security within the next five years, or lose their licenses. (Unfortunately, this hasn't got much chance of passage, since the telecom lobby is so huge and spends so freely, and a lot of "law enforcement" types are unhappy about the prospect of people being able to have private conversations.) Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 22:40:43 +0100 From: Greg Eaton Subject: Cellular Telephone PIN's and Authentication - View from UK In TELECOM Digest 143 Michael Schuster (schuster@panix.com) writes: > 1. What is "authentication" - I am familiar only with PIN codes and RF > fingerprinting. In the UK, Vodafone have recently introduced a clone prevention system called authentication, on their analogue (ETACS) network, which may be similar to the one your carrier suggested. Note: The UK has also been hit by fraud on the ETACS system on a large scale in the last couple of years, but not to the huge extent of the US. I think this is to do with our two NATIONAL networks, Vodafone and Cellnet, reducing the need for "Roaming" and having alternative carriers. However we have never introduced PIN's in the way it seems to be understood on the AMPS system. Indeed there were no defensive measures until Vodafone rolled out the above system quietly at first in September 1995 and then loudly thereafter, particularly once they realised it gave them a huge advantage over Cellnet from a marketing, operational and profitability point of view. How it works: Firstly you must setup the phone: The service provider (carrier) mails all customers a little security sealed envelope, with a PIN code inside (16 digits). On the outside is a 11 digit PIN ID code, not the full 16 digits. The customer then calls the network operator's PIN entry centre, and is helped through the entry of the PIN into their particular type of phone. This is a simple job on an Ericsson 237 or NEC P4. The customer is told not to read out their PIN at any stage, nor release this information to any third party, including their dealer, or service provider. The customer then tells the PIN entry centre the PIN ID - NOTE: Not the full PIN, who enters it into the Network Computer Systems. A complicated and top secret algorithm then decodes this ID, into the full PIN which remains undisplayed. The above steps only need to be carried out on a "Once only" basis unless the subscriber or the network feels the security of the PIN has been compromised. In this case its simple to issue a new one and start again at the top. Therafter: At call setup, the subscriber dials the number they wish to call, then the phone transmits the subscriber number, the number called and a B- ESN. This B-ESN is a "Bastardised" ESN which has been encrypted by the phone with an algorithm that works using the PIN number and the number dialed. Obviously the network can decode the B-ESN, as it knows the number dialed, and the appropriate PIN for that subscriber number. After checking it all for matches the call then proceeds. The B-ESN varies for nearly every call made, as it is encoded using the number dialed as well as the ESN and PIN Code. The security of the system is inherent, in that only the phone and the network know all three codes, and the ESN is NEVER transmitted without being encoded. Vodafone have currently been introducing this system over the last few months, in batches of numbers, and now the old game of having a carphone and a h/portable on the same number is all but gone. As a result of introducing it, the number of clones they are having to deal with is falling quite rapidly, where as I'm led to believe Cellnet's clones are increasing monthly, (You cant keep a good cloner down!) I hope this might give you and other readers a few pointers, please excuse any slight technical inaccuraccies. I'm in sales not in engineering. Greg Eaton - Adam Phones Ltd. - The Mobile Phone Hire Specialists Tel: +44-181-742-0101 Fax:+44-181-742-3679 ------------------------------ From: Phil Stanley Subject: Re: LD Carrier Bribes Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:41:05 -0400 Organization: MagicNet, Inc. Tim Tyler wrote: > I recently received a check from AT&T for $100, but a condition of > cashing the check is that by endorsing it, I'm giving AT&T permission > to switch my long-distance phone service over to them. > I'd like to beat Ma Bell at their own game, so I'm wondering if there > is anything that would stop me from endorsing the check, getting the > $100 and having my LD service switched to AT&T, and then within a week > or two, switching it back to my current LD carrier? I realize I might > have to pay to have the service switched back from AT&T, but I think > the amount would be on the order of around $10, leaving me still with > $90 from AT&T, and it is likely I could get the LD carrier to switch > me over to them for free. > I saw no fine-print on the AT&T propmotion that would prevent or deter > me from cashing the check/switching to them for LD service, then > switching back to my original LD provider within a matter of days. > But I'm wondering if other people have tried this, and what the > outcome was. If you lost AT&T interest after cashing the check and switching away in a short period of time, you wouldn't be losing much. They charge the highest rates of all the Long Distance carriers. Yes, quality comes with AT&T but, you can have that same quality at lower rates elsewhere. ------------------------------ From: jweeks@visi.com (John A. Weeks III) Subject: Re: LD Carrier Bribes Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:18:48 -0600 Organization: Newave Communications In article , tim@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) wrote: > I recently received a check from AT&T for $100, but a condition of > cashing the check is that by endorsing it, I'm giving AT&T permission > to switch my long-distance phone service over to them. One strategy I recently heard about was to call your local phone company, and request a PIC freeze. Then endorse the check "for deposit only". This is enough to cash the check, but you have not signed it to allow AT&T to change your carrier. The PIC freeze to make sure that they don't try to slam you. I don't think that this game will still work. The check I just received requires a signature to be cashed (says right on it), and you need to have AT&T service a minimum of 30 days. According to FCC stats, the typical AT&T customer stays with AT&T only seven months. Divide this into the $100 check, and you find that AT&T needs to overcharge you $14 per month to break even. I reccomend tossing the check in the trash and going with a smaller discount carrier like Frontier, LDDS, or Excel. BTW, an MCI rep told me that they are authorized to spend up to $300 in incentives to bring back a customer. If you are on MCI, use the AT&T check, then hold MCI over the fire for at least $200 in free calls to "come back home". John A. Weeks III (612) 946-8815 jweeks@visi.com Newave Communications FAX 946-8816 http://www.visi.com/~jweeks ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 09:18:57 -0500 From: f_save@SNET.Net (Stuart J. Zimmerman) Subject: Re: LD Carrier Bribes I TELECOM Digest #149, Tim Tyler said: > I recently received a check from AT&T for $100, but a condition of > cashing the check is that by endorsing it, I'm giving AT&T permission > to switch my long-distance phone service over to them. > I'd like to beat Ma Bell at their own game, so I'm wondering if there > is anything that would stop me from endorsing the check, getting the > $100 and having my LD service switched to AT&T, and then within a week > or two, switching it back to my current LD carrier? A day or two will work as long none of the terms give a minimum trial period. Last year I did so. For business reasons I wanted to check out AT&T's customer service. (Unfortunately, I only received $75.) The check stated that only the listed line would be switched. I was suspicious, so I checked both of my lines every few days. Sure enough they switched both lines. Given their greediness, I immediately switched both lines back to my original carriers. (One gave me frequent flier miles for coming back.) Phone bills showed that I had been with AT&T for about two days. > I realize I might have to pay to have the service switched back from > AT&T, but I think the amount would be on the order of around $10, leaving > me still with $90 from AT&T, and it is likely I could get the LD carrier to > switch me over to them for free. Since AT&T either expects you to pay the switching fee to AT&T out of the $100 or will reimburse you in a credit/AT&T coupon (depending on the offer), you will probably end up paying the fee to switch to AT&T in the first place. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They won't sue you to get back the > hundred dollars if that is what you mean. Like most people who perpetrate > petty fraud through the mail -- send in book club and record/tape club > coupons to get free merchandise when promising to buy more later on > and then failing to do so, etc -- you'll simply get listed on the > carrier's records as a petty chisler; someone not to be trusted in > minor matters of honesty where mailorder is concerned. The essence of > it will be you won't get any more promotions from them through the mail > of any value. You may find your account flagged in such a way as is > understood by insiders 'do not extend courtesies' meaning on future > dealings where the service rep may have considerable latitude in whether > or not to charge or writeoff an installation or service fee or make an > adjustment on some minor matter they'll be less likely to try and > appease you as they might do for other customers. In other words, it > won't go unnoticed. PAT] Not so. While your way of running a long distance carrier makes sense to me, that is not what happens. First, it is not petty fraud. They do not specify how long you need to stay with them. (This is because their marketing gurus believe that it lowers the response rate.) Second, after the incident I described, I received a half dozen other offers from AT&T to try them again. When it got up to $75 I took their offer again. While I do not use them for many calls, and put in a PIC freeze on my other line before doing so, I switched one line and currently have AT&T on one of my lines. Stuart Zimmerman Fone Saver, LLC Phone: 1-800-31-FONE-1 Web: http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver E-Mail: f_save@snet.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #153 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 12:58:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA27071; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:58:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:58:11 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604031758.MAA27071@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #154 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 12:58:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 154 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: The ACTA Petition At The FCC (Roy M. Silvernail) Re: The ACTA Petition At The FCC (Henry Baker) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (Steve Bagdon) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (William Hawkins) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (Ron Schnell) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (Peter Simpson) Report From ACTA In Phoenix (Jeff Buckingham) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Tom Olin) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Steve Brack) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (A. Okapuu-von Veh) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Heflin Hogan) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Robert Bulmash) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Dave Levenson) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Rob Carlson) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Eric Kammerer) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: The ACTA Petition At The FCC From: roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 07:01:42 CST In comp.dcom.telecom, jbucking@callamerica.com writes as an ACTA member: > There is no reason that talking over the Internet should be any > cheaper than talking on the phone. Once access charges are fixed the > decision could be left up to the consumer to decide. Here's the whole of the problem. Actually, the opposite is true: there is no reason that talking on the phone should be more expensive than talking over the internet. Data are data, guys. What are you going to do when the final collimation happens and we have a single data communications avenue for all types of traffic? "Telephone" companies, as such, are obsolete. Ry M. Silvernail roy@cybrspc.mn.org ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: The ACTA Petition At The FCC Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:08:47 GMT In article , jbucking@callamerica. com wrote: > There is no reason that talking over the Internet should be any ^^^^^^^^^ > cheaper than talking on the phone. Once access charges are fixed the > decision could be left up to the consumer to decide. Uh ... how about Quality of Service? Between the low bit rates, the lack of guaranteed latency, and the high blocking factor, I'd say that the Internet phone should cost about 1/100 that of a real phone call. And, surprisingly enough, that is about what it costs! [Do your children know what you ACTA guys do for a living?] www/ftp directory: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 08:33:16 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone John Higdon said: > And I must say, this is the most pathetic filing to come across my > desk in many years. Out of the box, let me say that I feel that > Internet voice communication is a substantial misuse of packet > technology. And I agree that it is an inefficient use of network > bandwidth. And I say: This is what I have been saying ever since this issue came up -- this is a (technical) non-issue. I-Phone software probably represents about 00.0000001% of the toll company's entire revenue base. The 'Internet' is the greatest limitator of the I-Phone debate -- there just isn't enough digital bandwidth out there to place a big hit (or small hit) against the toll carrier's bottom line. Do you get the idea that a marketing person, a general counsel clerk, and an AVP got together over drinks, and convinced someone 'higher up' of this perceived threat to the bottom line? My impressions is that there will be more money spent *trying* to outlaw I-Phone, then will be *lost* from I-Phone usage. That's right -- we are keeping the lawyers busy on this one, with no geniune purpose. Yes, more government rules and regulations scare me -- we are already top heavy to begin with. But why can't logic take over, and we can just let this darned thing die the death it deservers? Should we outlaw *all* recording devices and A/D & D/A technology? Isn't recording a voice message, and sending e-mail with this voice mail message as an enclosure, bypassing toll carriers? Steve B. bagdon@rust.net Katharine and Steve Bagdon ------------------------------ From: bill@texan.rosemount.com (William Hawkins) Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone Organization: Rosemount, Inc. Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 23:33:18 GMT chiner@quark.gmi.edu (Chris Hiner) wrote, in part: > Personally, I'd be more in favor of these kinds of programs, only if > there was a way to have their packets sent at a lower priority ... > But then, that'd make it less useful ... There is another group that ought to be concerned about I-Phone. The Network Time Protocol presently makes use of those high priority packets to synchronize the clocks of computers on the Internet with sub-millisecond accuracy. The method relies on a narrow spread in the propagation times of the packets. Congestion will reduce the possible accuracy. Then again, perhaps the Global Positioning System time broadcasts will replace ntp as a way to get accurate time, relegating ntp to local networks. Bill Hawkins bill@bvc.frco.com 612 895-2085 Minneapolis, MN USA ------------------------------ From: ronnie@twitch.mit.edu (Ron Schnell) Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone Date: 02 Apr 1996 22:12:59 GMT Organization: MIT This is really stupid. How can you call the manufacturer of a software product a telecommunications CARRIER? That's like calling Panasonic a carrier because they make Easa-phones. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Ron ronnie@space.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 14:25:05 EST From: Peter Simpson Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone A few points need to be raised here: 1. The filing seems to overlook the fact that the companies named are supplying, not "telephone service", but software which digitizes speech, and a program which allows the digitized speech to be transferred over a TCP/IP network. 2. *Someone* is paying for the communications bandwidth used to transport the digitized voice packets. It may not be the person talking into the microphone, but it most certainly is their ISP. So, the telephone company is collecting their fee for carrying the bits. 3. Real-time transmission of the packets over the Internet is *not* guaranteed. And you can be sure the situation will be self-limiting as soon as more than a few people try to use I-phone at the same time. 4. Bits is bits. It's none of the phone companies' business what I send over a packet data network. I can also send CuSeeMe video ... uses quite a bit more bandwidth, doesn't it? 5. I find it hard to believe that real-time voice over Internet is a serious threat to any phone company's revenue. This sounds rather like the old state of affairs in ham radio, when the monolithic Bell System pressured the FCC to restrict the hams' use of radio-to-landline interconnect ("phone patches") because they claimed it would cut into their mobile telephone revenues. Shouldn't we be using the Internet to explore new communications techniques, instead of trying to squash innovation? Granted, too many people using I-Phone would slug down the network to an intolerably slow rate, but that's none of the phone company's business ... Oh, and by the way ... has anyone else noticed how hard it was to get a dialtone during the snowstorms in the northeast this winter? One reason mentioned in the local papers was that all the people who stayed home, dialled up their ISPs or offices and stayed connected for the rest of the day; knowing that if they disconnected, they'd never get dial tone again! Peter Simpson, KA1AXY Linux! Peter_Simpson@3mail.3com.com 3Com Corporation The free Unix (508) 264-1719 voice Boxborough, MA 01719 for the 386 (508) 264-1418 fax ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 10:42:06 -0800 From: Jeff Buckingham Subject: Report From ACTA In Phoenix Reply-To: jbucking@callamerica.com I had an open debate with member of ACTA Monday in Phoenix regarding the ACTA petition at the FCC. My conclusion from the debate is that there was not a consensus of members to alter or withdraw the petition at this time. I do think it is important to mention that the real target of the ACTA petition is not ISPs or talking over the internet but access charges that are five to seven times what they should be. Most of us who are familiar with the Internet and the FCC would agree that the chances of the FCC imposing access charges on ISPs or banning software are slim to none. My suggestion here is that the carriers and ISPs focus on the real source of the problem which is high access charges. We will all benefit from access charge reductions and the reductions in prices of long distance calls that they will cause. I have to say that as an ACTA member I am very disappointed in the position my association has taken. I do have to realize that there are many people out there who are not familiar with the Internet and may be threatened by it. I do think it is important to note that AT&T, MCI, Sprint, and CompTel have not joined with ACTA and I think this tells us all where the real support is in the long distance business. Jeff Buckingham Call America, San Luis Obispo, CA 805-545-5100 MyLine (voice and fax) jbucking@callamerica.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please keep us posted whenever you hear more from the organization on this matter. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:31:37 -0500 From: Tom Olin Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Reply-To: tro@partech.com In article edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) writes: > Of course, one guy has made a bizarre claim in several newsgroups that > MS and Intel have some agreement that anybody selling x86 PCs is > required to license Windows for every unit, whether they bundle > Windows with it or not! Ed might think it bizarre, but Bill Gates apparently did not view it that way. Although there was no collusion between Microsoft and Intel, that "guy" was essentially correct. Here's an excerpt from an article I just located on the net: First, to date, Microsoft has required computer vendors to pay a license fee for every PC they ship that contains a particular microprocessor (e.g., every xxx86), regardless of whether the OEM includes DOS or Windows with the shipment. This created an economic disincentive to ship any OS other than Microsoft DOS, since the vendor was forced to pay for the Microsoft program whether or not the vendor included it. This practice must now stop. In the future, Microsoft must charge its licensees on a per copy basis; that is, a licensee must pay Microsoft only if it chooses to ship a PC unit with DOS, Windows or Windows95. The full text of the article can be read at http://www.lgu.com/an50.htm. I'm sure other references are readily available if you don't trust that one. Tom Olin Telephone: +1 315 738 0600 ext. 638 PAR Government Systems Corporation FAX: +1 315 738 8304 8383 Seneca Turnpike E-mail: tom_olin@partech.com New Hartford, NY 13413-4991 WWW: http://www.partech.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:30:35 -0500 From: Steve Brack Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library In article is written: > Of course, one guy has made a bizarre claim in several newsgroups that > MS and Intel have some agreement that anybody selling x86 PCs is > required to license Windows for every unit, whether they bundle > Windows with it or not! As I understand it, Microsoft had agreements with several system manufacturers such that the manufacturers pay a license fee for every system they produce, or a certain percentage of systems produced, regardless of what operating system is installed on it. The net effect of this is that if these companies wanted to produce some machines with say OS/2 pre-loaded, they'd effectively be paying twice, once to Microsoft, and once to IBM. So, what ends up happening is that other OS providers are effectively locked out of the new PC pre-installed market. The Justice Department had a problem with these licensing agreements, threatened anti-trust action, and Microsoft backed off. ------------------------------ From: alex@Xenon.EE.McGill.CA (A. Okapuu-von Veh) Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: 2 Apr 1996 14:12:25 GMT Organization: McGill University, Undergraduate EE Lab > In article TELECOM Digest Editor > wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > If I were asked which was more likely, that I would win the lottery > and live to collect it all or that Bill Gates walked up to me > personally and handed me a check for a million dollars, I would say > the latter ... Wasn't there a case recently in which a lotter winner in California sued because of the 20-year payout period? He had calculated that $50,000 a year over 20 years was so much less than the million he was entitled to, and won the lawsuit ... Alex Okapuu-von Veh - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - McGill University 3480 University St. - Montreal, QC, CANADA - H3A 2A7 Ph: (514) 398-5993 - Fax: 398-7348 Hydro Quebec: (514) 251-4263 ------------------------------ From: mhh001c@pdnis.paradyne.com (Heflin Hogan) Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: 2 Apr 1996 14:17:01 GMT Organization: AT&T Paradyne In article , edellers@shivasys. com (Ed Ellers) writes: > Of course, one guy has made a bizarre claim in several newsgroups that > MS and Intel have some agreement that anybody selling x86 PCs is > required to license Windows for every unit, whether they bundle > Windows with it or not! > Honestly, the more I read Usenet the more examples I see of people who > need to grow up and start living in the real world. Except this is partially correct. MS has in the past licensed its operating system on a per processor basis, regardless of whether the OS was installed on the all of the machines or not. It was one of the practices the feds looked into a while back and I believe MS was asked to stop. I do not know whether the practice continues, and Intel never had anything to do with it. Lesson: At least some of the "bizarre claims" out there have a basis in fact, and not everyone with a strong opinion is a juvenile living in a fantasy land. Regards, Heflin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are also partly correct, but in actual practice over the past dozen years I have seen some incredibly naive postings on Usenet from people who have apparently lived in fantasy worlds all their lives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Date: 3 Apr 1996 09:13:31 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) > Any chance you have the 800 numbers for ATT, MCI and US Sprint to get > put on their "do not hassle" list? I'm tired of hearing from them. Here are the 800 numbers you were looking for: MCI 800-444-3333 Sprint 800-877-4000 AT&T 800-222-0400 Here is what to say: "Put me on your do-not-call list. You may share my request with affilliated entities. I do not wish to be solicited for any product or service offered by your firm." Here is what to give them: - your telephone number only - Here is what to log: The date and time of your request, and the name of the person you gave it to. Here is what to know: It may take ten minutes of wait time to get these "customer service" numbers to anwser. Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't it also fair to give them your name and address also if they request it, and not just your phone number *only* ? That way if you change your phone number you should theoretically remain on their list of people not to call. Isn't it also important to note that if you do move or change your phone number you need to re-state your request, and cannot really blame them if a call or two gets through before your new address/number is noted in their records? PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 04:04:41 GMT Christopher L. Davis (cld@prin.edu) writes: > My cellular phone company is touting a PIN number as the answer to > some types of fraud... and Pat adds: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I used to think PINs would not be much > good, but I have changed my thinking somewhat. The reason is that the > ESN is transmitted on a control channel and your PIN is transmitted > on a different channel a few seconds later. Like so many things in the wide world of telephony, this is the case in some areas; it is not the case in _all_ areas. At AT&T Wireless in the New York City metro area, the PIN is sent over the control channel as part of a call-setup message, the same message that contains the ESN. To turn off anti-fraud (and thus enable the phone for its intended user) we actually place a call to the PIN. That is, we enter the PIN and press SEND. The phone acts as if it is calling that number. It transmits an ACCESS message containing its ESN, its MIN, and the PIN (which occupies the dialed number field of the ACCESS message). The cellular system responds by assigning a voice channel and transmitting a brief stutter-tone to the caller. It then disconnects the call. The MIN is now enabled for as long as the phone is powered up (actually, for as long as the phone continues to register periodically). We then place ordinary calls without using the PIN again. We can place a call to a variation of the PIN that turns anti-fraud back on, or let it time out. This way of doing things offers certain conveniences to the user. I can store the PIN as a speed-dial in the phone, and enter it by pressing only one key. (On my phone, I dial 9 to turn off anti-fraud. It seems natural to me, like dialing 9 to reach an outside line from the office PBX.) It may well be that in other cellular systems, PINs are sent as DTMF messages over the voice channel, but when I roam in Chicago, I still use the same PIN method as when I'm at home in NYC. It works for me. Given that NYC is reputed to be the cellular fraud capital of the known world, it is likely that someone will eventually figure out how to intercept the MIN/ESN/PIN combination from the ACCESS message, so perhaps we'll be switched to the more secure (but probably less convenient) system Pat describes. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN From: Rob Carlson Date: Wed, 03 Apr 96 12:05:53 EST Organization: Cola (Neon/CSA Productions), South Plainfield, NJ, USA joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) writes: > I, too, despise the use of a PIN, particularly because I have to dial > it after every number, which makes re-dial useless. Not only that, > but if the phone is stolen, all the theif has to do is press > "re-dial," and up pops my pin! I beg to differ -- isn't the pin transmitted on a different frequency then the rest of your cellular phone information? That provides an extra level of security from those people that can scan and grab your cellular codes right off the air. If you can't make things impossible, just make them really difficult for them. Even I have my pin stored in the automatic register of my phone (number 7 I think) so all I have to do is press send after the double rings and my PIN is automatically sent -- I just figure if my phone is stolen I'll have enough time to call the company and tell them to turn it off before too much damage is done. Just my two cents. Rob Carlson tel: +1-908-937-0452 email: sysop@cola.westmark.com System Administrator, Cola (Neon/CSA) uucp: ..uunet!westmark!cola!sysop South Plainfield, New Jersey, USA fax: +1-908-412-9291 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Apr 96 08:58:59 PST From: erick@sac.AirTouch.COM (Eric Kammerer at Sac Net) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN > Now if you really are opposed to using a PIN and your phone will > not work without one, then yes, you can cancel your service and > no, they *cannot* charge you a cancellation fee simply because they > have broken the contract with you by changing the terms of the > service agreement. I'm not too sure that you can claim a broken contract here. The carrier hasn't changed the terms of the service agreement. Only the dialing pattern has changed. If changes in dialing pattern caused the contract to be broken, there would be no practical way to allow for such things as new codes, NPA splits or overlays, new feature access codes, etc. Ameritech's actions to eliminate roaming _might_ be considered a breach of contract, but even there, you don't own the MIN, the carrier does. I'll bet if you looked at your contract, you would see that it basically requires you to pay for the use of airtime on the carrier's system. There are probably no guarantees of service availability. There probably are specific reserved rights to change any and all methods for access to and operation of the network. In essence, you have a rental agreement for airtime. You pay a minimum fee for access and a variable fee for usage. Rent a truck, and you'll pay the same way (e.g., $19/day plus mileage). Eric Kammerer erick@sac.AirTouch.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well this is what Cliff McGlamry said in an article a couple of days ago, so I think I stand corrected on it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #154 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 13:35:33 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA01734; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 13:35:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 13:35:33 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604031835.NAA01734@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #155 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 13:35:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 155 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Phil Stanley) Re: Sprint and Fridays (Rodney Green) Re: Can PacBell Block Caller ID on my Maryland Phone? (John W. Waters) Re: BellSouth Radically Changes Toll Rates (Stanley Cline) Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Docs (Steve Bunning) Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club (Steven Lichter) Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club (Mike Seebeck) Re: Remote Call Forwarding (External Device) (Mike Seebeck) Re: MCI Free 800 Number F&F Promotion - Not Exactly What it Seems (S Cline) Re: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign (S. Trevino) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phil Stanley Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:53:48 -0400 Organization: MagicNet, Inc. Pavel Beker wrote: > vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) writes: >> Ken Leonard recently wrote: > (He pointed out that the rate quoted was a night rate, not a day > rate, and yet ...) >> One of their TV commercials, which shows a man making a phone call >> during what is obviously sometime in the afternoon (from a phone >> booth), has a sticker on the phone booth door saying something like >> "Sprint Sense - Just $.10 a minute". [ . . . ] > Weekend. =) This is NO worse than "RATEGATE" or any of the hundreds of > other various deceptive advertising / promotions every LD carrier > does ... > Paul > (PS: Weekends are 10c/min, sunny or not, so technically, the call could > happen...) My long distance carrier didn't advertise rates on a per minute charge basis. They said they would give me 30-50% off AT&T basic rates and a 90 day guarantee that if I wasn't happy they would pay any cost incurred to switch me back to my original carrier. I tried it and I must say, I like the savings so much that I became an Independent Rep and now sell the service. And no, I wasn't haggled into becoming a rep by another rep. I went looking for him! You can have quality and great rates. You just need to know the code! And it ain't AT&T, Sprint or MCI! Phil Stanley|travlr@magicnet.net Excel Telecommunications|http://www.magicnet.net/~travlr/ Independent Representative|407-870-2526 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:04:32 +0000 From: rodney green Subject: Re: Sprint and Fridays Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd. In article , Robert McMillin wrote: > Incidentally: I've been a long-time Sprint residential customer. I've > stayed with them for years, through the switch disasters in South > Carolina, the free faxmodem caper, and now this. It's almost enough > to make me take that $100 check now sitting in the wastebasket from > AT&T and switch. Don't throw that check in the trash. Give Sprint a call. They will credit you for $100 if you send the check to them. According to the person I spoke to at Sprint, they will do this once a year for a subscriber. My family has taken advantage of this twice rather than switch carriers, as we are also very happy with Sprint. Rodney Green Rodney.Green@bnr.ca (919) 991-8468 BNR, Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC ------------------------------ From: jwaters@ibm.net (John W. Waters) Subject: Re: Can PacBell Block Caller ID on my Maryland Phone? Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 02:33:11 GMT Pat: >> I hung up, resisting the temptation to be silly, give her my actual >> number and complain, "Well, why are you taking calls from here if you >> only operate in California?" > The SERVICE may be in California, but if you were privy to telephone > company records, you would be amazed to find out that, gosh darn, > there are a lot of major corporations who do business and need > telephones in California, but pay their bills out of another state. > Those states need to be able to call and ask questions about their > telephone bill, just as much as John Smith living in Mission Viejo, CA. >> If Pacific Bell can't even set up an 800 number that only operates in >> their service area, I shudder to think what kind of other mistakes >> they are likely to make. > Good customer service is a mistake? > Some companies, like PacBell, GTE, etc., feel that providing good > customer service to ALL our customers, not just the ones whose > accounts payable offices are local to us, is a FAR more profitable > motivation than the small revenue we spend on inter-state 800 #'s. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree here. Virtually ALL American telcos are inaccessable for me. I am the telecommunications manager (department of 1) for a multi-national company with plants in four, and soon five American states. I'm based in Toronto. All telcos give out 1-800 numbers. None of which seem to work from here. Ameritech is the worst example of this. The only way I can get to them is either via their executive office, or temporarily opening a DISA port in a switch in the US. This is from Windsor, ON. The RBOCs are hopeless for access from Canada. I pity anyone overseas who has to get in touch with them. As far as good customer service goes, the RBOCs have a long way to go before they can come close to Bell Canada. The quality of service, in line quality, grovelling at the customer's feet, and "Having a Clue" is far better here than in most states. SouthCentral Bell is the best I have come across in the US, and it is still not quite up to Bell Canada's standards. Ameritech(Detroit) has proved to be hopeless. Thus, TCG Detroit handles all the traffic from the Detroit plants. One competent service call makes a far better impression than a thousand "Thank you for choosing AT&T"s. The Mighty Zed hath spoken ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: BellSouth Radically Changes Toll Rates Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 02:36:22 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, lreeves@crl.com (Les Reeves) wrote: > BellSouth has totally revamped their intra-lata (aka: within your > calling zone) rate structure. Gone are three rate periods. Gone is > the evening rate from noon to one PM. Gone is one minute minimums. > Gone is rounding; after the initial 30 second minimum you are billed > in six-second increments. Sounds good, huh? On one intraLATA (Chattanooga) INTERSTATE call (from my house in Ft. Oglethorpe, GA to Pikeville, TN) I was actually charged for a "0.1" minute call! Even LCI doesn't do THAT! In the Chattanooga LATA, calls from Hamilton County Tennessee (Chattanooga proper) to any BellSouth area within the LATA (except for the Copper Basin, where US Cellular is the B side cellular carrier, etc.) are local. The only intraLATA LD calls are (now) to non-BellSouth areas, such as Dunlap/Pikeville (Bledsoe Co-Op) and Trenton, GA (Trenton Telephone Co.) and to the Copper Basin. Calls from one outlying area to another are _usually_ intraLATA LD. Calls between independent telcos serving outlying areas of the Chattanooga "local" area (Century/Ooltewah, Ringgold, Chickamauga, ALLTEL/LaFayette, and half of the Trenton area) are also LD. > calls I could make. This is a hideous rip-off, since almost all of > these calls originate, transport, and terminate over facilities owned > by BellSouth. They are the least expensive toll calls BellSouth can ^^^^^^^^^ Not necessarily. Most of the _northern_ part of the Atlanta LATA is serviced by either ALLTEL (Dalton, Jasper, Toccoa) or Standard Telephone Company (Dahlonega, Cornelia, Helen, Blairsville.) These telcos, particularly STC, face fairly high service costs, as the population density of the mountainous areas is so low. So fairly high rates to THOSE areas may be understandable. The only "BS-to-BS" LD calls from Atlanta should be the ones to the Rome and Calhoun areas, and to points to the east (Athens, etc.) For such high rates from Atlanta to Rome in particular is uncalled for. (Rome has NO ISPs, partly because of the convoluted rate structure.) > I frequently call a location that is located 68 miles via V and H > coordinates from me. For this call I am charged $0.24/min. This is > absurd. I don't exceed $0.24/min on AT&T's non-discounted rates for > calls under 1,500 miles. What used to be really ridiculous was when I had AT&T and had to call Dalton (which is INTERLATA from Chattanooga, but anyway ...) It was nearly 29c/min during the day! I could call anywhere in the US, including Alaska, for less! *GTE* CAUSED this -- they all but forced Dalton to be in the Atlanta LATA, despite the fact that it's so close to Chattanooga (25 miles), and that so many Chattanooga LATA residents work in the area (at Shaw carpet mills, etc.) What good GTE saw out of this, I do not know. (And it resulted in roaming hell with GTE Mobilnet and US Cellular, who NEVER got an agreement. But USCC is selling GA RSA#1 to Palmer Wireless so THAT may change.) Now with ALLTEL who is quickly opening up calling areas, Dalton will remain LD from BellSouth Chattanooga, and from both cellular carriers (A-band is GTE who only gains from Dalton being LD; they do not offer choice of LD carriers) because of the MFJ. Dalton is already local from the Ringgold area, served by Ringgold Telephone Co. (Callers still must dial 1+706 at this time.) > There are few alternatives to this highway robbery. AT&T gives a > ten-percent discount off of BellSouth rates if you dial 10288 before > your intra-lata calls. The best bet may be to buy a prepaid calling Naturally, only if you're their customer for interLATA LD. Otherwise, you'll pay the "base" rates along with the 80c surcharge. LCI charges only 18.1c min flat within GA, if you're their customer. DeltaCom of Alabama charges only 12-13c/min within TN & GA (their out-of-state and Canada rates are not as good as LCI's however.) I'm not sure if this applies to intraLATA calls, however ... I don't call Trenton enough to know. (Other intraLATA calls are interstate which would fall under their normal 19/14/12 etc. rates.) Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 04:37:37 -0400 From: Steve Bunning Subject: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Documents Amish Chana wrote: > I carried out a search on a number of Archie servers, for ITU > recommendations (the SS7 & ISDN recommendations in particular). The > search for q700 came up with the following : > Host ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com (16.1.0.2) > Last updated 16:37 8 Sep 1994 > Location: /.2/bruno.cs.colorado.edu/pub/standards/ccitt/1992/q > FILE -r--r--r-- 81341 bytes 01:00 16 Nov 1991 q700.asc > FILE -r--r--r-- 74179 bytes 01:00 16 Nov 1991 q700.doc > FILE -r--r--r-- 107008 bytes 01:00 16 Nov 1991 q700.rtf > FILE -r--r--r-- 109889 bytes 01:00 16 Nov 1991 q700.wp5 > Host scitsc.wlv.ac.uk (134.220.4.1) > Last updated 17:04 1 Mar 1996 > Location: /pub/infomagic/standards/ccitt/1992/q > FILE -r-xr-xr-x 81341 bytes 05:00 31 Dec 1991 q700.asc > FILE -r-xr-xr-x 74185 bytes 05:00 11 Dec 1991 q700.doc > FILE -r-xr-xr-x 368907 bytes 05:00 25 May 1994 q700.ps > Host ftp.iij.ad.jp (192.244.176.50) > Last updated 02:40 20 Jan 1996 > Location: /pub/standards/ccitt/1992/q > FILE -rwxr-xr-x 287942 bytes 15:00 26 Aug 1993 q700.eps > FILE -rwxr-xr-x 287942 bytes 19:00 25 Aug 1993 q700.eps > FILE -rwxr-xr-x 81341 bytes 19:00 30 Dec 1991 q700.asc > FILE -rwxr-xr-x 74185 bytes 19:00 10 Dec 1991 q700.doc > There were a number of other FTP servers but the above turned up in > almost every search. All the documents listed above are called > "Fascicle". What does that mean? (I haven't come across this in the > ISDN documents from the ITU). At the beginning of each Fascicle there > is also a statement saying that all drawings have been done in > Autocad, but all these documents have rectangles where the drawings > should be. Are the drawings available in another file? > Who creates these Fascicles? These fascicles were created by the CCITT (now known as the ITU), the international standards body for telecommunications. The word fascicle is just an English (and also French) word meaning "one of the divisions of a book published in parts". Fascicle was the CCITT's term for the parts in their set of standards. In the past, the CCITT published a new set of standards every four years. Each set had many separately bound parts containing "Recommendations", their term for standard. The sets were known by the color of their covers (i.e., The Yellow Books in 1980, The Red Books in 1984, and The Blue Books in 1988). The recommendations were organized in series designated by letter (e.g., the X series contained the X.25 packet data standard, the V series contained the V.32 modem standard). Now, the ITU is publishing the individual standards as they become available and as they need updating. Some of the files you mentioned came from a compact disk (CD) sold by InfoMagic. InfoMagic sells a CD titled "STANDARDS, CCITT/ITU Blue Book, Windows Sockets, RFC's & IEN's." You can request information on InfoMagic and its products through their email address, info@infomagic.com. You can pursue ITU/CCITT information via their web page at www.itu.com. At one time, the ITU had selected copies of the standards online for everyone, but now only offer them to their paying customers. The only way I've been able to get a hard copy of the figures is by using a postscript printer to print the files with a ".ps" file extension. These files contain the complete text with the figures in-line with the text. Steve Bunning | ACE*COMM | 301 258-9850 (voice) Product Manager | 209 Perry Parkway | 301 921-0434 (fax) TEL*COMM Division| Gaithersburg, MD USA 20877 | bunning@acec.com "CDRs collected and managed in real-time." ------------------------------ From: slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu (Steven Lichter) Subject: Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club Date: 02 Apr 1996 21:41:01 -0800 Organization: GINA and CORE+ Services of The California State University jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) writes: > Every two or three months I receive an envelope in the mail, both at > home and at my post office box, which reads: "Special notice to > Florida Telephone Customers ... New dialing instruction stickers ... > Enclosed." I get stickers telling me always to dial 10297 before the > number and a flyer claiming an 83% savings (savings from *what*, they > don't say). About a year ago I got one of those. I know it did not come from the LEC. I wondered about it so I called PacBell who said they had got a few calls, but since it involved the LD they had nothing to do with it. I contacted AT&T which told me they know about it, but it was not against any rules or laws, but did say it was investigating it to make sure that none of their customers get ripped off. The PUC took my complaint and that was the last I heard, so maybe they did not violated anything other then not letting you know where it really came from by wording it the way it was, and I believe it was the dime a minute company. SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II. slichte@cello.gina.calstate.edu ------------------------------ From: seebeck@lace.colorado.edu (Mike Seebeck) Subject: Re: Long Distance Wholesale Club Date: 2 Apr 1996 21:28:39 GMT Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder Joseph Singer (jsinger@scn.org) wrote: > jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) wrote: >> Every two or three months I receive an envelope in the mail, both at >> home and at my post office box, which reads: "Special notice to > I have used this service and you need to also be made aware that they > don't charge like everybody else in that all calls no matter how short > are charged a minimum of three minutes so you'll never have any one > minute calls on your bill. I'd recommend against _not_ using them > unless you plan on making a call that will be longer than a minute. > Supposedly they also charge a $5 fee per month for use of the service, > but so far I haven't seen this charge on my US West bill. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That is correct, a five dollar service > fee which is not applied to the calls you made. So plan on amortizing > that into your monthly bill, and you'll see you need several dollars > in actual calling charges before you come close to realizing the ten > cents per minute rate. And also, as you note there is a three minute > minimum per call. This has to be factored in as well. PAT] You should also look at the minimum billing increment. Normal phone service bills in six second increments. I would not be surprised if this service bills in one minute increments like cellular service does. Since phone companies always round up, a one minute increment is costly to the user. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Three minute minimum and one minute billing periods thereafter. PAT] ------------------------------ From: seebeck@lace.colorado.edu (Mike Seebeck) Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding (External Device) Date: 2 Apr 1996 21:42:56 GMT Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder gb (HealthNet.medlab@whytel.com) wrote: > Help. We are in need of an external remote call forwarding device that .... > even considered setting up a basically dummy PC with no more than a > FAX/Modem card and tiny hard drive that could "store and immediately > forward" incoming data via some sort of automated software program > that we might come across ... but where is it and would it actually > work? I do not understand why you cannot use the RBOCs call forward service. With this service you would pick up the line, enter a code, and the line is forwarded. You are already using RBOC lines for transmission and the line can be forwarded only from your office line. ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: MCI Free 800 Number F&F Promotion - Not What it Seems Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:09:31 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, Mike Fox wrote: > it: 1-800-xxx-xxxx. No four-digit extension is shown. However, lo > and behold, the 800 number they give you has a four-digit extension. > So you're actually sharing your "personal" 800 number with up to 9999 > people. They call it a security code, but when I called MCI to ask LCI's home "800 numbers" (actually, there are only two 800 numbers used) uses SIX-digit "security codes." This, to me, is kind of like the old six-digit "account codes" used back in the 950 access days. US Billing, which handles LCI LEC billing, treats the 800 calls as "calling card" calls (without the calling card surcharges, however); CID (formerly ANI) is sent on the 800 numbers (as does LCI's calling card access number!) As far as LCI is concerned, this helps keep the hogging of 800 numbers by individuals, and 800 churn, down. However, the pin is difficult to key when driving and using a cellular! BTW, the NXX MCI uses for _most_ personal 800 number is 484 -- used ever since Telecom*USA started the personal 800 craze several years ago. So there are 10k 484 nxx's (assuming none are used for vanity 800s, etc.) * 10k pins = 100 MILLION possible "personal 800 numbers." LCI has the capacity for two million, using six-digit pins and the two numbers assigned for personal 800s. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: Stormy Trevino Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 09:14:31 -0800 Organization: Call America Business Communications Mike King wrote: > Forwarded FYI to the Digest: > From: Marcia.Flint@pactel.com (TELESIS.EA_SF_PO:Marcia Flint) > Subject: NEWS: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campai > Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign Copious amounts of BS deleted. Pac Bell standing up for the consumer? You've got to be kidding me. Don't they really just want to be able to keep potential competitors from using current NPA? Seems to me this is just more of the typical anti-competitive behavior we've come to know and love from our "favorite" LEC. BTW, I called Pac Bell last week to block caller ID and at the close of my conversation with their rep she actually said, and I quote, "Thank you for CHOOSING Pacific Bell"???!!! I couldn't believe my ears. If I had any choice I would have left years ago. Stormy Trevino Call America Business Communications strevino@callamerica.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #155 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 16:33:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA02120; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:33:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:33:11 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604032133.QAA02120@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #156 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 16:33:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 156 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Docs (Mark Jeffrey) Re: Antigua and Barbuda Get New Area Code Today (Bob Goudreau) Re: Antigua and Barbuda Get New Area Code Today (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere (Dave Levenson) Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere (Gary Novosielski) Re: The ACTA Petition At The FCC (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Mark Smith) Re: Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System (Tom Lynn) Re: Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System (Ivan Sindell) Re: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign (Linc Madison) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (cassuto@bnr.ca) Re: Caller-ID Comes to California (dapet@aol.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Jeffrey Subject: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Documents Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:12:44 -0800 Amish Chana wrote: > I carried out a search on a number of Archie servers, for ITU > recommendations (the SS7 & ISDN recommendations in particular). The > search for q700 came up with the following: > There were a number of other FTP servers but the above turned up in > almost every search. All the documents listed above are called > "Fascicle". What does that mean? (I haven't come across this in the > ISDN documents from the ITU). At the beginning of each Fascicle > there is also a statement saying that all drawings have been done in > Autocad, but all these documents have rectangles where the drawings > should be. Are the drawings available in another file? > Who creates these Fascicles? Fascicles are the volumes used in previous versions of CCITT and ITU standards. Since 1992(?), the ITU has produced separate free-standing Recommendations rather than a complete set like in the "Red Book" and "Blue Book" days. The ITU retains the copyright on all of it's standards, as the sale of them is a major source of income to fund the organisation, so any ITU documents you find on the open internet will either be pre-approval drafts (those still being worked on) or illegal copies. In either case, beware of relying on them. Official ITU versions are available from the ITU at http://www.itu.ch, but you have to pay a subscription to have access to many of them (I don't know about q700 series). Many people, particularly those in educational or other limited-budget organisations, object to paying for copies of standards. However, as an ITU delegate myself, I can attest to the huge cost and complexity of organising the meetings that agree the standards in the first place. As member companies we have to pay quite a hefty subscription to participate, but I also know that the ITU is always seeking ways to cut costs. They now have to produce more standards at a far greater rate than ever before, but with even less funding. I don't believe they get a subsidy from the UN, and their major contributors (the old national PTTs) are mostly no longer able to recover costs from national governments. The costs to produce an ITU Recommendation are much higher than (say) an ANSI standard, because the original English also has to be translated (with IDENTICAL meaning) into the other official languages, notably French and Spanish. There are a number of organisations who have the right to reproduce ITU recommendations, notably Bellcore, but they won't be for free either. There used to be free Internet access to the ITU's ftp server, and a lot of mirror sites sprang up that you may have found, but with the increasing commercial use of the Internet the ITU was losing out financially. A lot of the mirrors still carry the stuff from when the public site closed, which is now about two years out of date. The ITU also publishes a CD-ROM version that is updated frequently. It still costs quite a lot of money though. Hopefully a system will evolve that allows online purchase of just the documents you need, without having to pay for everything you'll never want. That has yet to be established though. Mark Jeffrey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 15:45:41 -0500 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Antigua and Barbuda Get New Area Code Today Pierre Thomson writes: > No, it's not an April Fool's joke. Today I got Bellcore Letter > IL-96/03-005, stating that Antigua and Barbuda are activating their > new area code 268 today, April 1, 1996. Talk about short notice ... I too am surprised by the the abruptness of this activation. There's been an entry for Antigua's new NPA 268 in Bellcore's Web page of new area codes (http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/newarea.html) for at least two months, but as of today, the entry still lists the "Effective" and "Permissive Dialing End" dates as "To Be Determined". Bellcore, are you listening? Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:30:27 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: Antigua and Barbuda Get New Area Code Today On 1 Apr 1996, Pierre Thomson wrote: > No, it's not an April Fool's joke. Today I got Bellcore Letter > IL-96/03-005, stating that Antigua and Barbuda are activating their > new area code 268 today, April 1, 1996. Talk about short notice ... > All eight (count 'em) exchange codes on the two islands can be dialed > with either the old 809 Caribbean NPA or the new 268 code until March > 31, 1997. > The exchange codes moving from 809 to 268 are: > 404 409 460 461 462 463 464 480 I received my Bellcore NANPA IL in Monday's mail. The IL is dated 3-26-96. What short notice! Bellcore's webpage (http://www.bellcore.com/NANP) as of this morning still doesn't yet show the date of beginning of permissive dialing. The Bellcore IL includes a map of the Caribbean and the area of Antigua and Barbuda, prepared by Cable & Wireless. The caption states the following: "Antigua/Barbuda New 268 Area Code *From 1st November, 1996*. On Independence Day 1996, all Antigua and Barbuda telephones will change to the new Area Code 268..." I don't know why the date of beginning of permissive dialing was moved from November 1 to April 1. In the body of the IL, it mentions that the test number is 268-ANTIGUA (268-268-4482). All Home NPA "local" calls will continue to be dialed 7-digits local. All Foreign NPA dialed (sent-paid) toll calls will be dialed 1+ten-digits. All Operator Assisted and card calls will be dialed 0+ten-digits. There is also *another* interesting note in the IL (and this also is happening with Puerto Rico's 787 split from 809) ... Beginning 1 April 1996, all *new* NXX (Central Office Codes) in Antigua and Barbuda will be assigned *only* with the new 268 area code. Inbound calls to these new Antigua/Barbuda NXX's *must* be dialed with the new 268 NPA code. If 809 is used to call the *new* Antigua/Barbuda NXX codes, one will reach either a vacant code or number, *or* the *wrong* number in another part of the still existing 809 Caribbean !?! As of today, 268 *is* in the PBX here at work, however Bell South does *not* have 268 programmed in *any* central office switches I've tried here in New Orleans. With such short notice of the effective date of permissive dialing, it might be *many* months before most of the NANP area can dial the new 268 NPA. AT&T's "OSPS" switches *do* allow 268 as the new NPA for Antigua/Barbuda, but it must be dialed as either a sequence calling card call, or as a 800-CALL-ATT or 800-3210-ATT access, since 0+268+ is not *yet* programmed in most local central office switches in North America. Operational questions regarding 268 can be directed to Dean Jonas, Cable & Wireless, 809-462-0840, Ext.413. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1996 11:11:46 GMT Joel M. Hoffman (joel@exc.com) writes: > Here in the New York area... > ... We have three cellular carriers in NY (Nynex, AT&T > and "Cellular One")... New York, like most places, has _two_ cellular carriers. They are Bell Atlantic/Nynex (the two wireline carriers have merged) and AT&T Wireless Services (formerly CellularOne of New York), the non-wireline carrier. They claim that New York City is the cellular fraud capital of the world, and that real estate for cell sites is the most expensive anyplace in the US. A lot of other things cost more in the New York city area than in most of the country. Some things (like residential flat-rate telephone service) are simply not offered at any price in New York City itself. (Fortunately, some of what we sell is also priced higher around here, so it's all relative unless you're trying to trade with out-of-towners!) Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ Organization: GPN Consulting Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:23:46 -0500 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere In TELECOM Digest V16 #145, Jim Anderson wrote: > One reason for the increased prices in these areas is the high "fraud" > rates. The cellular companies have to charge increased rates to cover > their huge losses due to fraud. It seems to me that, especially in these regulated duopoly situations, the cost of any fraud losses should be borne by the company (i.e., the stockholders), not by the customers. The customers weren't the ones who decided to implement such a pathetically insecure system; they're just stuck with the results of it. In similar situations in, for example, the electric power industry, if a company loses a bundle as a result of a bad management decision, they are not automatically permitted to pass the cost along to their rate-payers, but are required to cut their dividend payments, or otherwise make it up internally. (As a stockholder, I know this from experience.) But that's much fairer than crediting fraudulent charges off one customer's bill, only to debit them right back to ALL customers' bills. That smells like corporate welfare, and lack of accountability. What's their fiscal incentive to make a serious effort (don't even mention PINS) to eliminate fraud if they can just jack up the rates of their captive customers to cover it? Besides, as other correspondents have pointed out, this may have more to do with "what the market will bear" in the atypical area that is New York than with any true cost-based pricing methodology. They charge 65 cents simply because there are enough people who will pay 65 cents, and they are allowed to get away with it by the "Best Regulators Money Can Buy." Gary Novosielski mailto:gpn@village.ios.com PGPinfo: keyID A172089 GPN Consulting http://village.ios.com/~gpn 2C 5C 32 94 F4 FF 08 10 B6 E0 DE 4F A2 43 79 92 ------------------------------ From: sewilco@fieldday.mn.org (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: Re: The ACTA Petition At The FCC Date: 3 Apr 1996 12:12:09 -0600 > I think we should all keep our reactions to this filing to a minimum > until this internal debate at ACTA has taken place. ACTA should have completed the internal debate before filing with the FCC. It's no longer an ACTA internal debate. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org ------------------------------ From: Mark Smith Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: Wed, 03 Apr 96 14:05:22 EDT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ In Article , write: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the carriers > do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. Voiceprints are > supposed to be unique. Voiceprints are a good idea if the phone has a single user. However, my wife and I until recently shared a phone (the person driving furthest away took the phone). Also, we now each have a phone, but if we are travelling together we take one phone. This means that either of us may be using the phone at any given time. Voiceprints would make this difficult. Mark ------------------------------ From: foole@earthlink.net (Tom Lynn) Subject: Re: Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 01:37:21 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. On Thu, 28 Mar 1996 03:09:41 GMT, fletcher@gate.net (mike fletcher) wrote: > On Sun, 25 Mar 96 17:31:47 PST, Alan Frisbie > wrote: >> One of my customers is trying to select a new telephone system for his >> company. As their primary computer consultant, I was asked for my >> comments. Since I am not a telecom expert, I am turning to this group >> for help. >> A telecom salesman is trying to sell them a system, "Axxess", from >> Inter-Tel in Chandler, Arizona. Can anyone tell me anything (good or >> bad) about this company and/or their products? >> Is it normal to loan a copy of the system documentation to >> potential customers? I would like to ask for this, but am unsure what >> kind of reaction I would get. Don't worry about getting a negative reaction, EVER! Any question is acceptable and you can tell a lot about a vendor by the way they react. To heck with him, if he wants to withhold information. If it's proprietary information (not likely), sign a non-disclosure statement. I agree with the other respondents that you should go with a system which has WIDE third party support. Don't be shy about putting your requirements in an RFP and putting this thing out to bid. You might be under a lot of pressure to get this thing in now, but make sure to take enough time to do this right. You will either be thanked by few (in which case they're happy) or become famous with many! Things to include: Required system features (ACD, Computer Telephony Integration, voice response, etc) Required Carrier Network features that must be supported (centrex, ISDN PRI, ANI delivery, caller id, etc) Current Station and Trunk capacity requirements Projected Station and Trunk capacity requirements through the life of the system (3 yr, 5 yr, 10 yr) Make sure you can grow. Consider carefully how much headroom you need. It can be expensive later to underestimate. Have them price out any new cabling and lock in a price for late changes and additions to the project. Don't be shy about having the cable bid out separately. Many system providers cannot compete with companies who specialize in structured cable systems. Perhaps you can integrate your lan / wan cable concept with the telephone cabling concept? Personally, I'm a fan of the AT&T Definity systems, which have become much more scalable over the past three years. Not too much experience with the others, but I'm happy with what I've got. Tom Lynn ------------------------------ From: isindell@ix.netcom.com (Ivan Sindell) Subject: Re: Inter-Tel "Axxess" Phone System Date: 3 Apr 1996 01:51:52 GMT Organization: Netcom The Society of Telecommunications Consultants members do not represent any manufacturer or service. We will post your clients request to mour membership. Contact me if you wish. Ivan Sindell, President/ Global Communications Systems Research Member: Society of Telecommunications Consultants (STC) 3940 Highwood Ct. NW; Washington, DC 20007 202-342-1500v; 202-298-6240f ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Urges PUC To Reject Anti-Consumer Campaign Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 10:34:41 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , mk@TFS.COM (Mike King) wrote: > Forwarded FYI to the Digest: > <<<>>> > [a coalition of AT&T, MCI, TURN, et al., is urging the CPUC to prohibit > Pacific Bell from *proposing* area code overlays in California. Pac > Bell is raising a stink and urging the CPUC to reject the proposal.] I've got to say, this is one where I wholeheartedly agree with Pac Bell. I did not support their overlay plan for 310/213, especially the plan that had the new area code overlay more than one existing area code, but I don't think they should be prohibited from proposing one. That's lunacy. In another ten years, there will probably be a dozen area codes wholly within Los Angeles County, at which point overlays will make a lot of sense. An overlay of 916 now would not make sense, because it's such a large geographic area, with an obvious division between Sacramento and not-Sacramento. The other California area codes outside greater L.A. are also not ready for overlays, but a couple of splits from now they may be -- 408 is going to split in the next two years, and it would be very difficult to split again. The same goes for 415 and 714. I believe overlays are appropriate where the area involved is very small, the area has no obvious dividing lines in it, and the overlay goes on top of exactly ONE existing area code. This business of (212 and 917) and (718 and 917), or (312 and 630) and (708 and 630), to name two proposals, is confusing. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: However, 630 has ceased being an overlay code and is now a geographic code covering Dupage County, Illinois and the far western suburbs of Chicago. It was an overlay for cellular/pager purposes at the time it started in January, 1995, with 312 and 708 'under' it. With the expansion of area codes and the resulting shakedown going on here at the present time, those cell and pager people who were 'overlaid' a year ago are welcome to remain in 630 if they wish to do so, but unless they happen to be located geographically in the new 630 it really does not make sense. Likewise with the 'new' 708: from a few years ago there were lots of pagers and cell phones in 708 around this north suburban area. Some of those people are insisting they want to continue with a 708 number which is fine with everyone concerned, but it now geographically places them way out of their 'natural' area which is the south and near west suburbs. Quite a few people are like myself and want seven digit dialing whenever possible, so we are seeing quite a few of the 630 and 708 cellular/pager numbers now getting dumped in favor of where the subscriber spends most of his time, i.e. 847, or 'true' 708, 630, etc. Some users of course just fell into place naturally. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:59:52 GMT From: cassuto@bnr.ca Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question Organization: Nortel Matra Cellular In article is written: >> Is there a limit to the total number of digits that can be dialed >> from an M2616 digital set? The specific problem is this ... >> A user wants to place a call charging it to his calling card. He >> dials the UNITEL service at 9'18009579000 and is asked to enter the >> number he wishes to call ie. XXX-XXX-XXXX. Once this is entered he has >> to enter his calling card number and P.I.N. (14 more digits). It >> seems that the digits for the calling card etc. are not being >> sent/received as he is asked again to enter it. Is it possible that >> his digital set is limited to the 22 digits he has entered? Could this >> be a programming problem? He has no problem dialing this from an >> analog set. I don't think there is a problem with the number of digits being sent by the M2616; once he's connected to the Unitel server, he's not in a dialing phase anymore, the calling card and PIN are sent over the voice channel as DTMF tones, just like normal speech, so there is no limit. I cannot think of what the problem might be in this case; sorry. Philippe. ------------------------------ From: dapet@aol.com (Dapet) Subject: Re: Caller ID Comes to California Date: 3 Apr 1996 15:10:12 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: dapet@aol.com (Dapet) leob@best.com (Leonid A. Broukhis) wrote: > Little most people realize they will have to dial *82 (block Caller ID) > every time to order a pizza ... But if your local pizza store has computerized their caller ID to pull up your favorite order, the ordering process is much faster, and the pizza store can cut down on the number of fraudulant (prank) orders they receive. I can order a pizza from my local pizza store in under 15 seconds because they use this technology. California is so far behind the rest of the country in utilizing this technology. Once you have it and learn to use it -- it will make your life easier in many ways. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing you fail to understand is that quite a few people on the net are very offended by what they perceive as a constant 'affront' to their privacy. You have a lot of people reading/participating in Usenet who cannot even understand, for example, why they should be required to provide a social security number or a telephone number if they wish an extension of credit or the right to cash a check in a store. They are certain that being required to provide some personal information about themselves as a condition of doing business with some merchants, is nothing but an evil plot by the company to get something over on them. These same people generally are positive that if they use their telephone without blocking their ID it will result in a nearly constant barrage of telemarketing calls 'invading their privacy' even more. We have had messages in the past from people who seriously questioned why the pizza delivery service had the right to know anything more than just to take a pizza to the corner of Oak and Polk Streets and hope for the best where payment and delivery-person safety was concerned. So you are not going to convince them of anything where the wonders and conveniences of Caller-ID are concerned. *They hate it*. They do not like it at all that companies like American Express can tell immediatly who is calling them before even answering the phone. They will tell you it is just dreadful that owners of 800 numbers -- the people who are paying for the phone call -- insist on the right to know who is calling them. They would not be happy here in Skokie. Our local taxicab service has used a combination of caller-id and touchtone pad entry for several months to provide virtually 'instant service' to their regular riders. In the past, we dialed 673-1000 and frequently waited on hold for a period of three or four minutes as orders were taken manually, then handed off to the dispatcher in another room. Orders got taken wrong; the digits in addresses were transposed, etc. Now, all riders other than first time customers can if they choose get on and off the phone in thirty seconds or less using the automated system where the rider enters his own order into the computerized queue from which the dis- atcher and drivers operate. When you call, you just tap out a few single keystrokes in respnse to prompts *you do not have to wait for* and after it validates your phone number against your address from their files a cab is on the way. The orders go into the computer and out to the display pagers the drivers have. A radio dispatcher oversees the whole thing but seldom reads your name or address over the air since the computer transferred the whole thing out to the drivers. All the dispatcher has to do is tell the driver, 'the order came from the computer and is on your pager.' The computer reads back your address so that you can make corrections if needed. It remembers if you want a specific driver if that one is available or if you do not want a certain driver for whatever reason. It remembers if your preference is for a 'smoking' or 'non-smoking' cab and driver. If you do not want the cab until ten in the morning then the computer stores it and pushes it to the queue about fifteen minutes before the desired time. First time customers not in the database need to hold for operator assistance, but on subsequent calls they are all set up. I suppose the privacy freaks would complain that the computer is going to have records of their travels about the village or to other nearby places. That's too bad. :) The computer also remembers which from and to addresses/phone numbers caused the driver to get stiffed on his fare or assaulted by someone who ran off with all the money. That's good. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #156 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 19:40:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA24399; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 19:40:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 19:40:13 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604040040.TAA24399@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #157 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 19:40:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 157 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI 1-800-COLLECT Overcharges (Stanley Cline) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Tom Watson) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Michael David Jones) Re: Caller ID & DID Trunks (Lynne Gregg) St. Lucia's New 758 (SLU) NPA (Mark J Cuccia) On the Subject of CellPhone Service - LA Cellular (Rupa Schomaker) Re: Big Three Surcharging, etc (was Sprint Fridays) (Stanley Cline) Dr. Kevorkian? Sorry, Wrong Number (Gordon Burditt) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: MCI 1-800-COLLECT Overcharges Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 23:40:02 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, Gary Novosielski wrote: > TV news over the weekend carried a story of a reporter in Virginia > discovering that MCI had, as far back as anyone could remember, been > overcharging on 1-800-COLLECT calls by charging for an extra minute, > compared with other carriers. MCI has also overcharged occasionally in a less subtle way -- in some areas, calls placed using 1-800-COLLECT (and 10222+0) were routed to MCI's "AOS" subsidiary and former LD carrier Telecom*USA. (I had one bill which involved the use of 1-800-COLLECT which I disputed -- I KNOW the caller used 1-800-COLLECT but Telecom*USA, NOT MCI, billed it! MCI refused to adjust the bill -- one reason why I now have *L*CI.) This was reported on on "Dateline NBC" a few months back ... but from some payphones in the Chattanooga area, dialing 10222 STILL goes to Telecom*USA (despite FCC orders to fix the network.) It's hard to tell what happens with 1-800-COLLECT. (Some payphones refuse to connect to LDDS' operator services, too; it depends on the NXX.) The "1-800-COLLECT" system, along with the "newer" MCI calling cards (the ones that offer speed dialing, news/stock/sports info, etc. and don't use 950-1022) and MCI's Personal 800 system, all come from Telecom*USA, which was based in Atlanta (MCI's Business Markets HQ is in the same building where "Telecom"'s HQ was located.) Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: tsw@3do.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 14:44:30 -0800 Organization: The 3DO Corporation > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But it would be more like meeting at > 99.999999987 percent of the way. Lotteries are taxes on people who > are very poor at mathematics. Yes, I know *someone* has to win, but > it is not going to be you or me, or at least not me. If I were asked > which was more likely, that I would win the lottery and live to > collect it all or that Bill Gates walked up to me personally and > handed me a check for a million dollars, I would say the latter, and > I am not holding my breath until he knocks on my front door either. PAT] Its often said that the odds of winning at the lottery are the same whether you buy a ticket or not! The problem is that it is true: I personally have turned in a winning lotto ticket I found (it was a $5.00 winner). I also found a $2.00 "scratcher" on the pavement of a parking lot, and turned it in as well. My purchases of tickets haven't been so fruitful at all, as I've lost most of them. Please refer any comments to a "make money fast" posting. Tom Watson tsw@3do.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) ------------------------------ From: jonesm2@rpi.edu (Michael David Jones) Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: 3 Apr 1996 18:13:46 -0500 Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) writes: > Of course, one guy has made a bizarre claim in several newsgroups that > MS and Intel have some agreement that anybody selling x86 PCs is > required to license Windows for every unit, whether they bundle > Windows with it or not! There's more than a grain of truth to this, or at least there was a couple of years ago. I know a fellow who worked for a local clone manufacturer (BitWise Designs, if anyone knows of them). He told me that the only licensing agreement they could get from Microsoft was to sell (or at least pay for) a Windows license for every machine they sold, whether Windows was bundled with it or not. That's not the same as the odd claim you mention, but it's relatively easy to see how the one got mangled into the other. > Honestly, the more I read Usenet the more examples I see of people who > need to grow up and start living in the real world. I'm not sure whether this bothers me more than the number of people I see who dismiss far too many things out of hand. Both are distressing. Mike Jones | jonesm2@rpi.edu ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Caller ID & DID Trunks Date: Wed, 03 Apr 96 12:53:00 PST glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) posted: > Certain of his company's personnel are being told (privately ... > "over the transom" so to speak) that they must change out this > system to Centrex in order to receive Caller-ID information and to > effect Call Blocking (as these are not offered to DID customers). Not necessarily true. The ability to receive inbound Caller ID in an office (PBX) environment depends on a number of factors: * Connects to the PSTN must be ISDN so CPN may be passed (in both directions). * Age/state of the PBX: the office system -- including desk sets -- must be able to receive and display Caller ID. Some PBX's may be configured to send either or combination of) station ID or main company number. Some PBX's cannot be configured to support *67 for per call blocking (I'm not aware of any that can). So if support for per call blocking is a big issue, then the Centrex conversion is the only way *67 could be supported. On the other hand, the PBX can be configured to not send a CPN on outbound calls (all outbound calls would register as OUT OF AREA on Caller ID gear). Unless there is some security reason why your friend's business wouldn't want their number presented, they should configure the PBX to send either station ID or the main phone number. Conversion from a PBX environment to Centrex (and vice versa) is not a trivial job. I wouldn't base such a conversion solely on the availability of Caller ID. But then, I guess it really depend on company size and number of users. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:30:01 CST From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: St. Lucia's New 758 (SLU) NPA Since we've seen the Antigua/Barbuda 268 NPA go into effect almost overnight (although most of us probably don't have it in our own local switches), I'm posting the following on St. Lucia's new 758 NPA, from the ITU Operational Bulletin of 15 March 1996, which can be downloaded (in MS-Word) from the ITU's website (http://www.itu.ch) and gophersite (gopher://gopher.itu.ch): Saint Lucia Communication of 1.III.1996: Cable and Wireless (West Indies) Ltd., Castries, announces that a new geographical area code 758 has been assigned to Saint Lucia upon the request of the Government of Saint Lucia. With effect from 1 July 1996 the existing NPA 809 will be changed to the new NPA 758. Dual access to both the existing NPA 809 and the NPA 758 numbers will be available for a period of six months (1 July 1996 to 31 December 1996). During the permissive dialling period either NPA 809 or NPA 758 will be accepted in a dialled number terminating in the new NPA 758. After the permissive dialling period, calls dialled with the NPA 809 will be intercepted. The dates that switching systems in the NPA 758 will begin transmitting 758 for calling number Automatic Number Identification (ANI) purposes will be coordinated by Cable and Wireless, Saint Lucia, with the international exchange carriers. Test calls to verify routing to the new NPA 758 can be made by calling +1 758 555 1212. This test number will become available on 1 April 1996. A recorded announcement will indicate that the test call has been successfully completed with the following message .You have reached the test number for Saint Lucia's new 758 area code. The 758 area code will become active at 1201 local time (0401 GMT) on Monday 1 July 1996. The dialling plans for the new NPA 758 will be as follows: All national local calls will be dialled on a seven digit basis with no prefix, i.e. NXX XXXX. All foreign NPA (FNPA) direct dialled toll calls will be dialed with the prefix 1P and ten digits, i.e. +1 FNPA NXX XXXX. Operator assisted calls including credit card, collect and third party calls will be dialed with a prefix 0P and ten digits, i.e. 0 758 NXX XXXX. Routing to the new NPA 758 for international operator and directory assistance can be made by calling +1 758 089 121 and +1 758 089 131 respectively. Operational questions concerning the introduction of the NPA 758 should be directed to: Operations Department, Cable and Wireless, Saint Lucia, telephone number +1 809 453 9441, facsimile number +1 809 452 4127. Any other questions may be referred to: Mr. Perry Mason, Telecommunications Officer, Government of Saint Lucia, telephone number +1 809 452 2429 fax number +1 809 453 2769. --------------------------- I don't think that this Perry Mason with Cable & Wireless could help us out with legal matters, however but I would guess that he gets calls like that all the time! ;) The ITU Operational Bulletin comes out twice a month (dated the 1st and 15th) and is usually available via Web and Gopher about a week after those dates. There are all kinds of data in the bulletin regarding codes, operational, tarriff, etc. aspects of International Telephone, Telex, Fax, Telegram, Data, SS7 International Point Codes, International Mobile networks, etc. There are also downloadable lists of international code assignments at the ITU Web and Gopher sites. These Bulletins and lists are not restricted to ITU subscribers. The ITU recommendations, however *are* restricted to subscribers at IMO highly inflated prices! :-( MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: rupa@rupa.com (Rupa Schomaker) Subject: On the Subject of CellPhone Service - LA Cellular Date: 2 Apr 1996 00:34:01 -0700 Organization: Rupa Schomaker Consulting With the talk about cell phones and carriers, I thought I'd give some info about my recent purchase of a cell phone through LA Cellular. I live in Orange County (Laguna beach, about an hour south of LA) but we are still served by the LA area cell phone companies. Airtouch is the land-line operated CO, LA Cellular is the other. The rates are identical (at least for the lower end plans). LA Cellular sale's people are quick to point out what extra goodies you get from them. LA Cellular has a digital network (more on that below). LA Cellular has a wider coverage area -- though the expanded coverage is further west (in the ocean -- when yer boating I guess) and further east (in the mountains -- when yer skiing I guess). LA Cellular also has a roaming agreement for Ventura and San Diego counties (more below). The phone bundled is the AT&T 3810. It came with 2 batteries, a charger stand, and a car charger. Oh, they also had a special where you get 240 "free" weekend minutes. The sales experience was fairly novel since I did not let on I knew anything about cell phones until the last minute. The lady stressed how lucky I was to be getting a "free" phone and how they only started doing so in the last year -- she did not mention that it was *illegal* to do so in CA in the past. She stressed how LA Cellular has a pro-rated contract termination policy. If you cancel in your last months, you don't have to pay the full $100 termination fee. She neglected to mention that you *do* have to pay the full price of the phone ($155) if you terminate early (even on the 11th month), I don't know if Airtouch has a similar policy with regards to the phone itself. LA Celluar does have a three day return policy -- wow! The booth for LA Cellular had TONs of documents touting their digital network and the advantages of digital. After probing deeper I find out that digital exists ONLY in congested areas of Los Angeles and I forget the other location. Also, the cheapest digital phone is $400 with signup (it is a Nokia, don't remember the model number). Digital does get a cheaper calling plan -- but ONLY in the very high volume (and expensive) plans. LA Cellular has a "HomeRoam" program where they let you call in Ventura and San Diego counties for less than Airtouch (where you have normal roaming there). Basically, the minutes in the HomeRoam areas do not count to your bundled "free" minutes. They are charged at either your current plan's rates or the rates of the cell provider in the area -- whichever is cheaper. LA Celluar does have a "Fraud Protection Feature". I was given no option to decline -- not that I planned on doing so. Before you can dial a number, you must first send a *56 and then a 4 digit PIN. You can then make any calls you want without having to append a PIN to the number. After 15min of no outgoing calls, you are again locked and the above sequence must be resent. You can immediately lock your outgoing calls by dialing *560 and then the 4 digit PIN. While locked, you can still dial 911 and 611 as well as receive calls. When I purchased the phone, they programmed the code and PIN to the two speed dial buttons on the phone (one to lock and the other to unlock). Finally rate plans. I can't fit the plans in 80cols and keep it in an easy to compare form. Instead I'll list 'em one by one. Plan: Night Owl Monthly Charge Analog: $33.99 Digital: $33.99 Minutes Included: 50 Off-Peak Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.90 Off-Peak: $.18 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $100.00 Productivity Package:(**) $4.95 == Plan: Economy Monthly Charge Analog: $34.99 Digital: $34.99 Minutes Included: 20 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.79 Off-Peak: $.26 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $100.00 Productivity Package:(**) $4.95 == Plan: Convenience Monthly Charge Analog: $69.99 Digital: $62.99 Minutes Included: 80 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.41 Off-Peak: $.24 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $100.00 Productivity Package:(**) $4.95 == Plan: Standard Monthly Charge Analog: $99.99 Digital: $89.99 Minutes Included: 170 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.39 Off-Peak: $.23 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $150.00 Productivity Package:(**) $4.95 == Plan: Advantage Monthly Charge Analog: $149.99 Digital: $134.99 Minutes Included: 320 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.38 Off-Peak: $.22 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $175.00 Productivity Package:(**) $4.95 == Plan: High Monthly Charge Analog: $199.99 Digital: $179.99 Minutes Included: 475 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.38 Off-Peak: $.21 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $175.00 Productivity Package:(**) $4.95 == Plan: Premium Monthly Charge Analog: $239.99 Digital: $214.99 Minutes Included: 600 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.37 Off-Peak: $.21 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $200.00 Productivity Package:(**) No Charge == Plan: Executive Monthly Charge Analog: $329.99 Digital: $304.99 Minutes Included: 900 Excess Airtime Charges Peak: $.36 Off-Peak: $.20 Service Establishment Fee: (*) $50.00 Commitment Term Analog: 12 or 24 months Digital: 12, 18 or 24 months Early Termination Fee: $200.00 Productivity Package:(**) No Charge == (*) One time fee (**) Productivity Package includes: Voice Mail, PageALERT! (sm) with free Motorola pager rental, Call Forwarding, Call Waiting and 3-Way Conference Calling. ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Big Three Surcharging, etc. (was Sprint Fridays) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 02:36:38 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services > Actually, that is not entirely accurate. It is MCI who has the $.40 > per-call surcharge. AT&T's is $.80. I am unaware of Sprint having a > surcharge for using casual 10333 access. They have definately upped I only found about the MCI surcharge _yesterday_ and only upon reading DLD, NOT upon hearing about it from MCI, or in a tariff notice published in the Atlanta paper, or anything else. Clearly the "Big 3" LD carriers are doing what banks are doing -- nickel-and-diming to death, upping rates, and relying on the public's ignorance of the telecommunications industry (I know people who think AT&T is their LOCAL telco -- who live in a _GTE_ area!! and such) and people's willingness to pay whatever they're "told" to pay not knowing the alternatives (leasing phones from -- guess who? AT&T -- comes to mind.) Why else do AT&T, MCI, and Sprint STILL command such a lock on the LD market? They're playing on IGNORANCE, FEAR (of bad service from resellers -- in fact, since many resellers use WILTEL/WORLDCOM's network, many are BETTER than the big three!), and nothing else. Banks quietly introduced "ATM Access surcharges", charged by the owner of the ATM for using their ATM, IN ADDITION to what "your" bank charges for "foreign" ATM withdrawals. AT&T, and now MCI, quietly sneak these surcharges in "under the back door," so to speak. VarTec's "Dime Line" "offer" is even more egregious. Sprint, WorldCom, and LCI haven't started surcharging yet, but who knows what they will do?! Clearly there will eventually be a _big_ gap between the rates charged by resellers, LCI, WorldCom, and the smaller carriers, and the "Big Three" carriers. And the days of "PIC dialing" are numbered (lest you get overbilled or surcharged or ripped off -- at first PICs were introduced to AVOID [AOS] surcharges and now they HARBOR them) -- I had to change banks to help avoid ATM surcharges, and now I'm forced to call BellSouth and block PIC dialing permanently on my several lines. (I already blocked collect calls, third number calls, and changing of LD carrier without written permission.) > "Sprint Sense - Just $.10 a minute". Unless this man is making his > phone call from someplace where is is very sunny outside after 7 p.m., I guess he was in Alaska in the middle of the summer ... up here in Tennessee it is pretty light at 7 pm ... the further north the later the days during the dog days. > he will obviously NOT be charged $.10 a minute (of course he'll also > pay an $.80 surcharge for using his Sprint Calling Card!). The entire Another example of ignorance comes to mind: A coworker of mine has a Sprint calling card that is only 9c (yes, NINE CENTS) per minute late nights (their college "Midnight Madness"(?) offer) But she's still paying an 80c surcharge on the call -- and using it from home! I asked her, "Why not change LD carriers, to LCI or Frontier or someone halfway reasonable?" Her response: "I can't do better than this, I can get only AT&T." (She lives in an area not equal access yet -- but that area converted to a DMS100 earlier this week FINALLY!!!, so MAYBE she can switch soon enough.) In her case, the per-minute rate seemed to bear out the calling-card surcharge, even though a one-minute call on ATT would be nearly 70c less than the same call on Sprint. > I am constantly amazed at the tactics long distance companies use to > con people into signing up. Why it is that these deceptive marketing > methods have never came back to haunt the BIG 3 carriers is beyond me. IGNORANCE and FEAR. That's what the big three LD carriers prey on. I have LCI now and am still looking for someone cheaper. (Some resellers, such as Deltacom, can't beat SOME of LCI's rates. What am I doing wrong?) :-( Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lerctr.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Dr. Kevorkian? Sorry, Wrong Number Date: 3 Apr 1996 23:26:27 GMT An article in the {Dallas Morning News} describes how Diane Hackett would like to euthanize her telephone. Her home phone number used to be the number of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He used to have his number publicized in all the Detroit-area directories. Eventually he got an unlisted number, and his old number was eventually recycled and issued to the Hackett family. (The article did not say how long it took the number to be recycled except for a reference to his move "a few years ago".) They are getting calls for Dr. Kevorkian at all hours of the day and night. Sometimes it's the old and infirm or anxious or desparate and suicidal. Sometimes it's reporters. Nobody mentioned the possibility of changing her number. Now, do any of you wise guys who like to take reservations for wrong numbers destined for hotels have any good responses? Warning: if you say "go jump in a lake", they'll probably do it, and you might be up on charges for assisting a suicide. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lerctr.org!gordon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #157 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 21:07:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA04540; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 21:07:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 21:07:58 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604040207.VAA04540@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #158 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 21:07:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 158 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson BellSouth Forms BellSouth.net Inc. (Mike King) Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena (Stanley Cline) How Long Do Modems Check For Dialtone? (Michael S. Craig) Seeking Sales/Sales Management Opportunity (Gene Price) Need List of Current NXX's in RI (401) (Tony Pelliccio) Ameritech Announces 810 Split (John Cropper) Wanted: Used 3x8 Norstar Keyline System (D.K. Wong) Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Peter Hoeve) Employment Opportunity: Internal Telecom Analyst (Jason Fetterolf) Want to Buy: 30-50 Station KSU Plus Phones (Mark Miller) Seeking Reference For WAN Costs (Kerrie A. Exely) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Robert Bulmash) For Sale - IMTS Radio Telephone Gear (Chris D. Johnston) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike King Subject: BellSouth Forms BellSouth.net Inc. Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:25:26 PST Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 18:33:23 -0500 From: BellSouth Subject: BellSouth Forms BellSouth.net Inc. Reply-To: info@corp.bellsouth.com BellSouth Forms BellSouth.net Inc., New Internet Services and Electronic Commerce Unit ATLANTA, April 3, 1996 -- BellSouth announced today it has formed a new business unit, BellSouth.net Inc., which will assist BellSouth affiliates in providing Internet services and electronic commerce capabilities for customers' growing computer networking needs. The company also announced that John Robinson has been named president of BellSouth.net. Robinson was executive director of Strategic Management for BellSouth Telecommunications before his new assignment. BellSouth.net is wholly owned by BellSouth EC Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of BellSouth Corporation, and will be managed by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (BST). "We will bring to the Internet and electronic commerce the same reliability and high quality of service that customers have come to expect from BellSouth's voice telephone service," according to Robinson. "Our computer networking services are another example of how BellSouth will be a one-stop provider of communications, including Internet connection and electronic commerce capabilities, local telephone service, wireless and long distance services as well as video and information services," said Jere Drummond, president and chief executive officer of BellSouth Telecommunications. BellSouth.net will deploy and manage the company's Internet Protocol (IP) networks across its nine-state region. The unit will also work with BST's customer service and marketing units and other BellSouth affiliates to develop new services and applications. BellSouth will offer Internet connection to residential and business customers in many major markets in its region by mid-summer, 1996. The company will also provide customers with a variety of public-switched and dedicated IP networking capabilities to meet customers' data communications and electronic commerce needs. In the future, BellSouth will also add to its capabilities web hosting and customer network management. "BellSouth is pursuing a multifaceted electronic commerce strategy that includes forging agreements with key alliance partners both locally and nationally to provide useful content and applications," Robinson said. "The foundation of our service, however, is an open, easy-to-use and widely available IP network that will link customers together, allowing them to communicate whatever they want, whenever they want." BellSouth is a $17.9 billion communications services company. It provides telecommunications, wireless communications, directory advertising and publishing, and information services to more than 25 million customers in 17 countries worldwide. # # # For Information Contact: Ted Creech Ph: 404-330-0550 email: john.creech@bridge.bst.bls.com ------------------ Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 23:53:02 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, Pat Townson wrote (note to my post): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well it all sounds pretty messy. Vistors > roaming in some of those areas must get awfully confused about who > they are doing business with as they drive down the interstate highway. The A carriers surrounding Georgia RSA 1 (Dalton) have gotten agreements with BellSouth because of USCC's stupidity and arrogance with roaming rates. So going between Atlanta and Chattanooga, an A-side roamer must switch from A to B around Adairsville, and back to A near Ringgold. Very few people, especially on the Chattanooga side, know that -- GTE doesn't want people to know about that, lest they switch to BellSouth for local cell service! > which is about seventy miles or so to the south! I do not know who > the B carrier is in Tulsa, but I was amazed their signal was that Guess -- US CELLULAR! (They're B systems in just a few places -- Tulsa, Knoxville and middle Tennessee, Asheville NC, and Fort Pierce, FL.) > west between St. Louis and Kansas City the roaming indicator would > come on for no apparent reason in the middle of an otherwise 'no > service' area; and there are plenty of them in the rural areas of the Between Jasper and Chattanooga, TN in eastern Marion County, BellSouth's Chattanooga system has no tower YET (they serve areas to the west, north and east of that "hole") -- occasionally I will get fairly strong "roaming" service (4 or 5 bars on a Moto flip) from the Huntsville, Alabama BellSouth system; the nearest "HUN" system tower is ~17 miles WSW of where I tried this; the nearest Chattanooga system tower is only five miles away, but is blocked by a ridge. In one case I got the Fort Payne, AL system which is about 40 miles due south of Jasper. I have gotten the *Knoxville* US Cellular system (tower ~45 miles NE of where I was) on TN Highway 111 northwest of Chattanooga, where it crosses a mountain and BellSouth has no coverage. Stanley Cline (Roamer1 on IRC) ** GO BRAVES! GO VOLS! Catoosa Computing Services, Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net ** http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CompuServe 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Apr 96 21:14:07 -0400 From: Craig, Michael S. Organization: Maritime Tel & Tel Subject: How Long do Modems Check For Dialtone? Is anyone aware of a standard period of time modems will attempt to detect dial tone before returning an error message such as dialtone not detected? I'm looking for the *standard* default setting, not the range of time-out settings which are generally supported by current generation (14.4 or better) modems. In the service area of the telco for which I work, the frequency of conflict between modem usage and voice messaging services that provide message waiting indication via interrupted dial tone (100 ms on, 100 ms off) is increasing. I am considering Nortel's DMS-100 *variable interrupted dial tone* feature on DMS-100s as a means of overcoming this conflict -- the feature presents interrupted dialtone for 1-7 seconds and then reverts to standard dialtone. However, in order to forecast how many customers with modems this may benefit, I need to have a rough idea of how long *most* (75%?) current generation modems will check for dialtone before returning an error message. I'd appreciate any information on the subject. E-mail direct to me ... msc1@mtt.ca ------------------------------ From: gprice@erc.cat.syr.edu (Gene Price) Subject: Seeking Sales/Sales Management Opportunity Date: 2 Apr 1996 20:55:46 GMT Organization: CASE Center at Syracuse University. I have over 19 years of sales and sales management experience in a technical environment. I have designed and sold the following: PBX - Northern Telecom, NEC NEAX 2400, Hitachi HCX 5000 Data - Cisco Fibermux, and BayNetworks routers and hubs, NEC ATM FDDI, Ethernet, Fast Ethernet Video - NEC TCX 5000 Video Conference unit, Pro Share Desk Top Video CATV - Direct Bradcast Delivery, Satellite Delivery, Video Retrieval Fiber - Hardware I have designed National Accounts programs for Fortune 500 companies. I have sold in several vertical markets including Healthcare, Education, Government, Banking, Legal. I am currently located in upstate NY and would like to stay here or relocate to Southwest Virginia. I will travel anywhere including overseas. Education - BBA - Averett College, Danville, Va currently completing MBA. Please e-mail response to gprice@erc.cat.syr.edu I have also worked as a Product Manager, Project Manager, Network Manager Sales Manager, Natinal Account Manager. ------------------------------ From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Need list of current NXX's in RI (401) Date: 3 Apr 1996 21:25:07 -0500 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. Reply-To: Anthony.Pelliccio@ey.com We're having problems with our AT&T Definity G3v4i switch and routing. Seems that AT&T isn't keeping up with current NXX codes in RI and as a result we have problems dialing wireless services such as paging and cellular. Does anyone know where (other than my inaccurate telephone book) I can get an accurate listing of all dialable NXX codes in RI? Thanks, Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR As offensive as I wanna be. kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Ameritech Announces 810 Split Date: 3 Apr 1996 11:43:19 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA Forwarded from Ameritech: AMERITECH RELEASE: Friday, March 22, 1996 For further information, contact: Jonathan James, Ameritech, 313/223-7194 Sara Snyder, Ameritech, 313/223-7192 Joe O'Connor, Consumer Market Analysts, 810/637-1400 New Area Code Plan Selected for 810 Area New area code to take effect in 1997; rates and phone numbers will stay the same. SOUTHFIELD, Mich. -- Oakland County will receive its own area code in 1997, according to a plan announced today by the Citizens' Advisory Committee. This plan calls for Oakland County to receive a distinct area code in spring 1997. Customers in Macomb, St. Clair, Sanilac, Lapeer, Genesee, and the affected parts of Livingston County will use the current area code. There are 895,000 telephone lines in use in Oakland County. The rest of the 810 area has 833,000 active telephone lines. The results of the Citizens' Advisory Committee market research found that 58 percent of customers surveyed throughout the 810 area code preferred the Oakland County area code plan over two other proposed plans. Customers said boundaries for an Oakland County area code plan would be easily recognizable and the change would split the fewest communities. The research illustrated that almost nine out of ten resident and business customers found the new boundary "easy" to recognize. The Citizens' Advisory Committee evaluated more than 20 area code plans for the 810 and 313 areas. The Citizens' Advisory Committee then oversaw an extensive customer research effort to gauge preferences for the various plans. A team consisting of several telecommunications industry members (local telephone companies, long distance companies, cellular carriers, paging companies and alarm companies) received the Citizens' Advisory Committee final recommendation on Wednesday and concurred with it. The new area code will take effect in spring 1997 with an optional dialing period (during which customers can use either the new or 810 area code to complete calls) before the mandatory dialing starts in fall 1997. A massive customer education program will get under way in the near future. The plan for 810 will now be submitted to the North American Numbering Plan administrators in New Jersey. They will review the plan and assign the actual area code to be used. This part of the process should be completed by the end of April, 1996. Then, the plan is turned over to the telecommunications carriers to implement for resident and business customers. The Citizens' Advisory Committee was assembled last November to explore options, conduct customer research and meet with members of the telecommunications industry. The nine committee members, appointed by their local government officials or organizations, represent Wayne County, Macomb County, Oakland County, the City of Detroit, SEMCOG, Ameritech, Detroit Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Public Service Commission. It was announced last October that southeastern Michigan would need two new area codes in the 810 and 313 areas to meet rapidly growing demand for telecommunications services. Work by the committees is still under way on the 313 plan. The new code joining 313 will go into effect in 1998. The Citizens' Advisory Committee plans to make its final recommendation on the 313 plan in the next few weeks. Customers that have any questions related to area codes can get information by calling 800-831-8989. News & Information | Ameritech Home -------------------- John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: D.K. Wong Subject: Wanted: Used 3x8 Norstar Keyline System Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 12:46:34 +0800 I am intrested in purchasing a USED Norstar 3 CO line and 8 extension phone system for my residence. Also, I would like some M7310 and M7208 phones (USED). Can anybody give me a quote on the system? I am willing to spend from $0.00 to $1,900.00 I live in Canada, and prefer to have rates in Canadian dollars. Since I am only a 15 year old kid who has tremendous interest in (very different, weird kid huh?) telecommunications, I wondering if I can get a system for free. (My mum complains that I play with the phone.) I have intrest in PABX, CENTREX, Voicemail, and Keyline phone systems. I just want a system to play with. Is anybody willing to give me a system for free? If so, let me know. My interest started when I was playing around with an IVR (Interactive Voice response system, a 1-900 number that is. My mum almost killed me.) I always wondered how they know my ANI to bill the call. My mum always complains that I tie up the phone line when I use the internet, and sometimes disrupts my connection when she picks up the phone. With a Keyine or PABX I can call the internet service provider with a modem without being disrupted. If my mum wants to make an outside call and presses "9" she would hear a busy tone telling her that I am using the outside line. Because my mum always complains that she gets a sore throat when she yells at my sibblings to come to the kitchen for dinner, she can simply just call them in their rooms with the intercom function of the Keyline system. Please send any replies to: a15283@mindlink.bc.ca http://mindlink.net/a15283/ "When I grow up, I want to be involved in the telecommunications, and broadcasting industry." I have a 3.5 G.P.A. at school and I specialize in Math and Sciences (especially physics). I hate P.E. and art ! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You don't like gym class? I never did like gym class either. Often I managed to get out of it by forgetting to bring my gym shoes, and since no one was allowed on the gym floor without them I had to sit on the sidelines, which I really hated. :) I also hated climbing that rope and I always got chosen last on any teams they had. Suffice to say I *hated* gym class. Let's see if anyone reading TELECOM Digest might have some old equipment they will sell you cheap or give for free. Good luck with your interest in telecom, and stay in touch. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Hoeve Subject: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 14:27:11 -0500 Organization: Secon Group Inc. I use standard call forwarding from a phone line at home to where ever I am during the day. I have noticed that I can only accept 1 call at a time. This, I have found, to be a limitation of "call forwarding". It appears that if a call is already forwarded, a subsequent call will ring busy. I would like to know if "remote call forwarding" or the new "virtual number" service promoted by BellSouth will solve my problem and forward concurrent calls. Thanks for your help, Peter Hoeve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 17:10:18 -0500 From: Jason Fetterolf Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telecom Internal Analyst Excellent Employment opportunity available for a telecommunications specialist/internal analyst. Location: Horsham, PA (near Philadelphia.) Focus of work: Billing analysis, with national firm possessing 29 branch locations across US. Applicant must have multi-site experience, and be experienced in dealing with various RBOCs on company's communication needs. Four years experience desired. Hiring will occur ASAP. Please inquire for more information to: Paul Lopuski, Director of MIS email your responses to him at: lopuskip@msn.com ------------------------------ From: markm@tutsys.com (Mark Miller) Subject: Wanted to Buy: 30-50 Station KSU Plus Phones Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 21:16:28 GMT Organization: Tut Systems, Inc. Hi. I am looking to buy a small-medium sized KSU and phones for a school -- around ten phones for admin and 25 for classrooms, plus a bit of growth room in the switch. Any good deals out there? Used/refurb preferred, voice mail a valuable plus. Thanks in advance, Mark Miller markm@tutsys.com ------------------------------ From: Kerrie A. Exely Subject: Seeking Reference For WAN Costs Organization: University of Virginia Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 15:09:29 GMT I am working on a project where we must gather information about the connection costs for DS-0, DS-3, ATM, and satellite. The phone companies have thus far managed only to put us on hold indefinitely, and we have not yet gotten the information over the phone. Is there an WWW site to get information on connection and/or monthly costs? Or a list of resources to contact? Or documenation I could obtain? This is a teleradiology project that would link two community hospitals to an academic hospital. We must estimate the cost of operating two systems, one using land digital services, and another using satellite services. Thanks in advance for your help. Kerrie A. Exely kae4z@Virginia.EDU Medical Imaging Program Radiology Dept., MR4 Box 1138 Office Phone: (804) 982-2585/4326 ---> http://artifact.med.Virginia.EDU:8001/kae4z/home.html <--- ** Please be sure to watch the show on PACS and Teleradiology! For ** more info, see http://artifact.med.Virginia.EDU:8001/kae4z/pacs.html ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Date: 3 Apr 1996 18:18:33 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't it also fair to give them your > name and address also if they request it, and not just your phone > number *only* ? That way if you change your phone number you should > theoretically remain on their list of people not to call. Isn't it > also important to note that if you do move or change your phone number > you need to re-state your request, and cannot really blame them if > a call or two gets through before your new address/number is noted > in their records? PAT] The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1992 (subsequent to a recent FCC clarification) requires only that the consumer give a phone number to a telemarketing firm. The reason is that, the more information the junk caller has, the more likely it is that their will be a mis-match during a purge. (e.g. Is it: Robert Stuart Bulmash or R S Bulmash or Bob Bulmash 33 S 462 Gray Mill Drive, or 462 Graymill Dr Ste 33 The easiest and most effective way to not dial a phone number is to not dial it. The TCPA was created (ostesibly) to protect privacy; not to allow telemarketers to call under certain circumstances. As for the length of time a number remains on a do-not-call list -- it's ten years. If someone moves, and the telco gives that `do-not-call' number to a subsequent person, what a blessing for the recipient. Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Bob, addressing only the final paragraph of your note above, I think this is a little unfair to the telemarketers. If I list my number as 'do-not-call' and then I move in the next month or two and over the next ten years two or three other people have that number, what right do *I* -- as the 'original' owner have to dictate things between the telemarketers and the two or three other people after me in that ten year period who may very well not mind those calls at all. Some people don't mind them. In any event *they* should have right to tell that to the telemarketer rather than me. And to make matters worse, my original intention which was to not be bothered on the phone is now useless since there is no way for the telemarketer to know about my new number until I tell him about that one also; ergo, still a few more unwanted calls as I notify them all of my new number. If the law does not require something a bit more positively identify- ing of the *persons* who are offended by these calls than a single phone number which can and does frequently change, then telemarketers are being treated unfairly, IMO. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Chris D. Johnston Subject: For Sale - IMTS Radio Telephone Gear Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 23:22:49 -0800 Organization: NETUS Greetings! Well, the telecom group looks like a great place to post this. Hopefully some amateur radio ops will appreciate this. I have a fully functional Glenaire 2000 control head with an Aerotron 600TT-60 transmitter available. This IMTS telephone set sports 12 channels -- VHF High Band. It has been tweaked to go to 70 watts instead of the factory 60 watts. Oh, full duplex is a given. It is also terrific for lighting up flourescent tubes at up to three feet away and causing RF burns if you grab the wrong end of the antenna while keyed. :-) Of course, since it is IMTS-able, you can do pulse-dial only from the GL2000 head. Oh, the carbon button microphone is matched to the Xmitter. Comes with documentation and schematics -- and a service area map set for the state of California. Any takers? I want $50. You pay shipping. Call me, Chris Johnston at 714-289-8543 (days). Best Regards, Chris@netus.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #158 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 3 22:16:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA12826; Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:16:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:16:11 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604040316.WAA12826@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #159 TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Apr 96 22:16:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 159 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone (Jack Decker) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (R.J. Welsh) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (R.J. Welsh) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (James Van Meggelen) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (Vance Shipley) Bell Canada Uses Improved Phone Jack (Nigel Allen) Rockwell ADPCM - Anyone Know Details Of Format? (Paul Chehowski) Does Anyone Know About Cryptall? (Doctor Who) Correction: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards (Rick Duggan) Excellent FAQ About (What Used to be) Telco's Video/Broadband (d3smith@aol) Re: Who is FCI? (Email Spammer Alert) (Chris J. Cartwright) Re: Wrong 800 Numbers (Bill Cavanaugh) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Formal FCC Complaint Filed Against I-Phone Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 21:06:07 -0500 Organization: AltNet - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net John Higdon wrote (in regard to the ACTA complaint): > But the crux of the matter is that what they propose is impossible: >> Permitting long distance service to be given away is not in the >> public interest. Therefore, ACTA urges the Federal Communications >> Commission ("the Commission") to exercise its jurisdiction in this >> matter and: issue a declaratory ruling establishing its authority over >> interstate and international telecommuni- cations services using the >> Internet; grant special relief to maintain the status quo by >> immediately stop the sale of this software; and institute rulemaking >> proceedings defining permissible communications over the Internet. > Nice try, but there is no "Internet". There is no main office; there > are no branch offices. It is impossible to "monitor" the Internet. It > would be impossible to define "permissible communications over the > Internet" simply because 1) new types of services are coming forth > daily; and 2) such regulations would be unenforcable. Since data can > be scrambled and encrypted in an infinite number of ways, even packet > sniffing on randomly selected routes would yield an empty hand. I agree with John on this. I have said in other forums that if the FCC ever actually went along with the ACTA request, hackers would have a field day writing software that disguised the fact that voice data was being sent. I could easily forsee the day when you have what appears to be an FTP client and server exchanging binary files, but only the users know that they are really exchanging voice in real time. And that's just one possible way to do it! > What do we have here? We have a software company distributing software > that provides for utilization of a common technology: conversion of > voice to data; data to voice. Nothing illegal about that. And then we > have users installing that software on systems that have links to the > Internet. There is nothing immoral or illegal about that. > But ACTA thinks "there oughtta be a law ...". Let's see ... "Federal > Law prohibits the installation of this software on any computer that > has a connection to the Internet. Violation of the law may cause > damage to ACTA-members' Cash Cow." And here's the one thing that no one seems to have mentioned yet: The FCC's jurisdiction does not extend outside of the United States. As much as they might like to do it, they are not going to be able to stop VocalTec (an Isreali company) from manufacturing IPhone. At best, they might keep it from being sold legally in the United States, but then they run into another problem -- the software can be both sold and delivered via the Internet, without ever physically mailing anything into the United States, so in order to implement this they'd basically have to isolate the U.S. portion of the Internet from the rest of the world. All that such an order would really accomplish would be to move the manufacture and sale of such products offshore, cutting U.S. vendors out of any profits from the sale of such products (not that this is really a big deal, because many of these products currently can be obtained for free!). I know (from previous postings) that there are a few people, obviously including some folks at ACTA, that naively believe that the F.C.C. actually has the ability to stop the sale and use of the products in the United States. I believe this is one prohibition that would be even less successful than the prohibition of alcohol was, simply because the no federal agency has the manpower and ability to enforce this, UNLESS they cut off the Internet links at the borders of the country. One other point to keep in mind is that what we know as the Internet is only one possible use of these products. In a way, this brings us back to the time when extension telephones could be legally sold for use "on private networks only" -- of course, most of them wound up connected to the public telephone network anyway. Well, there is absolutely no reason that the FCC should have any say about what software is used on a private company data network. If you want to use an Internet telephone product to communicate between the 4th floor and the 40th floor of your company's headquarters via your corporate intranet, it's none of the FCC's business. But like the surplus telephones of old, that could be used equally well on a private or public phone system, the exact same Internet telephone products can be used on a private corporate network or on the Internet as a whole. Now, is the FCC really going to tell us that we cannot send voice over our own private networks just because we MIGHT use the same software over the Internet? Even during the heyday of the Bell System, AT&T could not halt the sale of surplus telephones to individuals (admittedly, I don't know if they ever tried) so I think there is precedent for not halting the sale of a product that can be used on a private network, even if it can also be used on a public one. > I predict that our currect method for handling long distance (time and > distance charging) will eventually go by the wayside. I also do not > believe that "Internet Phone" is the vehicle that will cause that to > come about. But it has served one purpose: we now know that ACTA is > not interested in ANY technological advances that threaten its status > quo. That is good information to have in the future. Actually, what I see the Internet doing is fulfilling all the promises that the phone companies were making back in the 50's and 60's. They used to come to schools and tell the kids that "someday you'll be able to talk to anyone, anywhere in the country for a nickle!" and then later on they spoke of the day we'd be able to see the person we're talking to. They never delivered on the first promise, and for all intents and purposes they haven't yet delivered on the second (unless you can afford over a grand for a standalone video phone at each end of the conversation). But the Internet is delivering all that and more, today -- perhaps not perfectly yet, but it's much further along than the phone companies are! Jack ------------------------------ From: rj_welsh@ix.netcom.com (RJ WELSH) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: 4 Apr 1996 01:18:51 GMT Organization: Netcom In Mark Smith writes: > In Article , net> writes: >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the >> carriers do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. >> Voiceprints are supposed to be unique. > Voiceprints are a good idea if the phone has a single user. However, > my wife and I until recently shared a phone (the person driving > furthest away took the phone). Also, we now each have a phone, but if > we are travelling together we take one phone. This means that either > of us may be using the phone at any given time. Voiceprints would > make this difficult. Multiple prints are no problem; simply longer matching delays. Consider, instead, the extreme ease of tape recording a voice, digitizing the audio and editing (perhaps even without digitization) the voice to produce the required results. DSP is now a common hacker's tool. After all, it's next to impossible to match "voice prints" for an entire conversation; would you shut it off if the other end didn't "match"...? Regardless of the resolution of the pattern matching software, telephone line bandpass limitations make forgery extremely easy. The same could be said of the once "leading edge" technology of transmitter pattern matching; changes in temperature alone produce L/C variations that are enough to throw any pattern matching algorithm into digital lunacy. If that were not enough, forgery at RF frequencies is only a matter of shifting transfer functions via vvc's and variable semiconductor inductor simulation. grendal ------------------------------ From: rj_welsh@ix.netcom.com (RJ WELSH) Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question Date: 4 Apr 1996 01:23:17 GMT Organization: Netcom In cassuto@bnr.ca writes: > In article is written: >> Is there a limit to the total number of digits that can be dialed >> from an M2616 digital set? The specific problem is this ... >> A user wants to place a call charging it to his calling card. He >> dials the UNITEL service at 9'18009579000 and is asked to enter the >> number he wishes to call ie. XXX-XXX-XXXX. Once this is entered he has >> to enter his calling card number and P.I.N. (14 more digits). It >> seems that the digits for the calling card etc. are not being >> sent/received as he is asked again to enter it. Is it possible that >> his digital set is limited to the 22 digits he has entered? Could this >> be a programming problem? He has no problem dialing this from an >> analog set. > I don't think there is a problem with the number of digits being sent > by the M2616; once he's connected to the Unitel server, he's not in a > dialing phase anymore, the calling card and PIN are sent over the > voice channel as DTMF tones, just like normal speech, so there is no > limit. I cannot think of what the problem might be in this case; > sorry. ALL switches have limits to the number of dialed digits. Some of these limits have to do with trunking to other switching systems. The set itself (assuming its not some proprietary "smart" set with inherent limitations) does not govern these. Check the switch. I just remembered that NORTEL is known for a specific problem: Digital sets rely on the switch to repeat digits over outgoing trunks. Analog sets may be "cutthrough" allowing the keypad to send digits after the switch gives up control. This may be the problem; the digit outpulsing (sending) limitation in the NORTEL trunk protocol. I taught them cutthrough operation (allowing sets to control outpulsed digits by "cutting" the set through the trunk path while the distant receiver was attached) in 1982; maybe their learning curve is steeper than I thought. grendal ------------------------------ From: James Van Meggelen Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 19:01:51 -0800 Organization: ionsys.com Gerry Walsh wrote: > Is there a limit to the total number of digits that can be dialed > from an M2616 digital set? The specific problem is this ... If you're using analog trunks, it might be the end-of-dial timer. Try dialling "#" after entering the telephone number. This will override the end-of-dial timers and enable end-to-end signalling (DTMF). ------------------------------ From: news@xenitec.on.ca (xenitec.on.ca News Administrator) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 96 22:03:05 GMT From: vances@xenitec.xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question Organization: Telco Consulting Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 22:03:00 GMT In article , Gerry Walsh wrote: > A user wants to place a call charging it to his calling card. He > dials the UNITEL service at 9'18009579000 and is asked to enter the > number he wishes to call ie. XXX-XXX-XXXX. Once this is entered he has > to enter his calling card number and P.I.N. (14 more digits). It > seems that the digits for the calling card etc. are not being > sent/received as he is asked again to enter it. Is it possible that > his digital set is limited to the 22 digits he has entered? Could this > be a programming problem? He has no problem dialing this from an > analog set. You probably don't have "end to end signalling" set up for your system. This is a programming option. To check just call someone (be sure you are on the same trunk group which would be used for the Unitel call) and ask them whether they hear tones when you dial digits on your keypad. If they don't hear anything then the pbx isn't sending them! Vance Shipley, vances@xenitec.on.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 00:51:07 -0500 From: Nigel Allen Subject: Bell Canada Uses Improved Phone Jack Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Bell Canada has traditionally used RJ-11 phone jacks designed to take the plug in the side of the jack. I have seen some newly-installed Bell Canada phone jacks that take the plug in the middle of the jack. As well, these new jacks incorporate a sliding panel that covers the hole when a phone cord isn't plugged in, thereby reducing the risk of dust and moisture causing wiring problems. The new jacks also seem sturdier than anything from Radio Shack. Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/ ------------------------------ From: paulc@sulis.com (Paul Chehowski) Subject: Rockwell ADPCM - Anyone Know Details Of Format? Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 05:54:56 GMT Organization: Bell Global Solutions I'm looking at writing some code to convert data recorded from a Rockwell chip based modem, using the AT+V commands. These data transmitted from the modem is specified as being in Rockwell ADPCM format, but I have been unable to find a written specification of what that format is. I have visited Rockwell's web site and found some utilities and sample code (unfortunately in Microsoft Assembler), but would prefer a simple formula that would allow me to code my own conversion program. I have found tons of descriptions of the IMA ADPCM format, but nothing on Rockwell's format. Anyone know where I could find any more information? Paul ------------------------------ From: Doctor Who Subject: Does Anyone Know About Cryptall? Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 19:11:03 -0500 Organization: Sinister Networks I was going through a telephony junkpile and found three cards, Labeled "CRYPTALL COMMUNICATION CORP. 2/14/90 REV 1.1" and I am intrigued ... has anyone heard of this company? And have any idea what these boards may be? Dr. Who ------------------------------ From: duggan@cc.gatech.edu (Rick Duggan) Subject: Correction: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed Date: 3 Apr 1996 21:26:19 -0500 Organization: College of Computing In article , Steve Bunning wrote: > Some of the files you mentioned came from a compact disk (CD) sold by > InfoMagic. InfoMagic sells a CD titled "STANDARDS, CCITT/ITU Blue > Book, Windows Sockets, RFC's & IEN's." You can request information on > InfoMagic and its products through their email address, info@infomagic.com. > You can pursue ITU/CCITT information via their web page at www.itu.com. I think two slight corrections are in order here. First, according to the InfoMagic web site (http://www.infomagic.com/infomagic/2standards.html) they no longer sell the ITU standards CD. Second, the ITU WWW site is at www.itu.ch, not www.itu.com. Rick Duggan - duggan@cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: d3smith@aol.com (D3SMITH) Subject: Excellent FAQ About (What Used to be) Teleco's Video/Broadband Date: 03 Apr 1996 20:04:47 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: d3smith@aol.com (D3SMITH) An excellent FAQ which covers telephone company video/braodband strategies is available on the web at: http://www.vipconsult.com/~ipi/vipc/tlvidFAQ.html P.S. It's a pretty big file (~130k), so it may take a while to load. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 11:17:08 EST From: Chris J. Cartwright - ELF Subject: Re: Who is FCI? (Email Spammer Alert) FWIW, I looked up the 703-455-0341 fax number and it seems to be in Engleside, VA. The fax comes back with the header: FreedomStarr Communications, Inc. 16200 SW Pacific Hwy. H152 Tigard, OR 97244 503-321-5180 503-691-6494 fax 800-299-6232 x2000 (24 hour information and registration) This is signed (well his name is on the bottom) by Michael Reed, President. The fax states that their long distance carrier is WilTel and goes on with lots of verbage about, phenominal growth, couldn't be easier, global axcess (sic), tremendous savings, and what seem to me to be average rates. It looks to me to be just a horse of a different color on the same MLM scheme that most of the others we've heard about are using. Although they do say that "Our ... MLM tracking software is the finest of its kind", that alone should make it worth it . It is my assumtion that this spam just came from some overzealous "downline" member who is going to be rich because they have a dream and cheap internet access. Christopher Cartwright, Tech. Engineer Mail dsc3cjc@imc220.med.navy.mil ------------------------------ From: wilec@buttercup.cybernex.net (Bill Cavanaugh) Subject: Re: Wrong 800 Numbers Organization: Acme Explosives, Inc. Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 21:54:59 GMT In article , Greg Eaton wrote: > In message <199603210357.WAA25037@massis.lcs.mit.edu>, "Patrick A. > Townson" writes >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have to agree that sometimes in >> desparation it is fun to play those games on wrong number callers. >> Quite a few years ago I had a number which had previously been >> assigned to the janitor for an apartment building. The real estate >> company owners had never updated their list of numbers they gave >> to tenants in their buildings. Furthermore, they ignored my several >> requests that they do so. I finally got to the point I started >> taking calls for the janitor and giving the tenants a hard time. >> A caller says, 'there is no hot water in my apartment'. My answer >> would be that at the rent they paid, we did not provide hot water >> or heat in the winter. Another caller asks, 'when is the garbage >> going to be collected from the hallways?' and my answer would be >> not until all the filthy pigs who lived in that building moved out >> which probably would not be anytime soon. Still a third called to >> report that her neighbors had loud, noisy parties night after night >> and my response was to suggest she either get ear plugs or perhaps >> just go join the drunken orgy with them. After a couple weeks of >> that, the tenant's list of management telephone numbers was updated >> with (I presume) correct information. PAT] That reminds me of a phone number I had in a small town in NJ. The local high school called to inquire about the health of one of the children, since they hadn't seen him in a while. I told them that I had just received the number from the phone company. They asked me for the new number of the people they were trying to reach (how in the world would I have known?), and I told them I didn't have it. Two months later I received an identical call. I referred to the earlier call and suggested that someone update their phone list, and also that if they hadn't seen a student in four months they weren't likely to see her again. That was on a beautiful June day. On a stormy September day, I received another call. I angrily suggested that they fix their records and hung up. Flash forward to October. Another call, this time from an angry drone who started the conversation by telling me that I was violating the law by not having my kid in school. Fed up, I started yelling at him, "I don't know who you are, but you've got some nerve! If you were really the school you wouldn't be calling me, because they know that the car accident was fatal! (at this point I let a sob choke me up) How could you do this to me??" They were very apologetic, and I never heard from them again. Bill // That's one of the tragedies of this life -- that the men // who are most in need of a beating are always enormous. // From "The Palm Beach Story" wilec@haven.ios.com http://haven.ios.com/~wilec -- Martial Arts Links ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #159 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Apr 4 13:45:31 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA25706; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 13:45:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 13:45:31 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604041845.NAA25706@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #160 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Apr 96 13:45:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 160 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Official Killed In Bosnian Plane Crash (Van Hefner) MCI and a Bright Bulb Strategy (Wall St. Journal via pushpendra@aol.com) Why the NetPC Will Fail (Kevin Kadow) More Cellular Anomalies (Stan Schwartz) New 440 NPA, Cleveland Suburbs (Mark W. Schumann) Suing Sprint? Riiiiiight (was Re: Sprint and Fridays) (Christopher Ambler) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Tom Olin) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Robert Bulmash) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Seymour Dupa) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Steve Chilinski) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 03:47:49 -0800 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: AT&T Official Killed In Bosnian Plane Crash New York, NY, April 4, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- AT&T has received confirmation that Walter J. Murphy, 52, vice president of global sales, AT&T Submarine Systems, was on the plane carrying Commerce Secretary Brown and others that crashed today in the Balkans. AT&T Chairman Robert E. Allen has issued the following statement: NEW YORK -- While we continue to hold out hope, all indications are that AT&T has lost a valued executive and a good man in Walter Murphy. Speaking for all the people of AT&T, I am deeply saddened by the terrible loss that has apparently occurred today. Walter Murphy was on that trip today because of his knowledge of what it takes to help rebuild a telecommunications infrastructure like the one so badly damaged by years of war in Bosnia. He had only recently taken his current job and in his typical pattern, was enthusiastic about the challenge. He looked forward to learning how his business, AT&T Submarine Systems, could help improve communications in a part of the world that needs this help so desperately. The United States today has also apparently lost one of its most effective and energetic advocates for U.S. business in Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. The secretary worked tirelessly to find opportunities for U.S. businesses abroad. I have accompanied Ron on trade missions overseas and I know first hand how much he helped open doors for the business community in countries all around the world. He will be missed not only for his warmth, but for his dedication to helping U.S. business. It's a truly tragic day for AT&T and for the nation. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of Walter Murphy, Ron Brown and the others lost in the crash. ====================== Personal Note: Also among those lost in yesterday's crash was Kathy Kellogg, a Commerce Department official whom I used to attend Sunday school with. She was a native of Eureka, CA, and was a year older than myself. She will be missed by her friends, family and the people she appareantly gave her life to serve. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ ------------------------------ From: Pushpendra@aol.com Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 09:37:24 -0500 Subject: MCI and a Bright Bulb Strategy MCI Makes Less-Than-Graceful Exit After Being Dumped From IBM Contract By JOHN J. KELLER Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal The telecom battle doesn't get much nastier than this. When International Business Machines Corp. notified MCI Communications Corp. that it had decided to go with AT&T Corp., the incumbent provider began cutting off service to IBM's global network -- before the old contract had expired. That move last week forced AT&T to scramble to keep Big Blue on line, according to people close to both companies. AT&T marshaled 1,000 employees over the weekend to provide IBM with service. The battle over the $3 billion contract to provide voice and data transmission services -- and MCI's retaliation -- underscores the accelerating telecom war. With a battery of newcomers ready to enter the newly deregulated market long dominated by AT&T, the fight to hold on to corporate accounts and win new ones will intensify. For MCI, the latest counterpunch could mar its record as a service provider and threaten to expose it to other losses of major corporate accounts. Currently, corporate communications accounts for more than $2 billion of MCI's $15.3 billion in annual revenue. "Imagine [IBM Chairman] Lou Gerstner telling his other CEO buddies about how MCI almost shut his company down over the weekend because he wanted to switch to AT&T," says one industry executive who asked that his name not be used. "We're still in discussions with IBM," said Frank Walter, an MCI spokesman. He wouldn't go further except to add, "We did not cut off service over the weekend." He wouldn't say whether his company issued a threat to cut off service. AT&T and IBM would not comment. As telecom customers go, IBM is one of the biggest targets in corporate America and wields enormous influence among other companies. The company uses numerous carriers world-wide to transmit its communications traffic around the globe. With a work force nearing 250,000 people, and thousands of customers who rely on IBM's global network, the computer giant is a huge generator of voice and data traffic. "It's the biggest if not one of the top five companies in the world to land as a customer," said one telecom executive. IBM was also said to be MCI's biggest customer, going back to the 1980s when IBM sold its satellite communications business to MCI and bought a 16% stake in the nation's second-largest long-distance company. IBM sold its stake a few years later. IBM notified MCI last week of its decision to switch to AT&T. "That started a torrent of threats," recounts one executive familiar with the IBM-MCI talks. "It got pretty tense." IBM made it clear to MCI that the cutoff would disadvantage not only Big Blue but also thousands of customers who tap into the IBM Global Network daily. But over the weekend, MCI made good on its threat and "started to rip out IBM equipment from its facilities," another executive says. Alarmed, IBM turned to AT&T -- even though the two hadn't yet signed a formal contract -- to plead for help in taking things over. "IBM went nuts and called AT&T, saying MCI was cutting off service," the executive notes. AT&T sent technicians to connect IBM lines to the AT&T system, transfer connections from its network to local Bell company facilities and reprogram switches and signaling systems to handle the mammoth traffic. AT&T, struggling to keep the IBM network up, notified IBM that it wouldn't be able to complete the job over the weekend. IBM lawyers called MCI and threatened to seek an injunction, ordering the contractor to keep the lines up, according to people close with the situation. MCI relented and gave IBM an extra week before it completely cut off service. The spat raises significant possibilities about shifts in competitive alliances. For AT&T and MCI -- which are in talks to cooperate on building local phone networks to challenge the local monopolies of the Baby Bells -- the question is whether this brouhaha will chill their new relationship. For IBM and AT&T, the proposed contract marks a new level of cooperation and interdependence between two titans. Their relationship was dealt a setback last month when AT&T pulled the plug on a project to let users of IBM's Notes software use the AT&T network. AT&T tried to ease the snub by later saying it would pursue lesser efforts involving Notes. The new telecom contract, which is to cover seven years, will have AT&T provide IBM's switching, transmission and signaling for handling millions of voice and data calls annually. Such pacts are especially coveted because they come up for renewal only once every few years and carry high profit margins and can lead to additional business down the road. Normally the loser of such a contract bows out and works hard to get the business back. "You try to be as helpful and gracious as you can," said one telecom executive. "How you exit is very important, almost more important than how you went in, in the first place." ------------------------------ From: kadokev@rci.ripco.com (Kevin Kadow) Subject: Why the NetPC Will Fail Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 00:06:37 CST In-reply-to: Goliath at Bay - George Gilder's Latest Essay > Echoing Medin and Corrigan, McNealy evoked the future of the > teleputer: "Put a touch screen on it and make it a kiosk, put a large > screen on it and make it a workstation, put in an infrared detector > and make it a set-top box, put a joystick on it and make a game > machine, put a cable modem or an ISDN port[1] on it and make it a PC or a > digital phone. So far this vision of a "Teleputer" is not much more than a current X-terminal with extra interfaces. NCD has a complete X-server and window manager built into the current generation of terminals, I hope they've already explored the possibility of running Netscape or Mosaic locally on the terminal. Adding cable modem or ISDN support may not be in their immediate plans, but they do have serial and parallel ports, a PPP stack, and better access control than a Macintosh. > You never run out of disk space[2]; you never have to back it up; > it's mirrored so you never lose your files.[3] You have an uninterruptible > power supply. Your phone or cable line is much more reliable than > your hard drive on your PC.[1] You get used to the security of the > system with no disks to corrupt and with Java programs that execute[4] > only in a virtual machine and cannot invade your system.[5]" McNealy > might have added, in ecumenical concern for Larry Ellison's mother, > "Put in some Oracle code and you have a terrific, cheap database > client in an emerging world of far-flung databases."[6] There are so many fallacies and pitfalls in the above statements that I had to number them for reference. 1. My local hard drives have MTBF's of 200,000-500,000 hours, I've been involved with nearly 100 ISDN installations in the Chicago area, and would give them a MTBF of closer to 10,000 hours, and I can keep a spare drive handy. 2. The provider has some limit on disk space, must charge you more than the going price per megabyte for the space you use to cover the cost of backups and extra space, and cannot obtain disk space for much of a discount over what you pay for a local drive without using offline storage (e.g. archiving seldom used files to tape). 3. It's mirrored and backed up so you never lose you files, and any government agency with a warrant can inspect them at any time without your knowledge or consent, as can any hacker or curious employee. 4. Java programs are, by design interpreted, lacking in 'power' and limited in functionality. Security holes related to Java are still being discovered. 5. You don't have a 'personal' system to be corrupted or catch a virus -- instead, the entire server may be violated, affecting not only you but hundreds of other users as well. 6. This makes the "owners" of the data very happy since without a local computer, you cannot mirror the data you receive for subsequent retrieval, and will have to pay everytime you access the data, instead of making a local copy of your query results. ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: More Cellular Anomalies Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:25:25 -0500 When I moved from NY to Charlotte, I was able to transfer my cellular service from BellAtlanticNYNEX Mobile NY/NJ to Charlotte without penalty. When visiting NY with my Charlotte-based phone, however, the "fun" begins. First of all, BANM is the "A" carrier in Charlotte, and the "B" carrier in the northeast. If I am in the NY/NJ system, I can roam on BOTH systems. If I leave my phone on the "A" side, I end up roaming on AT&T Wireless (00025) and get charged $.99/minute. If I switch the phone to the "B" side and roam on the BANM NY/NJ system, I pay $.49/minute. Note that NO pin number is needed, even though both NY-area systems require it for their home users. Last time I traveled to NY, I was late for my flight and didn't turn off my call forwarding. Well once I got to NY I paged someone and they returned my call only to find that my Charlotte number was still being forward to the last place I set it. Of course, I wasn't able to reset it myself (the systems aren't compatible), and BANM's Greenville, SC customer service office closed at 9:00pm that night. I dealt with it until the next morning, where a call to *BAM in NY got me forwarded to Greenville, where they *73'd for me. Today, in Uptown Charlotte, when trying to make a call I got a "Your call did not go through" message (which is weird, usually you just get the tones on cellular). I finally got through to repair, who told me that there was a "fiber cut that knocked out at least eight towers for most of the day". He said the towers tried to log back on, but they apparently couldn't log themselves on and each site had to be manually re-booted. Something more troubling is that when making a call from the cell or calling the phone from a land line, there are a series of "clicks" while I assume the phone is being located. I didn't experience this anomaly when I lived in the NY area. Is this normal? Further updates as events warrant. Stan ------------------------------ From: catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) Subject: New 440 NPA, Cleveland Suburbs Date: 4 Apr 1996 08:20:57 -0500 Organization: Akademia Pana Kleksa, Public Access Uni* Site The {Cleveland Plain Dealer} announced today that the remainder of NPA 216 (which was just last month split by NPA 330) will be split again in 1997. 216 will retain almost all of the city of Cleveland except for a very small cluster at the very end of what looks like Lorain Avenue on the low-res map. 216 will also retain part or all of: Parma, Lakewood, East Cleveland, Linndale, Brooklyn, Cleveland Heights and a few other close suburbs. A couple of suburbs will be split between 440 and 330. I can't wait. :-) Regards, Mark, who will still be in 216 tyvm. Mark W. Schumann ------------------------------ From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) Subject: Suing Sprint? Riiiiiight. (was Re: Sprint and Fridays) Date: 4 Apr 1996 03:43:42 GMT Organization: Punknet Internet Cooperative >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ...and when they complain, Sprint says >> 'tough luck, sucker! Your weekday calls were not balancing out with >> your Friday calls so we reneged on our contract. We gave you 26 >> minutes notice to get the required documentation to our office. Now >> you can sue us if you like but we know you won't since it is a long >> involved procedure you cannot afford. PAT] > Incidentally: I've been a long-time Sprint residential customer. I've > stayed with them for years, through the switch disasters in South > Carolina, the free faxmodem caper, and now this. It's almost enough > to make me take that $100 check now sitting in the wastebasket from > AT&T and switch. Ah yes, what happens when you want to sue Sprint ... like the notes I got from various legals at Sprint, and how I was advised that the moment it got to small claims, it [could|might|would] be changed to a court where I'd have to get a real lawyer and all of a sudden a COULDN'T afford it. Does anyone want to buy 20 2400-baud internal faxmodems? :-) (C) Copyright, 1996 Christopher Ambler, Director, Punknet Internet Cooperative, San Luis Obispo, California - Zen Room Presents the RHPS.ORG web site! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 08:54:53 -0500 From: Tom Olin Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Reply-To: tro@partech.com In article prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) writes: > As for the length of time a number remains on a do-not-call list -- > it's ten years. If someone moves, and the telco gives that > `do-not-call' number to a subsequent person, what a blessing for > the recipient. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Bob, addressing only the final > paragraph of your note above, I think this is a little unfair to > the telemarketers. If I list my number as 'do-not-call' and then I > move in the next month or two and over the next ten years two or > three other people have that number, what right do *I* -- as the > 'original' owner have to dictate things between the telemarketers > and the two or three other people after me in that ten year period > who may very well not mind those calls at all. Excuse me? Since when do telemarketers have a "right" to bother anybody at home who has not specifically requested not to be so bothered? I don't receive all that many sales calls at home; should I feel deprived? If there are people as desperate to receive telemarketing calls as you seem to think, perhaps the telemarketing industry should set up an 800 number that people can call to explicitly request receipt of sales calls. Or how about Dial-a-Sales-Call, where you choose from a menu of calls you'd like to listen to? Instant gratification! In the meantime, ten years seems like a reasonable time limit. Tom Olin Telephone: +1 315 738 0600 ext. 638 PAR Government Systems Corporation FAX: +1 315 738 8304 8383 Seneca Turnpike E-mail: tom_olin@partech.com New Hartford, NY 13413-4991 WWW: http://www.partech.com ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Date: 4 Apr 1996 04:30:18 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Bob, addressing only the final > paragraph of your note above, I think this is a little unfair to > the telemarketers. If I list my number as 'do-not-call' and then I > move in the next month or two and over the next ten years two or > three other people have that number, what right do *I* -- as the > 'original' owner have to dictate things between the telemarketers > and the two or three other people after me in that ten year period > who may very well not mind those calls at all. Pat, You are laboring under the misconception the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is effective in stopping junk calls. First of all, do-not-call requests made pursuant to the TCPA, are company specific. If you tell `AAA Company' not to call again, that request will not affect any other junk calling firm (AAB through ZZZ Company). Furthermore, AAA Company will still be able to flaunt the law, and call you every year in violation of the TCPA for the rest of your life: while it strips you of any right to sue for that call. If they call a second time in (within a 12 month period) in violation violation of the law / your do-not-call request, then you can sue for $500. But if you do sue for that second call, the TCPA grants the telemarketer an `affirmative defense'. That is to say, "Your honor, we have established and implimented with due care, appropriate procedures to prevent our violating the law." In reality, the TCPA protects telemarketers from you if you sue them for violating the TCPA under the above circumstance. > Some people don't mind them. That `some' is about 17%. Indeed, the majority of citizens prefer not to be telemarketed, and according to one survey 86% consider such call to be VERY annoying. > In any event *they* should have right to tell that to the telemarketer > rather than me. Perhaps I can give my view of residential junk calls in the following comparison: Most people do not mind getting wet in the shower. Most people do not mind interupting their activities to answer the call of a friend. Most people do not want to get wet due to someone spitting up on them. Most people do not want to interupt their activities to answer a junk call. The result is the same. You get wet - you get a phone call. The difference is the sense of pleasure / insult: to your person -- to your privacy. I should not have to tell everyone who approaches, not to spit up on me. I should not have to tell everyone who does telemarketing, not to junk call me. Yet the TCPA requires that I tell each junk caller not to call me. > And to make matters worse, my original intention which was to not be > bothered on the phone is now useless since there is no way for the > telemarketer to know about my new number until I tell him about that one > also; ergo, still a few more unwanted calls as I notify them all of > my new number. The TCPA does not require telemarketers to track you based on your address. Furthermore, if you have an unlisted number, (as 25% of the nation's resident's have) such tracking is impossible. > If the law does not require something a bit more positively identify- > ing of the *persons* who are offended by these calls than a single > phone number which can and does frequently change, then telemarketers > are being treated unfairly, IMO. PAT] The TCPA treats telemarketers much better than it treats our fundamental right to be left alone by those we seek to not associate with in our homes. I am not so much concerned for the rights of the four million or so junk callers in the nation. Rather I'm concerned for the rights of the 200 million private citizens who do not want to be bothered by junk callers. Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home ------------------------------ From: grumpy@en.com (Seymour Dupa) Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Date: 4 Apr 1996 01:52:48 GMT Organization: Exchange Network Services, Inc. tom zinn (zinnt@ncr.disa.mil) wrote: > Any chance you have the 800 numbers for ATT, MCI and US Sprint to get > put on their "do not hassle" list? I'm tired of hearing from them. You don't have to call *them*. They called you -- remember? When you get a call, sound cheery and ask for the callers, name, company, telephone number and city. Then request that you be placed on the 'do not call' list. If it's a big company, request confirmation by letter. If the caller doesn't know what you'r talking about, tell them as far as you're concerned, as an agent for the company, the company has been notified. You need the letter in case you get called again and they say, "We have no record of your request". PS. I know; I got mine from: MCI Telecommunications Corporation Consumer Markets National Escalation Center 9001 N. Interregional Hwy. Austin, TX 78753 800-925-8872 ------------------------------ From: Steve.Chilinski@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 09:09:42 GMT Organization: Gateway to Internet Services > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Isn't it also fair to give them your > name and address also if they request it, and not just your phone > number *only* ? That way if you change your phone number you should > theoretically remain on their list of people not to call. Isn't it > also important to note that if you do move or change your phone number > you need to re-state your request, and cannot really blame them if > a call or two gets through before your new address/number is noted > in their records? PAT] Pat- You are correct. Now that do-not-call rules are ACTUALLY being enforced (finally), the person being called needs to cooperate with governmental guidelines in order to ensure that they will not be called again. If people don't want to be bothered, they should take a breath between their rants and supply the company with complete information ... meaning name and address. As you notes, this is truly a double-safety assurance that you can't be bothered again (in any way, including direct mail). Also, full name and address disclosure is one of the FTC requirements in their 12/31/95 ruling, in the do-not-call provisions. If that's too much for someone to give, then they can expect to be called, and have no one but themselves to blame. If, in fact, you do supply your name, address, and telephone number, and the same company does call you again, you have complete legal recourse to sue that company for $500, as part of the new ruling. Lastly, yes, if one moves, you can plainly understand why a telemarketing agency will call you again. There is no way to follow you around. Just provide the information one more time. And if we bother you again, stick it to us! Steve [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where my disagreement with Bob Bulmash is on this is I think he is taking kind of a hard-nosed approach which is allowable -- apparently -- under the law, but as he himself points out, the court is not going to punish the telemarketer if they can show they have a plan in place to comply with the law and that somehow their paperwork got messed up ... accidents will happen! Everything I know about the law says that victims are required to mitigate the damage to themselves as best they can. There cannot be an incident of some kind and then the victim starts stirring up the pot even more. I've been on CTA busses for example where there was the slightest accident -- a 'fender bender' between the bus and another vehicle. What do people on the bus do? Invariably someone lays down in the aisle and starts moaning about 'whiplash' or their aching back. All I can say to those people is 'my aching ass!' The court is not going to serve as your personal collection agency. You have to make a reasonable effort to cut your losses. In the case under discussion, if you want to just go into court and make noise and wind up -- as Bulmash points out -- collecting nothing, then fine. It would seem a system of just providing a phone number is not very effective. It is true that the more data you have to put together the more there is a likelyhood of error, but at the same time if all you have to go by is a phone number, let one or more digits get transposed by accident and then you have no record at all. Unless you can show deliberate and wilfull violations of the law, the court will rule in favor of the bureaucracy and droids every time. That is why it seems to me that despite the obvious problem of possible errors in the data, it makes better sense to 'over-identify' the persons who wish to be left alone rather than 'under-identify' them. Then in the event of repeated, unwanted contacts being made, you have a case. ------------------ Despite this however, I would like to point out in closing that Bob Bulmash has for years operated the highly successful 'Private Citizen' organization. He has been quite successful in helping the members of his organization cut down on the number of telemarketing calls they receive, and he has been successful in a few cases in helping his members collect damages from telemarketers. Telemarketing organizations know him quite well, and they hate him ... that should be plenty of references for you. . His annual membership fee is quite low and at the very least you owe it to yourself to look into the program and services of 'Private Citizen' if you value your privacy and want to be left alone. For information please write him at: prvtctzn@aol.com or visit his web site at: http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home He has been a long time resident here in the Chicago area and the papers have written about his work on several occassions. If you choose to make inquiries or join his organization, you can let him know you read about it here in the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #160 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Apr 4 21:15:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA05684; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:15:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 21:15:34 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604050215.VAA05684@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #161 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Apr 96 21:15:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 161 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ameritech Gets Slammed ... in ICC Ruling (TELECOM Digest Editor) The Unabomber Captured? I Don't Think So (TELECOM Digest Editor) Beepers, $1.99/month? (Gary Novosielski) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Stan Brown) Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers (Robert Bulmash) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Steve Bagdon) Re: Caller ID Comes to California (Privacy Debate) (Lynne Gregg) Season's Greetings (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:50:24 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Ameritech Gets Slammed ... in ICC Ruling Ameritech, the telco serving Chicago and much of the five states surrounding it got slammed Wednesday in a ruling by the Illinois Commerce Commission. Ameritech has been barred from offering 'anit-slamming protection' to consumers following a complaint about same filed by MCI. The commission voted 3-2 that information Ameritech mailed to its customers about how to protect their phone lines from being 'slammed' between carriers was misleading and anti-competitive. The commission ruled that Ameritech cannot promote anti-slamming protection to what is termed intra-MSA service -- local calls which exceed fifteen miles -- until October 7, or until a customer has chosen an intra-MSA service provider. Customers are still free to ask Ameritech for the service in which their lines are locked against unauthorized changes in their carrier, but Ameritech can no longer -- until October 7 -- publicize the service. Starting Sunday, April 7, intra-MSA service becomes available to competitors in Illinois. Any carrier, including the Big Three are now invited to compete with Ameritech for handling those calls. It will all be transparent to the customers, who will simply continue to dial their calls in the usual way. What will happen is that when the customer dials a call into a 'Band C' or 'Band D' location -- a place more than fifteen miles from where they are located, the call will be processed by the carrier chosen by the customer. This will continue to be Ameritech by default unless the customer has chosen some other carrier. No special access codes will be required by the customer to route the call, however the customer will be able to use the established 10xxx codes to reach the carrier of his choice if desired. Previously, 10xxx had no effect on any calls within this LATA. That is, you could dial those codes or not as you saw fit; unless you were making a long distance call, Ameritech simply chose to ignore them, as was its right. Now, starting April 7, 10xxx will be in effect for calls as close as merely fifteen miles away. The vote by the Illinois Commerce Commission came after several hours of contentious debate among members of the five-person board and a review of the arguments presented both by Ameritech and MCI. The essence of MCI's argument was that a recent mailing by Ameritech to its customers was 'conveniently timed and worded' in such a way to effectively make competition that much harder on intra-MSA calls. MCI contends that Ameritech 'tried to make it appear' in their mailing that they were interested in protecting consumers against slamming by long distance carriers (which Ameritech presently is not) while not stressing that consumers now do have a limited choice in local service arrangements. Ameritech argued that the commission's ruling would be a disaster for consumers. He said Ameritech was only trying to protect people by not allowing their carrier to be changed without their permission or knowledge. MCI rebutted that the result of Ameritech's approach would be that consumers wishing to use MCI on intra-MSA calls would 'need to go to Ameritech and let them know of their plans ahead of time; this would allow Ameritech time to respond and try to change the customer's mind ...' The Commission ordered Ameritech to not publicize its 'anti-slam protection feature' until six months following the start of competition, to make it easier for the new competitors to sign up customers. It can still offer the service to those customers who know about it and specifically request it. Of course, one could say this also makes it easier for the new competitors to slam existing customers as well ... but the commission apparently felt the risks involved with slamming were less important than the risk a customer who might want to switch to a competitor might be 'hassled' or otherwise discouraged from making the change once Ameritech found out about it. It is unclear at this point if the competitors will do the billing themselves or if they will bill via Ameritech. It is also unclear how pay telephones will be distributed; most likely Ameritech will continue to handle all calls made with coins and persons making non-coin calls will be able to bill them to carrier credit cards or Ameritech cards, etc as they do now. Or perhaps some pay phones will 'default' on intra-MSA to a competitor with Ameritech handling the coin collection/remittances as agent for the other carrier. This is still pretty new and uncharted territory here. Regardless of the method by which the carriers bill, the same rules as apply to long distance service will be in effect; that is, among other things the carriers will be entitled to information about your account from Ameritech -- regardless of its published or non-published status -- for *billing purposes only*. They cannot take information obtained from Ameritech records and use it for marketing purposes or for resale to telemarketers, etc; a practice that Ameritech itself has always repudiated. Ameritech is angry that their 'anti-slam protection service' was put on hold by the commission and calls it a serious loss to the customers. Ameritech claims this is a violation of their First Amendment rights of speech, i.e. the freedom to discuss their services and offerings with their customers. The competitors say things could not have worked out nicer for them. Time will tell, as 'semi-local' competition in telephone service gets underway in the Chicago area this weekend. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 19:39:25 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: The Unabomber Captured? I Don't Think So So ... the newspapers and television have been full of it all day on Wednesday. I've received several items in email on the topic as well. Theodore John Kaczynski, 53, formerly of Evergreen Park, Illinois and later Lombard, Illinois and for many years a resident of the tiny remote town of Lincoln, Montana was arrested by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents on Wednesday. Investigators stressed there was no connection to the events in Jordon, Montana on the other side of the state. If you check the 'profile' which has been circulating for a long time versus the real description of the person they arrested, the differences are amazing. The sketch of the person wearing the sun glasses with the hood was a composite made from the account of the one witness who claims to have seen Unabomber in person. Kaczynski looks nothing like it. The profile says Unabomber is a white male, mid thirties to early forties. Kaczynski is a white male 53 years old. The profile says 'probably spent formative years in Chicago area, high school educated with some college or trade school education. Kaczynski grew up in the south suburbs of Chicago (Evergreen Park area) and spent some time in Lombard, a northwest suburb of Chicago. Because of his superior intellect, he graduated from high school in three years. He was permitted to skip his third, or 'junior' year. He went directly to Harvard from high school, then earned his masters and doctorate from the University of Michigan. At that point he was offered a teaching position at Berkeley teaching classes in advanced mathematics. He was in his late twenties at this point. Some 'trade school education' huh? ============================= Ted Kaczynski did not have terribly good relationships with his family and chose to generally not be in contact with them. The family was unhappy that for whatever reason, Ted chose to resign his position at Berkeley and go live in the wilderness of Montana. In particular, Ted's brother David, age 45 has long held grudges toward Ted for one reason or another. Maybe he dislikes people who are a lot smarter than he is, who knows ... David is the executive director of Equinox, a substance abuse social services agency in Schenectady, NY. According to the FBI, David first contacted them 'a long time ago' trying to get them interested in his brother. The FBI says since that point in time, David has 'struggled to get our attention repeatedly'. David had gone out to Montana with his father to visit Ted several years ago and reportedly was 'appalled' that Ted had chosen to live in a tiny hut with no running water, no electricity or telephone. Relations between the two apparently just got worse from that time onward. David and his father could not deal with Ted's lifestyle. So when old Mrs. Kaczynski, mother of Ted and David was moved out of her home in Lombard and off to a nursing home in Albany, New York recently, David went over to clean out the house in Lombard which had been put up for sale. There he just happened to find some 'old papers' written by Ted which 'made him think' Ted must be Unabomber. Naturally he did his Good Citizen's duty and called the FBI once again to get them to investigate his brother. This time, the FBI took the bait and came over for a full scale investigation including searching the entire house in Lombard. By now of course, such a long time had passed without any real leads on Unabomber that the FBI was beginning to get pretty antsy about this whole thing. It is easy to see they felt they would need to solve the case soon. After reviewing the 'old papers' that David gave to them allegedly written by his brother Ted, the FBI agreed that this must be our man, and off they went to Montana to capture him. Now don't be concerned that so much of this is still a lot of loose ends with no logic; your FBI will fit all the pieces together one way or another. How do we get from graduating from Harvard in 1962 via the University of Michigan in 1963-65 to Berkeley in 1967-69 (he resigned his teaching position there May 31, 1969) and back to Northwestern University in the Chicago area in 1978 nine years later? He never worked for Northwestern; was never a student there. Why would he pick on Northwestern and the Tech Institute there twice in a row, a year apart (May, 1978 and May, 1979)? The bomb was in a package found at the University of Illinois as you will recall, and sent back to Northwestern. Why almost ten years after he left Berkeley before there is even the first incident and then, why Northwestern? If he had grudges with people at Berkeley, why wait thirteen years (July 2, 1982) and fifteen years (May 15, 1985) to express himself? Why bombs to all these relatively obscure people all over the USA including a computer store owner in Sacramento, CA and an employee of a computer store in Salt Lake City, UT? None of it makes any sense; the time line is totally crazy where Ted Kaczynski is concerned. Of course if you were an FBI agent and under a lot of pressure from your superiors -- especially after the newspapers had been talking about it incessantly ever since the Manifesto was published -- you would want to solve the case also. You would make things work one way or another. When Kaczynski was arrested Wednesday, the FBI agents took him all the way to Helena, MT some distance away. Agents were blunt in saying they wanted Kaczynski 'out of the way while we search his hut ...' Hey FBI guys, are you sure you don't mean you want him out of the way so he won't see you plant the evidence you need to insure you get a conviction? If the entire size of his 'home' -- his little hut -- is merely ten feet by twelve feet as the FBI itself has stated, then exactly how complicated should it be to search it *in his presence* as every other American is entitled to have done. Does something smell a little bad here, when FBI agents need to have the subject of their search warrant a couple hundred miles away so he 'will not interfere with the search' ...? Hey guys, be sure to 'find' the typewriter he used to write the Manifesto ... and be sure to find 'components for making bombs'. Whatever you do though, be sure first thing to issue some 'deep back- ground' to the know-nothings at the newspapers so they will all start cackling and carrying on and convict your man for you in the papers. Make sure you release all sorts of personal information so the media can go around interviewing all his schoolmates from 35 years ago and people who knew him at Berkeley 30 years ago. I mean, what is he going to do later, sue you? Whatever you do, always use the papers and the television to help convict your man; that is a smart ploy which has always been used by sophisticated law enforcement officers who were on otherwise shaky ground with little or nothing to go on and an urgent desire to find someone ... anyone. FBI officials said Wednesday that this fellow will be taken before the federal court in Helena, MT 'soon', although they have not yet charged him with anything. They say 'it looks promising, but there is still a lot more work to be done ...' There sure is; like 'finding' the typewriter and the materials used to make the bombs; placing him on location in the one instance where he was 'seen'; demonstrating some kind of connection between writing he did years ago and the present circumstances. Oh well, I guess they could have chosen to just burn him out, like in Waco, or shot him and any other people in the vicinity. All they'd have had to do is just lie about it and say he attacked them first and the last thing he did before dying was confess to it all. What the heck, the newspapers and television would have accepted that story since everyone knows that police can be trusted to tell the truth and not have any personal axes to grind or agendas. You see what you get when you choose to be a recluse or hermit and drop out of society to do your own thing? It helps if you have family members who hate you also. So let's conform to social norms everyone. Don't be too smart for your own good or choose to live 'different' than others. If Theodore Kaczynski is Unabomber, I'll be very surprised. PAT ------------------------------ Organization: GPN Consulting Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 14:39:38 -0500 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Beepers, $1.99/month? I saw a TV spot for a company called Smart-Beep, showing two identical pagers side-by-side, both of them doing the same things as we watch them, beeping, humming, lighting up with the same numbers, time stamps, etc. Okay, we've got the point; now a voice-over tells us the difference: Pager # 1 costs nine bucks (or whatever) per month. Pager # 2 costs $1.99. No catches, they claim. I thought I had just witnessed the arrival of "buzzers" (caller-pays beepers) to the New York City market, with two bucks tacked on for the privilege, but a call to the company (1-800-BEEP-199, of course) told me I was wrong, and left me scratching my head. It's *not* caller pays, after all. They say they'll give me real live seven-digit local beeper number in my 201 NPA, and up to 300 pages/month for an annual invoice of $23.88 (or $1.99/month, with ten cents each for extra pages, if any). They also guaranteed no price increase in year two, and implied it would not go up thereafter. I questioned them about coverage (pretty typical tri-state metropolitan area), and about activation fees (one-time $25) and pager prices (comparable to local mega-office-store franchise prices) and didn't find any catches, except that *they* want to sell me the pager. Still, the prices seemed okay, and they offered a "liberal" trade-in on any current pager I might have (which I don't, so I didn't ask "how liberal?"). They'll also tack on optional voice-mail free for six months, with 1.99/month rate after that. I'm still wary, though. For comparable service, with no voice mail, the next best price I've seen around here is about *four times* what these people want. I'm not *that* savvy about beepers, and I wonder if there is a hidden cost staring me in the face, or are these people just playing a hot game of cut-throat, signaling an impending crash in pager pricing? Is the up-front fee in line with other vendors? Is there something I else should have asked? The sales rep couldn't send me any written material, but gave me the address of a local dealer, so I may have to get in the car. I'll fill you in if I find any asterisks lurking about. I have no idea if they're a nation-wide outfit, or only in this area, either. Meanwhile, if anyone knows what the story is on "Smart Beep" (horror or otherwise), I'd like to hear about it. Gary Novosielski mailto:gpn@village.ios.com PGPinfo: keyID A172089 GPN Consulting http://village.ios.com/~gpn 2C 5C 32 94 F4 FF 08 10 B6 E0 DE 4F A2 43 79 92 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 17:07:38 -0500 From: Stan Brown Organization: Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Prvt Ctzn wrote: > The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1992 (subsequent to a recent > FCC clarification) requires only that the consumer give a phone number > to a telemarketing firm. The reason is that, the more information the > junk caller has, the more likely it is that their will be a mis-match > during a purge. [...] As for the length > of time a number remains on a do-not-call list -- it's ten years. If > someone moves, and the telco gives that `do-not-call' number to a > subsequent person, what a blessing for the recipient. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Bob, addressing only the final > paragraph of your note above, I think this is a little unfair to > the telemarketers. If I list my number as 'do-not-call' and then I > move in the next month or two and over the next ten years two or > three other people have that number, what right do *I* -- as the > 'original' owner have to dictate things between the telemarketers > and the two or three other people after me in that ten year period > who may very well not mind those calls at all. There's a difference between the length of time you stay on the do-not-call list and the length of time you cannot (legally) be subjected to junk calls from the company. According to the _1994 Consumer's Resource Handbook_, published by the U.S. Department of Consumer Affairs, even if you're on their do-not-call list the company can legally call you once in each twelve-month period. (It's actually a seldom-call list, I guess, not a do-not-call list.) So, PAT, your concern is answered: if you move, the new occupants of your home will have the "benefit" of the junk calls within twelve months, even if they do nothing. Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio USA +1 216 371-0043 email: stbrown@nacs.net Web: http://www.nacs.net/~stbrown/ Can't find FAQ lists? See my Web page for instructions, or email me. ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Re: Tired of Calls From LD Telemarketers Date: 4 Apr 1996 19:04:58 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Steve wrote: > As you notes, this is truly a double-safety assurance that you can't > be bothered again (in any way, including direct mail). Also, full > name and address disclosure is one of the FTC requirements in their > 12/31/95 ruling, in the do-not-call provisions. If that's too much > for someone to give, then they can expect to be called, and have no > one but themselves to blame. > If, in fact, you do supply your name, address, and telephone number, > and the same company does call you again, you have complete legal > recourse to sue that company for $500, as part of the new ruling. I am afraid you are confusing the: FTC's `Telemarketing Sales Rule' which went into effect on 12/31/95 and the FCC's `Telephone Consumer Protection Act which went into effect on 12/20/92. The FTC rule may require more than a phone number to be given to junk callers, but it does not allow you to sue unless you have been damaged in an amount of over $50,000. Otherwise, it is up to the FTC to take action, and you get nothing but junk calls. The problem is that the FTC will not act unless they get multiple complaint from consumers, and you have no control over that. The FCC rule, on the other hand, allows you to sue for $500 after a second violation within 12 months. (That does not mean it is legal to call you once a year against your wishes.... what it means is that the FCC law strips from you, any chance to do anything about a single annual violation of the law.) Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 16:31:38 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN In a previous message I made the blanket statement that, to the best of my knowledge, *no* SID uses the control channels to transmit your PIN -- as the included text below indicates, my knowledge has been expanded! Some systems *do* use the RECC to transmit the PIN. And, after some reading in my most favorite cellular 'bible' (ISBN 0-8306-1682-9, for those who care), I believe that I have been able to deduce how Ameritech has implemented their PIN system. Basically, I believe that the PIN is being transmitted over the REVC data stream, as a 'number dialed' - the same way that the phone number for a 3rd party call (initiated from the cellular phone) is transmitted to the cellular switch. The pin is transmitted over the REVC data stream as a dialed phone number. But beware! This simply illustrates the fact that the esn/min are transmited over one open freq, and your PIN is transmitted over another open freq. Yes, they are different freqs, but this system is far from unbreakable. I hope this hasn't caused any problems -- I don't have full access to the cellular switch, and the Ameritech customer service crew hasn't been too helpful in explaining their PIN implementation! >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I used to think PINs would not be much >> good, but I have changed my thinking somewhat. The reason is that the >> ESN is transmitted on a control channel and your PIN is transmitted on >> a different channel a few seconds later. I believe correct -- the esn/min plus the number you are calling goes out over the RECC, and the pin goes out as a 'dialed number' on the REVC data stream. Different freqs, but still trackable, to the motivated individual. > To turn off anti-fraud (and thus enable the phone for its intended user) > we actually >place a call to the PIN. That is, we enter the PIN and press > SEND. The phone acts as if >it is calling that number. It transmits an > ACCESS message containing its ESN, its MIN, >and the PIN (which occupies > the dialed number field of the ACCESS message). The >cellular And that was my statment about there *are* some systems, after all, that send PINS over the control channels -- in this case the data stream of the RECC. But ouch -- the esn/min *and* PIN over the same block of control words on the RECC - TROUBLE. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net Katharine aNd Steve Bagdon ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Caller ID Comes to California (Privacy debate) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 96 11:02:00 PST > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing you fail to understand is > that quite a few people on the net are very offended by what they > perceive as a constant 'affront' to their privacy. You have a lot of > people reading/participating in Usenet who cannot even understand, for > example, why they should be required to provide a social security > number or a telephone number if they wish an extension of credit or > the right to cash a check in a store. The nice thing about Caller ID is that if everyone discloses their phone numbers, the service itself can be used to screen calls. It's akin to what happened to us last evening. A father and son rang our doorbell at 8:30pm. My husband answered and the father started a schpiel, selling beauty bark (apparently a Boy Scout project). While still in mid-sentence, explaining the bark, my husband interrupted and asked, "who are you?". See, we require that if you ring our doorbell or call us on the phone, you must identify yourself immediately. Before Caller ID came along, we were a couple of those folks who used the answering machine to screen calls. Caller ID allows us to decide on-the-spot whether to answer or not. Regarding those Usenet readers (and posters) who are intensely private, let me give you a word of caution by way of an experience that I had. If you use the net extensively, you have no privacy. Not long ago, I was paging through topics on one Newsgroup and was astounded to see one of MY email addresses attached to a post. The amazing thing was that I hadn't posted this message. I was shocked at the content which contained some pretty offensive words that I don't use. It's a fact of life today. Despite what you want to believe, you have little privacy. Well, maybe if you live in a tent in the North Woods. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Season's Greetings Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 19:00:00 EST Whether this weekend constitutes Easter for you, or is in the middle of Passover, or simply marks the first weekend in April and hopefully the beginning of spring weather, my greetings go out to all of you. I hope we celebrate many more such seasons together. Don't forget that over the weekend (officially Sunday morning at 2:00 AM) most people in the USA will switch to 'daylight time' meaning clocks must be moved foward one hour, in accordance with the old saying, 'spring ahead and fall behind'. Anyway, have a great holiday weekend. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #161 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Apr 4 23:33:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA08270; Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:33:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:33:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604050433.XAA08270@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #162 TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Apr 96 23:33:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 162 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (Steve Fraser) Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone (John Rice) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (Henry Wysmulek) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (lr@access2.digex.net) Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question (Mark Fletcher) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Steve Uhrig) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Walter Lee Davidson) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Gerry Moersdorf) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Eric Smith) Re: Proposed (but Scrapped) 1946/47 NPA Assignments (Chris Jones) Re: Caller ID Comes to California (Robert McMillin) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Stan Schwartz) Re: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena (James E. Bellaire) Re: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Why the NetPC Will Fail (Hovig Heghinian) Caller I.D. Blocking Question (Tom Watson) Pizza From a Payphone (was Caller ID Comes to CA) (Eric Friedebach) Re: Caller ID & DID Trunks (Steve Uhrig) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Steve Fraser Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 13:10:14 -0600 Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone I received a copy through the /dev/null list that Keith Bostic runs. I read the thing. IMO, it should be denied, on the basis of paragraph (51). In it, the definition of Telecommunications Service is to offer telecommunications _for a fee_. Clearly, the software providers are not offering a service, since they are simply licensing software. Additionally, they are not using 'public' resources, such as limited bandwith, as broadcasters do, or installing physical networks by digging into communities back yards. Cable and TV companies do those things. Thanks for the posting. D. Steven Fraser Vice President of Technical Services Healthcare Communications, Inc. Dallas, Texas. stevef@healthcare.com ------------------------------ From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com (John Rice) Subject: Re: Formal FCC Action Filed to Stop I-Phone Date: 4 Apr 96 13:05:34 CDT Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division > John Higdon said: >> And I must say, this is the most pathetic filing to come across my >> desk in many years. Out of the box, let me say that I feel that >> Internet voice communication is a substantial misuse of packet >> technology. And I agree that it is an inefficient use of network >> bandwidth. So's HTML and the World Wide Web WWW (probably more so than IPHONE). What's your point ? John Rice __|__ K9IJ ________(*)________ o/ \o rice@ttd.teradyne.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 13:57:26 -0600 (CST) From: Henry Wysmulek Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question I ran into this problem trying to access my answering machine from a Nortel set, where I had to repeat my code several times before my machine received the code. The Nortel set can be programmed to send a longer dtmf signal length. I do not have my manual at hand, but this is a program feature of Nortel sets. H. WYSMULEK xhp195@freenet.mb.ca BLUE SKY FREENET ------------------------------ From: lr@access2.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question Date: 4 Apr 1996 16:16:00 GMT Organization: Intentionally Left Blank James Van Meggelen (jimvanm@ionsys.com) wrote: > Gerry Walsh wrote: >> Is there a limit to the total number of digits that can be dialed >> from an M2616 digital set? The specific problem is this ... > If you're using analog trunks, it might be the end-of-dial timer. Try > dialling "#" after entering the telephone number. This will override > the end-of-dial timers and enable end-to-end signalling (DTMF). The other problem is the tones are frequently only sent as bursts rather than held as long as the button is depressed. I had the same problem dialing my answering machine from a cell phone. At least some nortel units can be told to send long tones. It's Feature 808 on my little ksu. on ------------------------------ From: Mark Fletcher Subject: Re: Nortel PBX and Digital Sets Question Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 22:10:55 -0500 Organization: Bell Atlantic Meridian Systems Gerry Walsh wrote: > Is there a limit to the total number of digits that can be dialed > from an M2616 digital set? The specific problem is this ... > A user wants to place a call charging it to his calling card. He > dials the UNITEL service at 9'18009579000 and is asked to enter the > number he wishes to call ie. XXX-XXX-XXXX. Once this is entered he has > to enter his calling card number and P.I.N. (14 more digits). It > seems that the digits for the calling card etc. are not being > sent/received as he is asked again to enter it. Is it possible that > his digital set is limited to the 22 digits he has entered? Could this > be a programming problem? He has no problem dialing this from an > analog set. Have him hit the pound sign (#) after dialing the 800 number. This signifies to the Meridian that no more digits willbe dialed in the number string,and it may now process the number through the restrictions parameters and pass the number to the outside world. This may help. Mark Fletcher Bell Atlantic Meridian Systems Adv. System Technician Parsippany, New Jersey ------------------------------ From: suhrig@bright.net (Steve Uhrig) Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 23:40:11 GMT Organization: BrightNet Ohio Peter Hoeve wrote: > I use standard call forwarding from a phone line at home to where ever > I am during the day. I have noticed that I can only accept 1 call at > a time. This, I have found, to be a limitation of "call forwarding". > It appears that if a call is already forwarded, a subsequent call will > ring busy. Are you forwarding to a single line number or a line hunting number? If you are forwarding to a single line number then the forwarded call gets the busy from the line you forwarded to. I don't know about other switches but the GTD-5 can be programmed to allow as many calls to forward at the same time as you like. But if you forward to a single line you still can only get one call at a time. Steve Uhrig Chillicothe, Ohio USA ------------------------------ From: eruwld@exu.ericsson.se (Walter Lee Davidson) Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: 4 Apr 1996 15:00:50 GMT Organization: Ericsson North America Inc. Reply-To: eruwld@exu.ericsson.se In article 8@massis.lcs.mit.edu, Peter Hoeve writes: > I use standard call forwarding from a phone line at home to where ever > I am during the day. I have noticed that I can only accept 1 call at > a time. This, I have found, to be a limitation of "call forwarding". > It appears that if a call is already forwarded, a subsequent call will > ring busy. > I would like to know if "remote call forwarding" or the new "virtual > number" service promoted by BellSouth will solve my problem and > forward concurrent calls. Your observation about CF is correct, at least in some implementations. The main practical reason for allowing only one forwarding at a time is to prevent forwarding loops between switches, which use up all the trunks between them. Yes, people do this for "fun". Remote call forwarding allows up to some fixed number of simultaneous forwardings, say 64, before returning busy. BellSouth may want you to use a new number as the forwarding number, though, and often RCF forwards to a "fixed" number, one that the subscriber cannot change. Check it out. Lee ------------------------------ From: Gerry Moersdorf Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 12:19:06 -0500 Organization: Applied Innovation Inc. Christopher L. Davis writes: > Ahhh, sounds like AmeriWreck up here in Chicago. A few weeks ago, I > began have troubles with my home mailman, so I started switching all > my mail over to a PO box I have. Ameritech for my home use said "sure > no problem...". AmeriWreck cellular however gave me some song and > dance routine about not allowing that to be done because of the > potential for fraud. I ended up arguing with the fool for about 30 > minutes until he agreed to put it in the system. Then I called the > business office back the next day to make sure it went thru -- it did. > We'll see at the end of the month ... > The other wonderful thing AmeriWreck has been touting is the PIN. The > PIN is 'free', confidential, blahblahblah ... yeah right. How many I just asked to have my AmeriSmurf cellphone changed over to the PIN system. I didn't want to do it but the phone is blocked in all major citys and is just unusable without this PIN crap. Does the non wireline carrier (cellular one) use this mechanism also??? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 17:08 PST From: Eric Smith Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) writes: > Or even better, write your congressbeing and tell it you think that > cellular carriers should be required to implement /real/ security > within the next five years, or lose their licenses. ... > and a lot of "law enforcement" types are unhappy about the prospect > of people being able to have private conversations.) Of course, the security of the call setup and the privacy of the voice communication are two independent issues. While I personally want both, it's certainly in the carrier's interest to improve the former. While the phone and the service provider have to have some kind of shared secret (i.e., the ESN/MIN pair) for authentication, there is no reason why they have to be transmitted in the clear. A simple protocol such as having the cell site tranmit a random number to the phone, and the phone encrypts the random number using the shared secret as a key, and transmits the resulting ciphertext to the cell site would work quite nicely. The main drawback is that insecurity is inherent in the AMPS system. Retrofitting decent security onto it would cost carriers a lot of money, and render existing phones useless. The carriers prefer to pursue legal remedies. Since the carriers were grossly negligent in designing and/or using a system with such weak security, they should be required to pay all the law enforcement and court costs incurred to fight the cellular fraud. After all, if you or I owned a jewelry store and didn't bother to put locks on the door, and got robbed every night as a result, we wouldn't get much satisfaction from police (or insurance companies). Property owners are expected to exercise at least some minimum level of due diligence to protect their property, and cellular carriers have not done so. One would hope that the TDMA and CDMA phone standards have fixed this, but knowing the way that standards organizations work, I wouldn't bet on it. Eric ------------------------------ From: Chris Jones Subject: Re: Proposed (but Scrapped) 1946/47 NPA Assignments Date: 04 Apr 1996 08:05:17 -0500 Organization: BBN Corp. Systems and Technologies Mark J. Cuccia's interesting message showed a first cut at NPA assignments, never adopted. My provincial reaction was to look for my state, Massachusetts, in the list. Well! There are 47 states listed (out of 48 in the union as of 1947), and Massachusetts, the site of the first phone call, is missing. Was it missing from the list he transcribed, or was this a transmission error? Chris Jones clj@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: Caller ID Comes to California Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 04:47:43 GMT I wanted to respond to several points about the issues raised by widespread use of CNID. First of all, I'm not a privacy freak. I think CNID is a Good Thing, just like the header on this message that tells you who I am is a Good Thing. Just because the system is designed a certain way doesn't mean that it should stay that way forever. That said, I have the following quibbles with Pat's response: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing you fail to understand is > that quite a few people on the net are very offended by what they > perceive as a constant 'affront' to their privacy. You have a lot of > people reading/participating in Usenet who cannot even understand, for > example, why they should be required to provide a social security > number or a telephone number if they wish an extension of credit or > the right to cash a check in a store. I can certainly understand not wanting my SSID disseminated widely. This number is a key to getting all kinds of useful personal information. Here in California, they are making it mandatory to hand over an SSID before you get a driver's license. This is causing all kinds of a ruckus. In the case of Amex, CNID isn't all that it's cracked up to be here, either. What if you live with several roommates, all of whom share a phone line but have independent Amex cards? Who, then, does the Amex customer service operator think the caller is? The one with the oldest account? CNID is a good idea, generally, but what you do with it is another matter. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So how many people live with 'several roomates, each with their own Amex card and only one phone line between them?' I see the basic problem being that many privacy advocates feel merchants and others are going to rip them off or harm them based on the aquisition of their personal information. On the other hand, the merchants and others in the community with who they interact see the 'privacy freaks' as the ones with something to hide, or some mis- chief in mind. Perhaps more trust others is what is needed. Perhaps we need to assume that most people are decent with good motives rather than diobolical and looking for ways to rip others off. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 01:10:38 -0500 In TELECOM Digest V16 #150, edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) wrote: > Of course, one guy has made a bizarre claim in several newsgroups that > MS and Intel have some agreement that anybody selling x86 PCs is > required to license Windows for every unit, whether they bundle > Windows with it or not! This is probably a mis-interpretation of the old agreement between MS and IBM that said in part that no matter which version of DOS the PC was shipped with (IBM PCDOS or otherwise), that a small license fee was paid to Microsoft. As far as I know, this no longer applies. Stan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 03:08:47 -0500 From: James E. Bellaire Subject: Re: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) wrote: > Guess -- US CELLULAR! (They're B systems in just a few places -- > Tulsa, Knoxville and middle Tennessee, Asheville NC, and Fort Pierce, > FL.) US Cellular is also 'B' in Central Indiana: SID 01200 Logansport/Peru/Franklin/Rochester/Flora SID 01202 Crawfordsville/Greencastle/Boswell/Fowler US Cellular is the 'A' carrier in Northeast Indiana in area's ajoining the 01200 SID, as well as Northwest Ohio and Southern Indiana. They probably have more coverage than I mention, but this is the area I usually travel in, so I know it best. BTW: I wish they would sell the 'B' areas to GTE Mobilnet. Their service areas puts big roaming holes in the center of GTE's Indiana map. James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com WebPage at http://www.holli.com/~bellaire/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Apr 96 21:36 EST From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena Organization: Excelsior Computer Services In article you write: > The A carriers surrounding Georgia RSA 1 (Dalton) have gotten > agreements with BellSouth because of USCC's stupidity and arrogance > with roaming rates. So going between Atlanta and Chattanooga, an > A-side roamer must switch from A to B around Adairsville, and back to > A near Ringgold. Very few people, especially on the Chattanooga side, > know that -- GTE doesn't want people to know about that, lest they > switch to BellSouth for local cell service! A naive question: What do the A and B mean in A and B-side roaming. Joel (joel@exc.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: At the time cellular service was first getting started in 1982-83 the regulators thought it was very import- and to have at least some modicum of competition in each market. They knew that the local traditional or 'wireline' telco would grab up the cellular service, and they wanted to allow other companies to get into the market as well on an equal footing with the local telco. The decision was to allow two carriers in each market. Carrier 'A' would be the newcomer or 'competitor', while Carrier 'B' would be the traditional telco in the commmunity. That is the only difference. We sometimes say the B carrier is the 'wireline' carrier while the A carrier is the 'non-wireline carrier'. In actual practice, cellular service is not a simple business to get into, and it requires a lot of cash and personnel to start. Not many firms could manage it but another telco would be quite suitable. Consequently, the B carrier in one community is often as not the A carrier in another community. Basically, the telcos are B carriers in their own market and A carriers when they operate the cell system in some other telco's market. Many of the A carriers choose to use the banner 'Cellular One' although that may change with all the mergers going on. The A carriers tend to stick together and share customers among themselves for roaming purposes and the B carriers do the same as the 'traditional phone company'. Now, is that all clear as mud? In the next decade, I think the distinction will become even more blurred as TPC grows back all the parts which were chopped off in divestiture and becomes one big octopus again. By the way, I guess you heard AT&T and MCI were cutting a deal to go into local service together in a couple places where they both consider the existing telco to be a tough competitor. Mercy! PAT] ------------------------------ From: hovig@ai.uiuc.edu (Hovig Heghinian) Subject: Re: Why the NetPC Will Fail Date: 4 Apr 1996 19:23:48 GMT Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Reply-To: hheghini@telesciences.com George Gilder's Latest Essay, saying that the "teleputer" -- which he correctly compared to "a current X-terminal with extra interfaces" -- will not succeed, for many valid technical reasons. He is wrong. I'll admit that the current, over-excited proponents of the system -- and I've been waiting for this day since my undergraduate days of the 1980s -- have not thought all issues through, and that there will continute to be much nonsense spewed over the course of the next year or two, but, with all due respect for a well-explained and largely correct opinion, Kevin still misses a Really Big Point. Imagine Michael Andretti, the racecar driver, telling Honda in the 1970s or 80s that "no one will ever buy a 90-horsepower car, with no power options, that values fuel economy over performance." True enough that Andretti and his automotive professions probably won't, but 99.9% of the world is not as automotively sophisticated as that. So, too, for 'teleputing'. Don't forget that Java was invented for set-top boxes(!), and that people still get to use `VCRs' ... Hovig Heghinian Securicor Telesciences Inc 351 New Albany Road Tel: +1.609.866.1000 x315 Moorestown, NJ 08057-1177 Fax: +1.609.866.0185 ------------------------------ From: tom@ubacomm.comm.uab.edu (Tom Watson) Subject: Caller I.D. Blocking Question Date: 4 Apr 1996 14:38:14 GMT Organization: University of Alabama at Birmingham Please excuse me if this has been discussed before. I have recently seen in several mail order catalogs, a device that allows a caller to block his number from the called party's call I.D. unit. The picture in the ad shows a unit that attaches to the caller's line that is supposed to keep that persons line from being identified by anyone called who has caller I.D. service. The device sells for around $30. My question is, if the caller I.D. information is generated by the switch of the calling party to the called party, how can this unit located on the caller's premise, generate caller I.D. blocking? Just curious if anyone has any insight. Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Okay, you are excused. It has been discussed before here a few times but comes up often enough to warrant letting newcomers know about it. All Caller-ID functions are handled in the central office. All the device you are talking about does is automatically prepend *67 to the start of each dialing string. The box is plugged in series between the phone and the modular jack. It just sits there, and it senses a change in current because you took your receiver off hook, it immediatly tones out *67, typically before you even get the phone up to your ear. The purpose of the box is to make sure that you do not forget to dial the *67 yourself. If you happen to be making a call in which you do *not* want to withhold your ID then all you need to do is go off hook for a second or two, and flash the hook. This will get you a fresh dial tone and the box will stay out of it. Radio Shack also sells these for about the same price. You can do the same thing yourself if you have speed dial buttons on your phone by just adding *67 to the start of whatever you store in the memory or speed dial position. By the way, you can use both the *67 privacy code and the *70 suspend call waiting code on the same call, but it is a good idea to use the privacy code first, i.e. *67*70555-1212. In some places, *67 will not 'stick' unless it is the very first thing dialed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: aerostar@ccia.com Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 06:15:49 EST Subject: Pizza From a Payphone (Was Caller ID Comes to CA) dapet@aol.com (Dapet) wrote, in Re: Caller ID Comes to California: > But if your local pizza store has computerized their caller ID to pull > up your favorite order, the ordering process is much faster, and the > pizza store can cut down on the number of fraudulant (prank) orders > they receive. I can order a pizza from my local pizza store in under > 15 seconds because they use this technology. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing you fail to understand is > that quite a few people on the net are very offended by what they > perceive as a constant 'affront' to their privacy. > They are certain that being required to provide some personal inform- > ation about themselves as a condition of doing business with some > merchants, is nothing but an evil plot by the company to get something > over on them. PAT: I agree, but in some instances this can be a nuisance. A few months ago, I checked into a hotel and asked the front desk for a phone number for a pizza place that will deliver. To avoid the 75 cent surcharge on a local call some hotels charge, I placed my order from a payphone in the lobby. Sure enough, they wanted to know the _real_ number of the hotel I was at. I asked the girl to hold on a moment while I fumbled around for for the folio with the hotel phone number printed on it. She hung up on me after about 15 seconds. I called back with all the good information they would need to process my order, even mentioned that I had been hung up on. It was suggested that I place the order from the phone in my room. No dice, I tell them; what would have been a 25 cent phone call originally would have escalated to a $1.25 call. They finally relented when I mentioned that instead of placing a surcharged call from my room, I would just call a low-tech mom and pop pizza joint and use the money I would save to order an extra topping. Eric Friedebach [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There obviously needs to be a bit of flexibility present which seems to be missing in that company. But so often younger people today who work in public service or public accomodations are afraid to use their own brains or make their own decisions. In all honesty, there is no room in larger companies such as McDonalds for younger, beginning workers to think about any- thing. It is discouraged to have any independent ideas. In smaller businesses though which rely heavily on computers, workers need to know the purpose of the computer is to make their repetitive tasks easier, not to do all their thinking for them as well. We need to listen when others are speaking to us, and try to understand what they are saying, not just how to force what they say to fit into a computer script. But in some companies, the deck is stacked against customer service reps for example who try to really serve the customers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: suhrig@bright.net (Steve Uhrig) Subject: Re: Caller ID & DID Trunks Date: Thu, 04 Apr 1996 00:14:41 GMT Organization: BrightNet Ohio glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) wrote: > I'm posting this for a friend who has some interesting questions > about Caller-ID, Call Blocking, and Related Services in Ameritech > Land (Ohio). [They have a legitimate well documented need for this > service.] > He is responsible for several PBX systems (ROLM), which use DID > (Wink Start) Trunks and Regular Central Office PBX (Ground Start) > trunks for outbound calls. At least two of the PBXs are fed using > T1 from the central office. > Certain of his company's personnel are being told (privately ... > "over the transom" so to speak) that they must change out this > system to Centrex in order to receive Caller-ID information and to > effect Call Blocking (as these are not offered to DID customers). I can't speak for Ameritech switches, but I know of no way of providing CID on a DID trunk group on a GTE switch. CID is sent after the first ring on a normal line and a DID trunk does not ring and uses completely different equipment. The DOD lines can be optioned to block CID delivery, if that is what they want. Steve Uhrig Chillicothe, Ohio USA ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #162 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Apr 5 12:22:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA22039; Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:22:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:22:12 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604051722.MAA22039@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #163 TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Apr 96 12:22:00 EST Volume 16 : Issue 163 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Long Distance Solitations (Stan Schwartz) Unfair to Telemarketers? (Larry Mayhew) Re: Rockwell ADPCM - Anyone Know Details Of Format? (Bruce A. Pennypacker) Various Thoughts About Teleco Things (Mike P. Storke) 201, 908 Splits in NJ (Bruce Crawford) Re: Big Three Surcharging, etc. (was Sprint Fridays) (David W. Crawford) Re: Ameritech Gets Slammed ... in ICC Ruling (John Cropper) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Brett Frankenberger) Internet Kidnap Suspect Pleads Not Guilty (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena (David Jensen) Who Retains The 809 Area Code? (Andy Yee) Re: FCC Rate Filings (was: Re: Sprint and Fridays) (Steve Brack) Re: AT&T Official Killed In Bosnian Plane Crash (Mark Boolootian) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 10:49:52 EST From: Stan.Schwartz@IBMMAIL Subject: Long Distance Solitations Given the recent discussions about the ethics of cashing those $50 checks and subsequently cancelling service with a particular long distance company, I thought that it was interesting that I received this phone call last night. Background: My primary phone line is pre-subscribed to AT&T. I am currently receiving a 30% discount over standard AT&T calling rates, and given my calling patterns, that works out just fine for me. I also like the TRUE 500 service that AT&T offers, so I'm not about to change carriers. I also have two distinctive-ring numbers on that line. All 3 numbers are non-published/unlisted. The phone rings on one of the distinctive ring numbers. CID says "OUT OF AREA". I answer. Caller: "May I speak with the person responsible for making decisions about long distance calling in your household?" Me: (Sigh) "Speaking." Caller: "Hi, this is (I forgot his name) from AT&T. I'd like to offer you 6 months of calling at a 35% discount off of standard AT&T rates." (continued speil about AT&T quality) Me: "Sounds interesting." Caller: "Is your main billing number 704-NXX-XXXX ?" (He gave the number that he called). Me: "No, my main billing number is 704-NXX-YYYY." (I gave him the actual billing number." Caller: "So, may I switch you to AT&T?" Me: "Isn't there usually some monetary inducement?" Caller: "I'm glad you asked that. I'm able to offer you either a $50 check or $50 in AT&T Long Distance gift certificates. Which would you prefer?" You can guess how the call went from there. I had to give my name and address (which they didn't have) and speak with a "verifier" who asked me three or four times if I understood that I was agreeing to the fact that all of my long distance calls will be carried by AT&T. Essentially, they are paying me $50 and increasing my discount by 5% in order to stay with the same company that I was using. So ... what are the ethical problems (if any) with this? Stan (stan@vnet.net) ------------------------------ From: mayhew@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 01:47:37 CST Subject: Unfair to Telemarketers? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Bob, addressing only the final > paragraph of your note above, I think this is a little unfair to > the telemarketers. If I list my number as 'do-not-call' and then I > move in the next month or two and over the next ten years two or > three other people have that number, what right do *I* -- as the > 'original' owner have to dictate things between the telemarketers > and the two or three other people after me in that ten year period The problem with talking about what's "fair" or "unfair" is that it triggers our feeling that even a little unfairness is unfair, and to have a good system we have to eliminate all unfairness. I think a _truly_ fair system would put a "fry-the-***" button on my phone so I could electrocute the 5-15 unsolicited salespeople who call me every day. :-) But a reasonable person recognizes that there are a variety of legitimate, conflicting interests, and that a system that does a reasonable job of balancing those interests need not, and usually won't, be perfect. The charge of "unfair" can almost always be made (legitimately), but so what? Yes, the phone-number-only solution isn't completely fair to every imaginable interest. But it does a good job of balancing the more important interests. Here are the interests you apparently think are threatened by the system, and why I don't think we should be worried about them: (a) The telemarketers, are losing access to some phone numbers. ANSWER: Telemarketers are interested in the greatest possible return for their time. What they have is a list of numbers that, for the most part, it's a waste of their time and money to call. They increase their "hit rate" by screening against the "do-not-call" list, even if it's not perfect. Your complaint boils down to this: Even though we've already helped the telemarketers by giving them a "better" list, we ought to do more for them, spend more of our time (spelling names/addresses), yield more of our privacy, assume a greater risk of nonmatch, to give them a "perfect" list. Yes, I can see why a telemarketer would want a perfect list, but then I want a "fry-the-salesperson" button. Live with some imperfection and let live, I say. :-) (b) The people who love to be called by telemarketers lose out if they inherit a listed number. ANSWER: Here we need to distinguish two sets of interests: (1) The people who never buy anything but are lonely and love to talk to anyone. ANSWER: The telemarketers have no interest in reaching these people, so here you would have to assert a right-to-be-called on behalf of lonely people. If you insist on the quest for the perfect system that satisfies all interests, don't forget my "fry them" button. :-) (2) The people who love to buy from strangers who call them on the phone. ANSWER: A list of such people would be a dream-come-true for telemarketers. So why don't you suggest that telemarketers maintain a separate list for the "please call me, I love to buy from you" people? That list, and the "don't call me" list, can be date stamped, with the later request being honored. I doubt many people will put their name on such a list, in which case you're arguing against peoples' real interests. If most people would just as soon have telemarketing "turned off," then they're getting a service by inheriting a "don't call me" number. And for the few who feel differently, well we have to call to turn off the sales calls, let them call to turn 'em back on. Not a perfect system, but balanced. (c) You say my interests are harmed because I can't turn off the calls for a lifetime with one phone call. I agree the system isn't perfect, but neither is your "name and address" system. I've moved twice locally, keeping the same phone number each time; your method would require me to call every time I move. And then there's the problem that there's no standard format for names/addresses. Regards, Larry Mayhew mayhew@wkuvx1.wku.edu ------------------------------ From: Bruce A. Pennypacker Subject: Re: Rockwell ADPCM - Anyone Know Details Of Format? Date: 5 Apr 1996 02:00:27 GMT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) In article telecom16.159.7@massis.lcs.mit.edu, paulc@sulis.com (Paul Chehowski) said: > I'm looking at writing some code to convert data recorded from a > Rockwell chip based modem, using the AT+V commands. These data > transmitted from the modem is specified as being in Rockwell ADPCM > format, but I have been unable to find a written specification of > what that format is. I have visited Rockwell's web site and found some > utilities and sample code (unfortunately in Microsoft Assembler), > but would prefer a simple formula that would allow me to code my own > conversion program. I have found tons of descriptions of the IMA ADPCM > format, but nothing on Rockwell's format. From what I understand, the Rockwell ADPCM format is proprietary, so the only way you could get it is by licensing it from Rockwell themselves. I've done a fair amount of work with various audio file formats and Rockwells is the only one I haven't found documented anywhere ... Bruce ------------------------------ From: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com (Mike P. Storke) Subject: Various Thoughts About Telecom Things Date: 5 Apr 1996 02:00:37 GMT Organization: Great Basin Public Access UNIX, Reno, NV Just a few things I wanted to ask you all: 1. What are your opinions as to what will happen with the SBC/Pac Tel merger when complete? I live in Pac Tel territory (Nevada Bell), so it will most definitely affect me. They're saying here that it might actually increase jobs if it goes through; however, corporate history (and my retching gut feeling) say otherwise. 2. I want to get cheap long distance to Canada, and Sprint seems to be the best way to go that I've seen. However, with everything going on with them, I just don't know anymore. I use a reseller (CRC, who does Frontier, WCT, MCI, and Sprint) for both of my phones; Sprint has already told me they won't give me Sprint Sense without re-PICing my line. I want that 10 cent rate to Canada (it's 36 cents with CRC 24/7), but don't want to put up with screwwy service, and I really would like it if I didn't have to re-pic one of my lines. I'm also open to other resellers/carriers as well if any of you know any. 3. Just a comment, the thing I saw about MCI's free 800 number and what a FUBAR job they're doing deserves the Sprint award, don't you all think? I mean, this is something I would expect more from Sprint than anyone else ... or am I wrong here? *Mike P. Storke N7MSD Snailmail: 2308 Paradise Dr. #134 *Windoze: NEVER!!* *Inet: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com Reno, NV 89512 *Linux FOREVER!!!* ------------------------------ From: bac@openix.com (Bruce Crawford) Subject: 201, 908 Splits in NJ Date: 4 Apr 1996 22:44:03 -0500 Organization: OPENIX - OPEN Internet eXchange I've been reading about area code splits happening afar, but now they're hitting close to home. New Jersey papers reported on Wednesday (April 3) that Bell Atlantic is poised to add new area codes, one each in the current 201 and 908 areas, effective in 1998. BA wants a geographic split (putting me in a new area code); potential future competitors for local service want an overlay. What I don't understand is why, when the area code supply was increased with the addition of codes *not* having a 0 or 1 in the middle, BA and other companies didn't do what was done in New York City with 917: add overlay codes for pagers, cell phones, and other special services. That way, the current area codes could have been kept intact for at least a few more years. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Why hasn't a special services code been used more (it seems to be just 917 and maybe one out in LA). Admittedly, it's probably fast getting too late for this option in New Jersey; it might have been viable had it been done when the area code supply first increased. I'm not sure what's worse; having to change my area code, which I would have to do if the 201 split goes through as BA wants, or having to dial 11 digits. If I'm going to have to change, I don't want to have to do it again in, say, five years. Maybe we need more three-way splits now to avert such a situation. Bruce A. Crawford | bac@openix.com Parsippany, N.J. | http://www.openix.com/~bac ------------------------------ From: David W. Crawford Subject: Re: Big Three Surcharging, etc. (was Sprint Fridays) Date: 05 Apr 1996 05:28:31 -0500 Organization: Woo Studios Ltd. In article scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) writes: > I am constantly amazed at the tactics long distance companies use to > con people into signing up. Why it is that these deceptive marketing > methods have never came back to haunt the BIG 3 carriers is beyond me. IGNORANCE and FEAR. That's what the big three LD carriers prey on. I have LCI now and am still looking for someone cheaper. (Some resellers, such as Deltacom, can't beat SOME of LCI's rates. What am I doing wrong?) :-( ------------------ I'd like to offer my experience with Sprint's College Madness. Sprint offers calling cards, and perhaps other deals, to college students. When one signs up, one gets a gift (coffee cup, tshirt, etc) and a customized (unique serial/account number) non-personalized instant card good for 30 free minutes. After the application has been processed, the customer receives a personalized phone card. Then occasionally a postcard is sent to the customer, announcing something like 'free call to anywhere in America, 9pm to 9:30pm on Saturday night'. I have a few of these cards, since I applied every time I saw a free tshirt, and used my 30 free minutes for each card. I didn't use my Sprint cards after the initial 30 free minutes, and suppose these accounts became dormant; I haven't verified their status with Sprint. What is notable is that during these occasional promotions "30 min free" to established card holders, I was unable to obtain service. The 1-800 number was either busy, or answered by a 'all circuits are busy' recording. I don't know what obligation Sprint has to make enough circuits available to support all their customers who call in simultaneously. What this leads me to wonder is if the Sprint (Business) Free Friday promotion customers might be routed into some exchange system which may declare itself congested and not complete the attempted calls. David W. Crawford (c) 1996 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:49:58 GMT Subject: Re: Ameritech Gets Slammed ... in ICC Ruling From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) On Apr 04, 1996 17.50.24 in , ptownson@massis.lcs. mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote: > Ameritech is angry that their 'anti-slam protection service' was put > on hold by the commission and calls it a serious loss to the > customers. Ameritech claims this is a violation of their First > Amendment rights of speech, i.e. the freedom to discuss their services > and offerings with their customers. The competitors say things could > not have worked out nicer for them. I would concur with the courts, given the track record of Ameritech. > Time will tell, as 'semi-local' competition in telephone service > gets underway in the Chicago area this weekend. Just out of curiosity, how many *more* local exchanges are being chewed up in anticipation of competitors, and will this tend to accelerate the need for more NPA splits/overlays in the Chicagoland area? John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: With the three way split of 708 into 630/708/847 and the split of 312 into 312/773, making five area codes out of what was two, I do not think -- cannot imagine -- the need for more areas anytime soon here. I guess people in the Los Angeles/southern California area felt that way also a few years ago. I hope what we have now meets our needs for several years. PAT] ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 13:24:32 GMT In article , Walter Lee Davidson wrote: > Your observation about CF is correct, at least in some implementations. > The main practical reason for allowing only one forwarding at a time > is to prevent forwarding loops between switches, which use up all the > trunks between them. Yes, people do this for "fun". Reminds me of an old story (which may or may not be true) about a college campus that had a PBX serving the dorm rooms ... some students figured out that if they forwarded extension A to extension B, and extension B to extension A, the switch would immediatly hang (or appear to hang -- actually, it was devoting 100% of its realtime to forwarding the call) and have to be restarted if anyone called A or B. Anyway, call forwarding can prevent loops without limiting the number of simultaneous calls per number, by limiting the number of unsupervised calls per number. This is how at least some telcos implement it (they allow unlimited simultaneous calls, but only one unsupervised call at a time -- when the "first" call gets forwarded, all other callers get busy until the first call supervises (or is terminated)). Brett (brettf@netcom.com) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 11:15:42 EST From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Internet Kidnap Suspect Pleads Not Guilty On Thursday in federal court, 'Internet Kidnap' suspect Richard Romero was arraigned. He appeared in court without an attorney and stated simply his intention to remain silent, neither entering any sort of plea or speaking in his behalf. Romero, 35, of Jacksonville, FL is accused in the case involving the thirteen year old boy from the north suburbs of Chicago who ran away from home with Romero after meeting the older man through email and interactive chat programs on the Internet in March. Romero appeared before Judge Charles Korcoran. Since he had no attorney and apparently canot afford one the judge appointed an attorney to represent Romero. He stated to Romero that due to his decision to remain silent the court was required to make a total presumption of innocence at this point and enter a plea of not guilty in his behalf. Romero will remain in custody pending further legal action during May and June. PAT ------------------------------ From: David Jensen Subject: Re: Odd Cellular and LATA Phenomena Date: 5 Apr 1996 16:15:46 GMT Organization: Telephone & Data Systems James E. Bellaire wrote: > US Cellular is also 'B' in Central Indiana: > SID 01200 Logansport/Peru/Franklin/Rochester/Flora > SID 01202 Crawfordsville/Greencastle/Boswell/Fowler > US Cellular is the 'A' carrier in Northeast Indiana in area's ajoining > the 01200 SID, as well as Northwest Ohio and Southern Indiana. > BTW: I wish they would sell the 'B' areas to GTE Mobilnet. Their service > areas puts big roaming holes in the center of GTE's Indiana map. US Cellular's operations map is available at: http://www.teldta.com/tds/cellular/opermap.html Sorry, this doesn't have A or B side information. Dave Jensen ------------------------------ From: andy@winternet.com (Andy Yee) Subject: Who Retains The 809 Area Code? Date: Fri, 05 Apr 96 15:29:58 GMT Organization: StarNet Communications I've looked at various resources about area code changes. But I can't find any information on what islands/countries retain the 809 area code. Anyone know? Andy Yee, Senior Software Engineer Emerson EMC Chanhassen, MN http://www.winternet.com/~nde ------------------------------ From: stravis@glass.toledolink.com (Steve Brack) Subject: Re: FCC Rate Filings (was: Re: Sprint and Fridays) Date: 5 Apr 1996 03:41:25 GMT Organization: Toledo Internet Access, Inc. keith@tcs.com wrote: > BTW, has anyone faxed back to Sprint that: > 1) they do not have a business at home, > 2) they never claimed to have a business, and > 3) they expect Sprint to honor its freely entered agreement? > If so, what was the result? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I imagine the result would be that > Sprint would claim in reference to (3) that the representative had > no authority to enter into such an agreement and that the tariff > flatly prohibits it and therefore they are cancelling it. Now what > happens after that if someone chooses to push further, I do not know > at this point. This is still a fairly new problem. PAT] Well, legally, with the usual disclaimers about legal advice applying, it could go to court for declaratory relief, on the basis that the Sprint rep was an "apparent agent" of the corporation, by virtue of his/her position with the company. In reality, I think Sprint would settle, rather than fight the action in your county courthouse. ------------------------------ From: booloo@cats.ucsc.edu (Mark Boolootian) Subject: Re: AT&T Official Killed In Bosnian Plane Crash Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 20:18:04 PST > Personal Note: Also among those lost in yesterday's crash was Kathy > Kellogg, a Commerce Department official whom I used to attend Sunday > school with. She was a native of Eureka, CA, and was a year older than > myself. She will be missed by her friends, family and the people she > appareantly gave her life to serve. I just learned that the 29 year old son of the folks who own the Darling House (a Bed & Breakfast sitting on West Cliff Drive overlooking the Monterey Bay which my wife and children pass by regularly) here in Santa Cruz was also killed on that plane. He was apparently quite an energetic young fellow working his way into politics, and was absolutely ecstatic when he was contacted by Commerce officials and told he would be accompanying Brown, among others, on this trip. A sad day indeed. mb [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And particularly sad at this time of year as we otherwise celebrate Passover, Easter and the beginning of spring. A most happy weekend to all, and do not forget that on Saturday night/Sunday morning most of us in the United States must re-adjust our clocks to 'daylight savings time', meaning move them forward one hour. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #163 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 8 11:51:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA23570; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:51:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:51:07 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604081551.LAA23570@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #164 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Apr 96 11:51:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 164 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson TAPI Bakeoff Registration (Toby Nixon) Ameritech 800 Number Problems (John N. Dreystadt) Test-Marketing the New Phone Services in 1984-85 (Larry Appleman) AT&T Still Has "We Are the Phone Company" Attitude (Jaleel Ihsan) Help Pass California "Cut Junk Call" Legislation (Robert Bulmash) AT&T Wireless Cellular: Caller-id and PIN's (Jack Hamilton) IVR/CTI Recommendations Wanted (Mason Hale) FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: TAPI Bakeoff Registration Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 00:11:14 GMT The fourth Windows Telephony Interoperability Testing Event ("TAPI Bakeoff") will be held May 6-10, 1996, in Honolulu, Hawaii, hosted by GTE Hawaiian Tel and Microsoft. If your company is interested in participating, please complete the following information and email to "bakeoff@microsoft.com" as soon as possible. Space is limited and will be assigned on a first come, first serve basis, except for balancing of applications and service providers (we try to have equal numbers of each). We will inform you by email when your space is reserved; that email will include information on hotels, shipping, etc., and ask additional questions on your requirements for phone lines, power, etc. * Registration Form * TAPI BakeOff - Honolulu, Hawaii - May 6-10, 1996 Setup: May 6 Interoperability Testing: May 7-9 Tear down: May 10 PRIMARY CONTACT --------------- Name: Title: Company: Address: City: State/Province: Zip: Phone (include country code if outside US or Canada): Fax (include country code if outside US or Canada): Email Address: Would you like to attend the TAPI interoperability bakeoff? ( ) Yes ( ) No If you do NOT wish to attend the TAPI interoperability bakeoff, please let us know why: (e.g.: TAPI product not far enough along, timing doesn't work, location is bad, etc ...) If you do desire to attend the TAPI interoperability bakeoff, please respond to the following questions: I will bring a TAPI application to be tested: ( ) Yes ( ) No I will bring a TAPI service provider to be tested: ( ) Yes ( ) No Does your application and/or service provider support: Audio play, record, etc.? ( ) Yes ( ) No Datamodem? ( ) Yes ( ) No ISDN data transfer? ( ) Yes ( ) No PBX features (park, transfer, conference, etc.)? ( ) Yes ( ) No Caller ID or ANI? ( ) Yes ( ) No Distinctive ringing or DID? ( ) Yes ( ) No Description of the TAPI application or service provider product(s) you will be bringing to test: Is your site using Microsoft Exchange? (Can we send you messages in Microsoft Exchange rich-text format?) ( ) Yes ( ) No Thank you for providing the above information. We will be sending BakeOff participation confirmation and further details shortly. ------------------------------ From: johnd@mail.ic.net (John N. Dreystadt) Subject: Ameritech 800 Number Problems Date: 6 Apr 1996 00:48:15 GMT Organization: Software Services My company (who will go un-named) has 800 service from MCI and Ameritech. This is not the high end T1 based service but just a simple mapping of an 800 number to our main business number in 313 (S.E. Michigan). We just moved and had to change central offices and therefore had to change main numbers. We call Ameritech and had them put "The number you have called, 313-AAA-BBBB, has been changed, the new number is 313-CCC-DDDD" on the old main number. Then we realize about our 800 service and try it. Dial 800-OUR-NUMBER and you get "The number you have called, 313-AAA-BBBB, has been changed, the new number is 313-CCC-DDDD", which is humorous because you did not dial 313-AAA-BBBB. We call MCI and explain. They ask for a fax on letterhead of what we want changed. We send them a request to change the 800 number to point to the new main number. They say it will take about 30 minutes; actual elapsed time was longer but still it only took one try. We call Ameritech and explain. We get transferred. Explain, get transferred. Get to department who says they can do it and to check in about an hour. Try an hour later and get "The number you have dialed, 800-OUR-NUMBER, has been changed, the new number is 313-CCC-DDDD". Oops. Call Ameritech and get transferred several times. New person says they know what to do. We try line late in the day, new message is "The number you have dialed, 800-OUR-NUMBER, has been disconnected". It is getting worse. Call Ameritech, wind up on hold for an hour, (Saturday but still!) decide to call next day. Get new person and explain problem. Get told to try later. Try later and get "The number you have called, 313-AAA-BBBB, has been changed, the new number is 313-CCC-DDDD" which is what we started with. Try again on Monday. Get new person, explain problem, and get problem resolved Monday afternoon. I wonder what corporate strategy Ameritech is planning on to keep business customers like my company? If they expect to have a good retention rate, they need to entirely revamp their customer service departments. To begin with, a good service department could have told us that the main number we were switching away from had an 800 reference. The rest of this fiasco is just outrageous. John Dreystadt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you saying that your company has two 800 numbers, one each issued by MCI and Ameritech? If your 800 number is only from MCI, then there was no real reason to get Ameritech involved in it; just tell MCI to change where it points to. As you point out, they got it done eventually. I had a time once when I wanted to change an 800 number of mine to point to a new number. It is an 800 number I got from Call Home America, which is a division of Allnet/Frontier. When I called, the rep did it as we were chatting. Within a couple minutes after I finished speaking to her, the changeover had been completed correctly. PAT] ------------------------------ From: larry@world.std.com (Larry Appleman) Subject: Test-Marketing the New Phone Services in 1984-85 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 13:48:02 GMT This might be of historical interest. I found a copy of a direct- marketing letter (reproduced below) that was used in an early market trial of new phone services. Some highlights: The new services were packaged under the name "TouchStar," while (at least in NYNEX territory) they are now packaged as "PhoneSmart." A couple of the services seem a little different than their current incarnation. And some of the services apparently never made it beyond the marketing test. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [I'm not sure of the date of this letter, but it appears to be 1984 or 1985.] Dear Orlando Customer: For the past few weeks, we've been giving you hints about some amazing new services coming to Orlando through the little * button on your Touch-Tone phone. Well now they're here -- yours to enjoy for an extended market trial! At this very moment, your phone line is already programmed to deliver remarkable new Touchstar services. And most are yours to enjoy absolutely free from now through August 8. It's our way of encourag- ing you to try out Touchstar services. Learn how to use them, and how they can be useful to you. These services will include: Call Return -- automatically redials the last number that called you, even if it stopped ringing before you could answer and find out who it was! Repeat Dialing -- automatically redials a number every 40 seconds if it's busy when you try -- and leaves your phone "open" for incoming calls! Call Selector -- lets you program your phone so that it gives a distinctive ring when one of your list of "special people" calls you! Call Block -- blocks calls from people you don't want to talk to, even if you don't know who they are! Call Tracing -- automatically traces obscene or abusive phone calls and forwards the information to Southern Bell authorities! Preferred Call Forwarding -- lets you program you phone so that only calls from your selected 'special people' are forwarded to you! You'll find simple how-to-use-it instructions for all Touchstar services in this package, along with an abbreviated 'prompter' that you can keep next to an extension phone. You'll want to look over the package, then go to your phone and try Touchstar. But first, here's news of an opportunity related to Touchstar that you don't want to overlook: If you act before August 30, we will waive the usual $12.50 service connection charge for Custom Calling Services and Touch-Tone Service. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I remember when Illinois Bell first began offering those services and it was the same kind of deal. No installation charge, and we go to use them free for a month, about the same time as your brochure in 1985. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ihsan@nmti.com (jaleel ihsan) Subject: AT&T Still Has "We Are the Phone Company" Attitude Date: 7 Apr 1996 20:44:39 GMT Organization: Bailey Network Management AT&T increased my international residential tariff (from 1.33 to 1.50) without giving me "an adequate prior notice". I had already made $400+ worth of calls at the new rate by the time I could do any thing about it. I called up AT&T and the manager said that the tariff increase was advertised in mass media. I hold her that I had not come across any such ad. She said that calling up each customer was an unreasonable expectation. To which I responded that they could have put a message on the bill they send me directly (which contains all kinds of other information) indicating that I should call a certain number to find out if I was affected. Her response was that it is a nice idea which she will pass to marketing but by law they are only required to inform the public through mass media and that I will HAVE TO pay just like others HAVE TO pay !!! (Actually she tried to get out of it by claiming that they cannot put such a message as I was being billed through local telco -- which I was not -- just shows how sneaky they are! And stupid as well -- not recognizing good customer relations in a competitive market are more important that just meeting some minimum legal requirement of yesteryears' non-competitive market place. She also said that they still have to get approval from FCC for international tariffs -- I wonder how true that is?) I had filed an informal complaint with the FCC but have not heard from them for a long time now. The disputed amount is only around $50. Paying it is not going to push me below the poverty line, but I just can't bring myself to accept such an attitude from AT&T in today's competitive market and just take it lying down! Moreover it is bad president to set as AT&T may do this sort of a thing again. The question I have for y'all is what is the best way of handling this? First I though that I should not pay any of the $400+ amount until AT&T bills me at the old rate. The amount will give them some incentive to address the issue instead of ignoring it, but than it would also give them the incentive to get an independent collection agency to harrass me (which AT&T internal collectors have threatened me with!) But now I am thinking of paying the non-disputed amount and let AT&T either accept the fact that it cannot increase the tariff in the manner it did or spend its resources trying to collect the disputed $50. The $50 will show up month after month on the bill as unpaid. If AT&T decides to cut off my service -- no problem, I can get more or less the same tariff from MCI AND Sprint that AT&T is giving me now and they are more or less as good/bad as AT&T. What do the gurus think? Any advice will be appreciated. ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Help Pass California "Cut Junk Call" Legislation Date: 7 Apr 1996 14:15:45 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) From: Private Citizen, Inc.http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home Here's what you've been waiting for! A chance to get a law that would significantly reduce the number of junk telenuisance-sales calls you receive at home. State Senator Charles Calderon has proposed such a bill, SB 1512, and the junk call industry has gone ballistic, pulling out all the stops in an effort to defeat it .If it is going to pass, it needs your support! The bill would let you put your telephone number on a "do-not-call" list that telephone sales solicitors would be prohibited from calling (whether calling from in-state or out-of-state). It would allow Californians, whose number is on that list, to sue a telemarketer for $500 for calling. We at Private Citizen, Inc. endorse this bill and ask that you support to it also by copying the letter below (or writnig your own) and mailing it to both Senator Dan Bostwright (who chairs the committee that will hear it) and Senator Charles Calderon (who proposed it). You've heard enough from junk callers. NOW let junk callers hear from you, through the law. Bob Bulmash - Private Citizen, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your Name Address City State Zip Senator Dan Bostwright Chair, Senate Business and Proffessional Committee State Capitol, Room 2053 Sacramento, CA 95814, Dear Senator Bostwright, I am writing in support of SB 1512. As you know, this bill is scheduled to be heard by the Business and Professional Committee on April 22, 1996. SB 1512 would allow private citizens to have their names placed on a "do-not-call" list maintained by California's Department of Justice. Telemarketers would be prohibited from making sales calls to anyone on this list. For many Californians, sales solicitation calls are an unwelcome intrusion into the privacy of our homes. Consumers who pay for phone service should be able to control how the serviceis used. This bill will allow Californians to restore peace to their homes by stopping "junk calls". Think you for your consinderation in this matter. Sincerely, ________________ cc: Senator Charles Calderon (State Capitol, Rm 4039 Sacramento, CA 95814) ------------------------- Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home ------------------------------ From: jfh@acm.org (Jack Hamilton) Subject: AT&T Wireless Cellular: Caller-ID and PIN's Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 02:56:06 GMT Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access I called AT&T Wireless today and asked them about two topics which have been discussed here: 1) Q: Will my cellular phone provide caller-id blocking on outgoing calls? A: Yes. When caller-id starts in California, the default will be blocking for cellular phones, exactly the opposite of land-line phones. 2) Q: Some people have to use PIN's when travelling. Since I don't have a PIN, what will happen to me? A: Since I have not requested fraud protection, I will not need a PIN, even in areas where a PIN is normally required. I guess I'll find out for sure if I visit New York. I asked two other questions which haven't been discussed here: 3) Q: My contract gives me 120 minutes a month. When do months start and end for billing purposes? A: In my case, on the 27th of the month. It is not possible to have the counter reset on the 1st instead (which would be much easier to keep track of, I think). 4) Q: Can I can a written description of what my plan (the "Casual Caller" plan) includes? All I've gotten is verbal descriptions. A: No. AT&T Wireless does not have a written description of this plan. That surprises me. Perhaps I could get one from the PUC. Jack Hamilton jfh@acm.org ------------------------------ From: mason@webedge.com (Mason Hale) Subject: IVR/CTI Recommendations Wanted Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 09:11:31 -0500 Organization: WebEdge Inc. I'm working on a project where we have a database of plant growers and the plants they carry searchable over the web. We would like to add inventory information to the database, but we would have great difficulty keeping that information current, considering the low percentage of growers that currently have computers, much less access to the web. So we want to have a "low-tech" option where a grower can update their inventory information via a touch-tone phone. This requires a "Interactive Voice Response" (IVR) application, which is a new area for me. At this point the database is served out of a Macintosh BulterSQL database. But we are willing to move it to NT if needed (either Oracle or Microsoft SQL Server). Does anyone have any recommendations of products that can do some or all of the following: 1. Search a SQL or ODBC database via a telephone interface 2. Update / Delete records in a SQL or ODBC database 3. Read the results (plant names) via some sort of text-to-speech ability (we have about 5,000 distinct plants in the database right now). Please copy any suggestions to email since I don't frequent this newsgroup too often (but I will for the next week or so). Thanks, Mason Hale Director, Internet Services WebEdge, Inc. ------------------------------ From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:58:32 EST Subject: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case The other day this interesting item was heard on CNN (4-4-96): "...found with electronic (electrical?) detonating device(s)..." If what I know about this guy is true, he would _never_ use an electronic device as a detonator. The Unabomber has been described as a person who carefully constructs casings made out of wood in some cases. I have no idea what it would take to make a detonator, but if he is so afraid of technology, and has made some of his sick devices low-tech, why were some so-called electronic materials found found in Ted Kacynski's place? Did CNN make a mistake? I would guess that Mr. Sicko Luddite is still out there. Shame on our system if we make an example out of Mr. Kacynski while the real nut case carries on. The trouble is, he promised not to do it anymore if his manifesto was published, and it was. So now if he does not do any more bombs, everyone will be convinced Ted is the guy. If he does do it again -- and I sincerely hope he does not; his actions thus far have been horrible to contemplate -- then I would not be surprised to have the government say something like it is not a true Unabomber device, this must be a sick copycat at work, etc. The government is not going to give up easily and admit they are wrong on this guy. In other words, if he does not do it again, then fine; if he does do it again the FBI will deny it is really Unabomber's work, since they have Unabomber in custody. I really am not convinced this is the guy. As with McVey, the amount of pre-trial publicity will insure that a fair trial is all but impossible. Something is really wrong when they come up with all this stuff they are finding in a little 10x12 foot hut where he lived, and they refused to allow him to be present or observe -- even from a safe, but close distance -- their execution of the 'search'. Also, isn't there something wrong when they hold someone incognito for a couple days, not even allowing him to get an attorney or contact anyone at all while in the meantime they are pouring a huge amount of 'information' out to the media? Most people are not aware of it, but a search warrant allowing the *government* to search your property does *not* include the right for the government to invite others to join them on your property. That is is to say, TK could refuse the media the right to be on his property, but by now they have invaded his personal space also. Something is wrong. The newspapers and FBI have told you TK is the man and you are willing to accept that at face value. I am not. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #164 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 8 12:36:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA24746; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:36:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:36:37 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604081636.MAA24746@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #165 TELECOM Digest Mon, 8 Apr 96 12:36:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 165 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Mysterious Jail Phone Charges (Larry Mayhew) Social Insecurity (Monty Solomon) I-Phone Tidbits (Edward A. Kleinhample) Ameritech Voice Mail Problems (Steven R. Kleinedler) Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ (Bruce Crawford) Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ (Joseph Singer) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Steve Forrette) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Hendrik Rood) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Ron Kritzman) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (Brian Kantor) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Gordon Hlavenka) Re: Proposed (but Scrapped) 1946/47 NPA Assignments (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: AT&T Wireless Services: Building a Factory? (smithlr99@worldnet.net) Re: Caller ID and DID Trunks (Steve Forrette) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mayhew@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 01:18:38 CST Subject: Mysterious Jail Phone Charges The Bowling Green, Ky, {Daily News} reports that BellSouth customers have been receiving bills with bogus charges for collect calls from the local county jail. The $1.75 charges are billed through BellSouth by a long-distance company named Invision. The BellSouth district manager is quoted: "There is some kind of trick going on here." One of his employees had $30 in such charges, but she could prove she was talking to someone else when a call was supposedly made. They don't yet know whether it's [billing?] fraud or a person at the jail with a special gift for reaching out and touching someone. Larry Mayhew mayhew@wkuvx1.wku.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 05:07:03 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Social Insecurity Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM FYI. Excerpt from Edupage, 7 April 1996. SOCIAL INSECURITY Several employees of the Social Security Administration are accused of using access to the agency's computerized database to obtain private information on 11,000 individuals and pass the information (such as the person's mother maiden name) to a credit card fraud ring, which was able to activate cards it had stolen. (New York Times 6 Apr 96 p6) ------------------------------ From: EDWARD.A.KLEINHAMPLE@gte.sprint.com Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 07:59:12 -0400 Subject: I-Phone Tidbits I came across the following in the 4/5 issue of {Investors Business Daily} ... MORE TECH, TELECOM FIRMS EMBRACE INTERNET PHONE IDEA Investor's Business Daily - 4/5 Pg. A8 The Internet this year could do much to transform the long-distance telephone business. And with new companies entering the market, and Internet telephony companies working together to develop standards, long-distance companies are paying attention. "Obviously, we're in the telephone business, but we're also in the Internet business," said an AT&T spokesman. "We view telephone services on the Internet as a potentially large business, and we're looking into it." He said AT&T may use technology developed at Bell Labs to offer Internet phone software of its own. With such software, users can place phone calls over the Internet and avoid ordinary phone rates. Internet telephony as yet, though, is rudimentary, offering fuzzy pictures and transmission delays. ------------------------------ From: srkleine@midway.uchicago.edu (steven r kleinedler) Subject: Ameritech Voice Mail Problems Organization: The University of Chicago Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 18:54:05 GMT About ten days ago a glitch appeared in my voicemail. Now, even when I don't have any messages, I get a boop-boop-boop signal, which normally indicates I have a new message, even though there are no new messages. In addition to being troublesome when I need to connect with my modem or modem-fax, it means I have to shell out five cents for a phone call to access my voice mail even though there might not be anything there. I know that's not a lot, but its the principle of the thing. Anyhow, I thought it was just me (an Ameritech rep said they were working on it ...) but then I worked the box office at the theatre company I'm with last night, and the phone *there* (on the other side of town) has the same problem with *its* Ameritech voice mail. How widespread is this problem? How much money is Ameritech raking in from people making needless calls into their voice mail? Is this a Chicago thing or is it going on thru-out the Midwest? Is there an Ameritech rep out there that can tell us when this will be fixed? I swear, once competition comes to local phone markets, I'm jumping. This message has been brought to you by Steve Kleinedler. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some limited competition did come to Ameritech territory over the weekend regarding 'local toll' calls of more than fifteen miles away, or what would be considered 'C Zone' calling. You will now be able to have those calls handled by the carrier of your choice without needing to dial 10xxx to reach the carrier. Expect the telemarketing flood to begin soon. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bac@openix.com (Bruce Crawford) Subject: Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ Date: 7 Apr 1996 13:55:30 -0500 Organization: OPENIX Bruce Crawford (bac@openix.com) wrote: > I've been reading about area code splits happening afar, but now > they're hitting close to home. New Jersey papers reported on Wednesday > (April 3) that Bell Atlantic is poised to add new area codes, one each > in the current 201 and 908 areas, effective in 1998. BA wants a > geographic split (putting me in a new area code); potential future > competitors for local service want an overlay. I stand corrected, thanks to Linc Madison: Bell Atlantic prefers an *overlay*. It may have offered the splits as an alternative, but that's unclear in the newspaper article I read. Bruce A. Crawford | bac@openix.com Parsippany, N.J. | http://www.openix.com/~bac ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 12:21:24 -0800 From: jsinger@scn.org (Joseph Singer) Subject: Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ Reply-To: jsinger@scn.org bac@openix.com (Bruce Crawford) recently wrote: > What I don't understand is why, when the area code supply was > increased with the addition of codes *not* having a 0 or 1 in the > middle, BA and other companies didn't do what was done in New York > City with 917: add overlay codes for pagers, cell phones, and other > special services. That way, the current area codes could have been > kept intact for at least a few more years. My understanding is that the wireless providers felt that this putting them in a separate 'ghetto' was somehow unfair. > I'm not sure what's worse; having to change my area code, which I > would have to do if the 201 split goes through as BA wants, or having > to dial 11 digits. If I'm going to have to change, I don't want to > have to do it again in, say, five years. Maybe we need more three-way > splits now to avert such a situation. I don't know how many people share my feelings, but the way I look at it is this: Because we're using more and more NPAs eventually everyone will have to dial more than seven digits for a local call if only because a local area will be served by more than one NPA. This is why I think that overlays are really a better long-term solution to numbering crunches in that if a numbering plan area runs out of numbers all that is necessary is to pancake another overlay NPA over the one that's presently there. The present system requires that people change their area code and in some cases they have to change them in as little as a five year time. On a different tag I don't understand about the metro areas that are multi-area such as NYC. In NYC to dial between the burroughs you dial 11 digits. Why not just 10 digits? I realize that the area has never used 1+ as a toll delimiter, but is reserving a few prefixes rather than having to dial an extra digit necessary. I could never understand why there was no uniformity in the North American Numbering plan area. JOSEPH SINGER SEATTLE, WASHINGTON USA jsinger@scn.org ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: 8 Apr 1996 05:01:25 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , peter@secon.com says: > I use standard call forwarding from a phone line at home to where ever > I am during the day. I have noticed that I can only accept 1 call at > a time. This, I have found, to be a limitation of "call forwarding". > It appears that if a call is already forwarded, a subsequent call will > ring busy. > I would like to know if "remote call forwarding" or the new "virtual > number" service promoted by BellSouth will solve my problem and > forward concurrent calls. The answer with most switches is that this is completely configurable at the telco's discretion. The telco (or their tariffs) may or may not allow the customer to request a change in the current setting. With US West, the rule with Remote Call Forwarding (which is a "virtual number" with no physical loop) is that the monthly fee is for one concurrent call. If you want to support five concurrent forwarded calls, then they will be glad to sell you this service for five times the regular RCF rate. To add insult to injury, all RCF lines are measured rate, so if you are forwarding to a local number, you have to pay for the additional message units for the concurrent calls as well. For regular lines, regular call forwarding (i.e. the kind the customer can change from the line itself) may have a different concurrent-call limit depending on the class of service. I think that US West limits residential lines to 1 concurrent call, but a business line that I had a couple of years ago had a limit of 20 calls. There was no formal option to have these limits adjusted, but I suppose if you talked nicely to the right person, that it could be done. Busy and no-answer forwarding typically will allow multiple concurrent calls, since their primary use is to provide the telco's voice mail service (and of course their voice mail customers would complain if their callers got busies when the voice mail service is supposed to answer busy calls). But, subscribers can take advantage of this situation and use busy and no-answer forwarding with multiple call capacity for their own uses. As is usually the case with features like this, your mileage is likely to vary greatly depending on your telco, and it will be next to impossible to talk to anyone at the telco who understands the issue, let alone is able to give you an accurate answer or change anything. My experience is that the only way to know for sure is to order the service and try it yourself. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: Sun, 07 Apr 96 02:57:52 GMT Organization: Elephantiasis In article , suhrig@bright.net (Steve Uhrig) wrote: > Peter Hoeve wrote: >> I use standard call forwarding from a phone line at home to wherever >> I am during the day. I have noticed that I can only accept 1 call at >> a time. This, I have found, to be a limitation of "call forwarding". >> It appears that if a call is already forwarded, a subsequent call >> will ring busy. > I don't know about other switches but the GTD-5 can be programmed to > allow as many calls to forward at the same time as you like. But if > you forward to a single line you still can only get one call at a > time. The same applies to the last 5ESS switch release I have worked with (6.2 International release). The maximum amount of concurrent forwarded calls is a database-field programmable in the switch. When only one call can be forwarded it is a decision of your phone company. 5ESS generic 6 admitted at most 99 concurrent calls. As far as my knowledge of AXE10 goes about the same applies there, but this switch has a different type of traffic control. The point is, when I have only one telephone line, but I forward this line to a huntgroup or PABX with 100 lines, I can cause congestion on smaller switches because you create both inbound and outbound traffic, sometimes even on a national base. I do know some phone companies sell special "disaster recovery" packages to business where the forwarding maximum is lifted and a destination number is registered in a special recovery contract. Such packages are then implemented as scripts installed on the harddisk of the exchanges and loaded by the switch maintenance department in case of problems (fire, electric breakdown etc.). ir. Hendrik Rood Stratix Consulting Group BV, Schiphol NL tel: +31 20 44 66 555 fax: +31 20 44 66 560 e-mail: Hendrik.Rood@stratix.nl ------------------------------ From: Ron Kritzman Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 21:33:18 -0800 Organization: Kritzman Communications Walter Lee Davidson wrote: > In article 8@massis.lcs.mit.edu, Peter Hoeve writes: >> I use standard call forwarding from a phone line at home to where ever >> I am during the day. I have noticed that I can only accept 1 call at >> a time. This, I have found, to be a limitation of "call forwarding". >> It appears that if a call is already forwarded, a subsequent call will >> ring busy. This is often the case when forwarding to a location outside your own C.O. Tell the local telco that you want the (often unpblicized and unnoticed) "multipath call forwarding" option on your line. (This tidbit from my many years in the Answering Service biz.) ------------------------------ From: brian@nothing.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: 7 Apr 1996 21:24:06 GMT Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd. brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) writes: > Reminds me of an old story (which may or may not be true) about a > college campus that had a PBX serving the dorm rooms ... some students > figured out that if they forwarded extension A to extension B, and > extension B to extension A, the switch would immediatly hang (or > appear to hang -- actually, it was devoting 100% of its realtime to > forwarding the call) and have to be restarted if anyone called A or B. In 1986 it was an Ericsson MD110, and it was here at UCSD. But it was more complex than that: the switch properly handled reflexive A<->B forwarding correctly. However, if you did A->B->C->A and dialed A, the switch would go away. No dial tone, no display updates, nothing. They fixed it by setting the forwarding limit to once -- i.e, if you dialed A above, you'd forward to B but not to C, even though B was set to forward further. As far as I know, ten years later, that restriction is still in effect. I don't know if it's still needed. I rather think the switch software would be smarter than that nowadays. The first day of operation for a new phone switch is always lots of fun! Brian [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the very early days of ESS here in Chicago back in 1973-74 they had Call Forwarding set up the same way here. If A forwarded to B and B forwarded to C, then anyone who dialed in to A stopped at B. Anyone who dialed B went on to C. The way it was explained then was that A obviously wanted his calls to reach him at B; he did not necessarily want C to be receiving his calls. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (gordon hlavenka) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Organization: Vpnet - Your FREE link to the Internet (708)833-8126 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 04:25:11 GMT Eric Smith wrote: > The main drawback is that insecurity is inherent in the AMPS system. > Retrofitting decent security onto it would cost carriers a lot of > money, and render existing phones useless. Yes, AMPS is pretty weak WRT security. But what about the hardware itself? Most of today's cellular phones have "soft" ESNs; whose brainstorm was _that_?! Dallas Semiconductor makes a serialized ROM with a one-wire interface; they sell for less than twenty-five cents. If the cellphone used one of these (in a SOT-23 package) for its ESN then cloning a phone would involve SMT soldering. How many dope dealers do you think are going to buy a Pace kit and take up soldering? (Yes, you'd only have to modify a phone once, but you'd have to modify _each_ phone.) Actually, I can envision lasering an ESN into an internal layer of a multilayer PCB, and routing the PCB traces in such a way that it would be very difficult to alter those connections ... Unfortunately, with so many soft ESNs out there today it would take a while before any effect would be seen from switching to "hard" ESNs. But please keep in mind that Motorola et al bear a substantial amount of the blame for the cloning debacle; building phones with reprogrammable ESNs reduces their manufacturing costs. Cellular One in Chicago tells me they have no current plans to require PINs, and while I am currently an Ameritech subscriber I'm not under contract, so ... Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 23:11:01 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: Proposed (but Scrapped) 1946/47 NPA Assignments Chris Jones (clj@bbn.com) said: > Mark J. Cuccia's interesting message showed a first cut at NPA > assignments, never adopted. My provincial reaction was to look for my > state, Massachusetts, in the list. Well! There are 47 states listed > (out of 48 in the union as of 1947), and Massachusetts, the site of > the first phone call, is missing. > Was it missing from the list he transcribed, or was this a trans- > mission error? In my copy of the recent issue of the Digest with my submission, MA had both 515 and 516. 512 CA (S.F.) 513 CA (L.A.) 514 CA (north) 515 MA (eastern "half") 516 MA (western "half") 517 IA (eastern "third") 518 IA (central "third") 519 IA (western "third") Please remember that these 1946/47 area codes were *proposed* but this particular plan wasn't the one actually adopted in October 1947! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: Big_Bob Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Services: Building a Factory? Date: 8 Apr 1996 01:18:46 GMT Organization: DataNet Communications Company - Olympia,WA Could be because they have over 900 people working for them, and most all of them are contractors. I've heard they are looking to do a lot more in-house. But then what do I know ...? Bob [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did anyone watch the {Sixty Minutes} program on CBS on Sunday night? One of the topics was the very high pay of CEO's versus the pay of workers. One 'featured guest' -- although I am sure he would have prefered not to be included -- was Robert Allen of AT&T. It seems Mr. Allen got *millions* of dollars in salary, bonuses and miscellaneous compensation last year while at the same time laying off 40,000 employees. The show was rather critical of AT&T, although they did not single them out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Caller ID and DID Trunks Date: 8 Apr 1996 04:24:11 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , lynne.gregg@attws.com says: > glnfoote@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Glenn Foote) posted: >> Certain of his company's personnel are being told (privately ... >> "over the transom" so to speak) that they must change out this >> system to Centrex in order to receive Caller-ID information and to >> effect Call Blocking (as these are not offered to DID customers). > Not necessarily true. The ability to receive inbound Caller ID in an > office (PBX) environment depends on a number of factors: > * Connects to the PSTN must be ISDN so CPN may be passed (in both > directions). This is not entirely true. While it is true that most PBX's that are receiving Caller ID information are doing so via ISDN PRI, there is also a little-known service called Bulk Caller ID (this is Bellcore's name; your telco's name for it may vary). Bulk Caller ID can be used to provide calling party information in conjunction with inbound calls to regular DID trunks. The operation of the DID trunks is unchanged. Bulk Caller ID adds additional trunks over which the CO sends Caller ID data out-of-band. For example, you could have 50 DID trunks coming into your PBX, and two Bulk Caller ID lines. When a call arrives on any of the DID trunks, a message comes down one of the Bulk Caller ID lines that says in essence: "The call coming in right now on trunk 21 is from xxx number." You can have multiple Bulk Caller ID lines per DID trunk group, both for load sharing and redundancy. This service may not be tariffed in all areas, and may not be supported by your PBX. But, if you are planning to use the Caller ID information for a CTI application, then the Bulk Caller ID information could go directly into your CTI server, with the PBX happily receiving its calls just as it always has. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #165 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 9 21:46:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA26028; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 21:46:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 21:46:13 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604100146.VAA26028@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #166 TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Apr 96 21:45:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 166 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson How Burglers Use CDROM Phone Lists to Find Easy Targets (Bill Halverson) Intelligent Networks (Srikantha Nadarajah) Long Distance Resale Questions (Joseph Kim) Payment Processing Problem (Carl Moore) ICCCN '96 Call For Papers (rakesh@asu.edu) Employment Opportunity - Computer Telephone Tech Manager (Brian Wilcox) Employment Opportunities - Booz-Allen & Hamilton (Eric Smokler) Seeking Cheyenne Bitware (Jan Ceuleers) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Halverson Subject: How Burglers Use CDROM Phone Lists to Find Easy Targets Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 19:09:49 +0000 Organization: Network Associates While on vacation, burglers tried to break into her home. Fortunately, a double keyed deadbolt stopped them. But in checking with her neighbors, ALL OF THEM told me they were getting calls at odd hours of the day and night, and when they answered the phone, nobody said anything to them at all. Now I see CDROM phone lists claining "88 million residential listings, over 90% accurate", for sale for less than $150. The lists are packaged with mapping software that lets one find the relationship between numbers and addresses. Now, any crook with a $1000 PC can get a list of residential numbers, sorted by street and block, that they can use to find out when the home owners ARE NOT HOME!!! I would like this group to think about the implications of this ... and use its collective wisdom to explore ways that politicians and police can be induced to pressure phone companies to make it easier to track down the numbers from which these 'casing-calls' originate. Thanks in advance. Bill Halverson William@Netpros.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chances are likely the guy stole the PC on which he operates the CDROM which he shoplifted. :) If you are going to try and stop the publication of such CDROMs then you also need to stop publishing the printed 'criss-cross' directories which provide the very same information. It might not hurt to stop publishing phone directories period, since a person with a reasonable degree of knowledge about which prefixes 'belong' to which neighborhoods can review a regular directory and over a period of time come to some reasonably accurate conclusions. Instead, why not just encourage people to use *57 to trace calls which they feel are inappropriate for whatever reason. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sn03@uow.edu.au (Srikantha Nadarajah) Subject: Intelligent Networks Date: 9 Apr 1996 08:47:03 +1000 Organization: University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia. Hi, Can someone tell me "The true definition of Intelligent Network in Telecommunications" and what are he currently used or popular networks in that catagory? (any PSTN anywhere is OK.) Nada ------------------------------ From: jokim@johnfk.CS.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Long Distance Resale Questions Date: 8 Apr 1996 23:07:50 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Hi, I was wondering if anyone knew how long distance resale works. Any pointers to information would really be appreciated. Specifically, however, I presume that AT&T owns most of the infrastructure and so companies like MCI, Sprint, and those five-digit companies would buy some capacity from them. Does that mean that AT&T handles all of the accounting and split up the money accordingly? My guess as to how the system works is that Sprint, MCI, and AT&T have tables corresponding to customers and that when someone tries to make a phone call AT&T's accounting computer system looks in these tables and credits the respective company. Further, the five-digit companies use the five-digit number as a way to tell AT&T's accounting system to bypass the normal accounting by tables and instead credit the respective five-digit company. Is this how it works, or is accounting done separately by each long distance reseller? My thanks to anyone who can clear this mystery for me and point me to any type of reference containing further/related information. joseph [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, not quite. It is true that many years ago -- in the early days of the OCC's, or 'other common carriers' as they were known -- most everything was done over AT&T circuits, no matter which carrier you actually selected. I am referring now to the days when the Big Three were the Only Three. But since then, many of the carriers have built infrastructure of their own. They still continue to route calls back and forth over the circuits of the other carriers when they wish to do so, however they try to keep things on their own lines as much as possible. The five digit codes first and foremost are used to tell the local telco which carrier is to be selected for the call. How the billing gets done after that is a rather technical and detailed -- outrageously boring! -- process. If the selected carrier for a call has circuits in place to handle it, then the carrier does so. The carrier may or may not have billing apparatus in place to handle it. For a long time after divestiture, Ameritech not only did the billing for AT&T, but they 'created' the billing. That is, they calculated the costs, did the billing, collected the money and then 'credited' AT&T on their books. Some telcos 'create' the billing for the carriers, then bill it, collect it and 'credit' it to the carriers while other carriers do their own billing. Some then collect on their own billings while others 'charge' the originating telco and have the telco collect for them. If the carrier does not have circuits in place to handle the call or for whatever reason is unable to handle the call then it goes over the circuits of some other carrier which then bills the carrier which originated the call who in turn either bills the customer or 'charges' the originating telco who in turn bills and collects from the customer. Telcos and long distance carriers very seldom actually give each other any *cash money*. They just keep charging and crediting each other with each telco in a position to collect money from customers doing so and keeping the actual cash. In many years past when AT&T was the only company handling long distance, a 'clearing house' type function within AT&T was called 'Separations and Settlements'. Merely a couple thousand clerks worked in that department, the objective being to hand millions of scraps of paper back and forth among themselves all the time. Each clerk would add his/her own indicia to the scraps after calculations of one sort or another. Bushel baskets and shopping carts full of toll tickets came in one door constantly; worked their way through the maze and out the other door a few days later. You owe me two cents for this call and I owe you three cents for that call. Once a year more or less someone would draw the bottom line and there would be a payout in actual money to bring everything in balance. A million dollars for you, two million for the other telco, etc., all from the daily accumulation of pennies and nickles the telcos owed each other. Whichever telco actually 'owned' the customer -- that is, the subscriber who placed the call, and who paid the money -- kept that money, only settling with the other telcos involved in bulk now and then. Now in more modern times, there are still clearing house type functions and the routine is a lot the same, but the players are different. You have Integratel for example, and another one called US Billing, Inc. The local telcos have to bill each other rather than go through the AT&T 'Separations and Settlements' as they used to do. They have become a lot more sophisticated in handling *billions* of billing records each year on computer -- although in manual days they handled many millions of records with a high degree of accuracy -- without losing as many or misbilling them, etc. There are still mixups which would stand your hair on end if you were privy to them such as thousands of payments on one day getting credited to customers of *another telco* in error. I recall one instance when Illinois Bell had thousands of those 'Pay to the Order of the Telephone Company' things which AT&T issues; they microfilmed the lot of them and then mailed them off to *MCI*, while issuing the corresponding charge to *Sprint*. After several months, which is about the normal time it takes for inter-telco accounting disputes to work their way through the maze, Sprint disputes the charge, not saying *this belongs to AT&T* but saying *we never got the documentation*. MCI in the meantime got all the paperwork -- cartons and cartons of these gift certificates -- and promptly assumes they must have also been charged for them and they mail it all on to AT&T, issuing a charge to AT&T and taking the corresponding credit for themselves. AT&T sees no problem with this and accepts the chargeback from MCI. Illinois Bell and Sprint meanwhile continue bickering between themselves and finally some clerk somewhere notices this is really all AT&T stuff, we must have sent them the documents already so let's now issue the charge to go with it. Pull microfilm for the whole load, tell them we cannot provide the actual documents since they were mailed earlier, etc. Sprint reverses the chargeback to Illinois Bell, Illinois Bell clears it with a chargeback to AT&T and takes the credit. A month or two goes past, and AT&T finally scratches its corporate head and says, hey, we paid twice for these gift certificates. All the indicia on the back side shows Illinois Bell but the indicia from MCI has been overstamped and made most of the back side illegible. AT&T finally goes to MCI and screams about getting their money back; MCI's answer of course was they could never find where AT&T had paid in the first place. AT&T produces a copy of the chargeback which originally applied and MCI tries to push that off on Illinois Bell. Approximatly a year after the original billings to the customers and the customers' payments with the 'Pay to the Order of the Telephone Company' scrips, the scrips find their way to their issuer, following numerous chargebacks and reversals of chargebacks between the telcos. Along with the credit card billing/processing centers, which hire *weird* people to push papers back and forth at each other all day, the telco settlement/clearing house operations are pretty strange places. Years ago it was said AT&T's Separations and Settlements was an absolute hellhole to work in, second only to Social Security's back offices or Postal Service sorting rooms as snakepits. It requires a certain mentality to deal with all that paper and accounting all the time. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Apr 96 17:57:59 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Processing Problem I have received a letter from Bell Atlantic, PO Box 964, Johnson City, TN 37605, at the regular (non-presorted) rate of 32 cents, which has on the envelope "Thank you for your order! Your important Customer Instructions are in this envelope." ("this envelope" underscored) Notice the Tennessee address despite Bell Atlantic, and the letter (typed in line by line exactly as it was received) referred to a phone bill in Maryland. DEAR CARL G MOORE JR, Recently, we at Bell Atlantic experienced a computer processing problem which caused payments we received on February 13th to not be applied to customers' accounts promptly. The problem was resolved and these payments have now been applied correctly. Your payment was one of those affected. We would like to sincerely apologize for this error, and to assure you that we value you as a customer and are working diligently to ensure that the problem does not recur. As a result of this error, you may have been billed a late payment charge on your most recent bill. If this occurred, we will automatically credit your April bill with the amount which was erroneously billed. You do not need to call us since we have already ensured that the credit will be issued on your account. ["out" on the next line is as it appeared; should be "our"] Again, please accept out [sic] most heartfelt apology for this error, and our assurance that we will do everything possible to prevent such occurrences in the future. If you have questions and would like to discuss the matter further, please [call] 1-800-829-5029 and we will arrange for someone to call you. Sincerely, BELL ATLANTIC THE HEART OF COMMUNICATION [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This reminds me of the time quite a few years ago when the Amoco credit card office got about ten thousand inovices all encoded with the wrong amounts. The encoding operators were supposed to type in the data from the card *to the left* in their field of view; not the card directly in front of them as the little cardboard invoices passed by on the conveyor belt. Some of the discrepancies were outrageous, but the overages and underages netted each other out so that the entire batch of ten thousand invoices was only out by a few dollars, i.e. the total supplied when the batch was started and what the encoding operator got when the batch was finished. Well you know for a few dollars they wrote it off and released the batch to the next phase of billing. Sure enough, beginning about a month later as the invoices are mailed out to customers, the customers begin calling customer service in droves asking, 'how could you take an invoice for three dollars and charge me nineteen dollars, etc ...' Customer service is making all these write offs in reverse since there is no apparent reason for the way the card was encoded, etc. Finally the customer service reps all start comparing notes and someone orders the microfilm for the whole batch. They see that every single card is encoded with the amount of the invoice immediatly in front of it, and the supervisor had released it that way. Illinois Bell did the same thing one time: everyone's payment was given to the *next person* who paid. The cashier's totals for the day were 'within tolerance' so that was that. Naturally the customers who got shorted were the first to complain; the ones who got credited with too much said little or nothing. One subscriber got credited a thousand dollars on her ten dollar phone bill. I am sure they thought they hit the golden jackpot when their account still had a large credit balance three months later but eventually the inevitable came in the form of a letter to those folks: "During a recent routine audit of our customer accounts, an error was discovered on your account, where you were given credit for a payment made by another customer. We have removed the credit and this now places your account two months in arrears, past due in the amount of $______. Since this was not your fault, we have credited you with any past due charges you will be accessed, and this credit will appear on your next bill or the one following, however we do require payment of your past due balance immediatly." Ooooh, that stung! Naturally quite a few people had asssumed they would just get away with the credit they were not entitled to. And then there was the time that several thousand checks from customers in a given days's work had all been microfilmed but not yet sent to the bank. The air conditioning was out of order and several windows were open. Hurricane like winds all of a sudden blew thousands of checks out the window and off down Randolph Street. Several clerks are out in the street looking for the checks and they recovered quite a few, but I would say about two thousand could not be found. Undaunted, they went back to the microfilms and pulled all the missing ones off film, sent the *film* to the bank and said 'pay it anyway!' ... seriously. And to the customers, a note saying 'sorry your payment was damaged in processing rendering it unusable, but we know what you meant so we went to the bank and got the money anyway.' You don't think they were going to write it off, do you? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 09:46:17 -0700 From: rakesh@asu.edu Subject: ICCCN '96 CALL FOR PAPERS. Organization: Arizona State University This Call For PAPERS Also appeared in the IEEE COMPUTER MAGAZINE (January 1996 issue) and The Communication of the ACM (January 1996 issue) ICCCN'96 CALL FOR PAPERS FIFTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS October 16 - 19, 1996 Double Tree Hotel, Rockville, Washington D. C., USA Sponsored* by DataTech and NASA. In cooperation* with NSF, NIST, USL, USC Communication, IEEE Computer Society, ACM, and IEEE Communication Society. The objective of this conference is to provide an effective forum for original and fundamental advances in Computer Communications and Networks and to foster communication among researchers and practitioners working in a wide variety of scientific areas with a common interest in improving Computer Communications and Networks. SCOPE: The primary focus of the conference is on new and original research results in the areas of design, implementation and applications of Computer Communications and Networks. We solicit the submission of papers that address novel, challenging and innovative results. Therefore the topics that will be addressed include, but are not limited to: ATM Networking Internet Services/Applications Distributed Multimedia Applications Real Time Communications Quality of Services (QoS) Issues LAN/WAN Internetworking Interoperability Personal Communication Services Network Management Wireless Networks Intelligent Networks Multicast Protocols Network Security Optical Networks Reliable Networks High Speed Network OAM/Protocols Video-on-Demand Traffic Management Multimedia Human-Machine Interface Performance Modeling/Analysis Communication Software Protocol Verification/Validation/Test SUBMISSION: Authors are invited to submit complete and original papers. Papers that may be submitted for consideration include those that have not previously been published in another forum, or are not currently being published or reviewed by another journal or conference. All submitted papers will be refereed for quality, correctness, originality and relevance. The program committee reserves the right to accept a submission as long, short or poster presentation. Of particular interest are papers which address experiences with concrete Computer Communications and applications. All accepted papers will be published in the conference proceedings. Authors will be interested to know that special issues of journals containing outstanding papers from the conference are being planned. Manuscripts should include an abstract and be limited to 5000 words. Submissions should include the title, author(s), author's affiliation, e-mail address, fax number and postal address. In case of multiple authors, an indication of which author is responsible for correspondence and preparing the camera ready paper for the proceedings should also be included. Six copies of the manuscript should be submitted by Monday, April 22, 1996 to Program Co-Chair: Dr. David Lee AT&T Bell Laboratories 600 Mountain Avenue, RM 2C-423 Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974, USA lee@research.att.com Tel: (908) 582-5872; Fax:(908) 582-5857 For more information about the conference (as opposed to paper submissions) please send e-mail to ic3n@cacs.usl.edu. IMPORTANT DATES: Paper submission deadline: April 22, 1996 Notification of acceptance: May 30, 1996 Camera ready papers due: July 1, 1996 WORKSHOPS AND TUTORIALS: Proposals are solicited for tutorials and workshops. Please send your proposal by March 22, 1996 to Professor M. Singhal, the Tutorial Chair, Department of Computer and Information Science, The Ohio State University, 2015 Neil Ave, Columbus, OH 43210, USA, singhal@cis.ohio-state.edu, Tel: (614) 292-5839, Fax: (614) 292-2911. To Professor K. Efe, the Workshop Chair, The Center for Advanced Computer Studies, The University of SW Louisiana, Lafayette, LA 70504, efe@cacs.usl.edu, Tel: (702) 482-6876, Fax: (702) 482-5791. Steering Committee: I. Chlamtac-U. Mass, V. Li (chair) - USC, K. Makki - UNLV, J.S. Meditch - U. Wash, E. K. Park - USNA, R. Pickholtz - GWU, N. Pissinou - CACS/ USL, T. Suda - UC Irvine, J.W. Wong - U. Waterloo General Co-Chairs: K. Makki - UNLV and N. Pissinou - CACS/USL Program Committee: S. Aggarwal-SUNY/Binghamton, C. Alaettinoglu-USC/ISI, M. H. Ammar-GA/Tech, H. Arabnia-U. Georgia, M. Bayoumi-USL, K. Bhat-AT&T, A. Bush-NSF, K. Calvert-GA/Tech, S. T. Chanson-UBC, D. Cohen-Bellcore, T. S. Dillon-LaTrobe U., T. Y. Feng-NSF, O. Frieder (Co-Chair)-GMU, . Geraniotis-DEEI, F. Golshani-ASU, M. G. Gouda-UT/Austin, Z. Haas-Cornell, M. Halem-NASA, J. Harms-U. Alberta, E. Hahne-AT&T, C.-S. Kang-Hannam U., I. Khan-Qualcomm, J. B. Kim-CSUN, D. Lee (Co-Chair)-AT&T, Y.-H. Lee-U. Florida, . J. Leon-CACS/USL, F. J. Lin-Bellcore, M. T. Liu-OSU, W. Liu-BellSouth, W. M. Moh-SJSU, R. Miller-UMD, M. S. Obaidat-CUNY, S. Olariu-ODU, M. T. Ozsu- U. Alberta, W. Peng-SWTSU, S. Sahni-U. Florida, H. Saito-NTT, M.-C. Shan-HP, U. Shankar-UMD, H. Sharif-UNL, A. Silberschatz-AT&T, V. Srinivasan-IBM, D. Su-NIST, Y. Zhang-Hughes Conference Coordinators: C. Fayet-INT/France, A. Gaivoronski-ITALTEL/Italy, C.-S. Kang-Hannam U./Korea, U. Krieger-DBP/Germany, H. Saito-NTT/Japan Publicity Co-Chairs: S. Bhattacharya-Honeywell, Mallikarjun Tatipamula-BNR} Local Arrangements: D. Su-NIST Treasurer: E. K. Park-USNA * pending approval ------------------------------ From: bwilcox@ix.netcom.com (Brian Wilcox) Subject: Employment Opportunity - Computer Telephony Tech Manager Date: 9 Apr 1996 00:06:10 GMT Organization: Netcom Technical Manager - Computer Telephony A leading international audiotext service bureau with operations worldwide is seeking a Technical Manager to oversee its technical and programming projects. Position will require a temporary relocation to Hong Kong for three to six months, followed by a posting in either London or the Northeast US. Because of the diversity of installations, extensive travel is required. Key attributes: A lead role in the design, development and delivery of audiotext software products. Must be able to clearly articulate the overall project requirements and responsibilities within the product development cycle to management and support staff. Ability to be flexible and take on various roles throughout the development process. Experience with C++ and object-oriented design and development. Experience with Dialogic-based firmware. Familiarity with T1, E1 and SS#7 signaling. Knowledge of PTT operations. Commitment to quality. Good verbal and written skills. Salary: US$65,000 - 80,000 per annum. Contact: Brian R. Wilcox, Technical Director New Media Corporation Limited b_wilcox@msn.com Recruitment agencies welcome. Technical Manager - Computer Telephony A leading international audiotext service bureau with operations worldwide is seeking a Technical Manager to oversee its technical and programming projects. Position will require a temporary relocation to Hong Kong for three to six months, followed by a posting in either London or the Northeast US. Because of the diversity of installations, extensive travel is required. Key attributes: A lead role in the design, development and delivery of audiotext software products. Must be able to clearly articulate the overall project requirements and responsibilities within the product development cycle to management and support staff. Ability to be flexible. Recruitment agencies welcome. ------------------------------ From: smoklere@bah.com (Smokey) Subject: Employment Opportunities - Booz-Allen & Hamilton Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 16:55:42 GMT Organization: Booz-Allen & Hamilton The group I work has opportunities for people with experience in: 1. Digital Loop Carriers (DLCs) 2. Computer Telephony Integration 3. General Systems Engineering 4. Entry Level Market Systems Analysis Feel free to send resume to: Eric Smokler Booz-Allen & Hamilton 14800 Conference Center Drive Suite 300 Chantilly, VA 22021-3810 Or E-Mail SmoklerE@bah.com ------------------------------ From: Jan Ceuleers Date: Tue, 09 Apr 96 18:49:55 +0200 Subject: Seeking Cheyenne Bitware --> Note: Reply to a message in COMP.DCOM.TELECOM. I quote Erik Wust: EW> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps someone will kindly EW> translate this for me and other readers. PAT] Sure. My mother tongue is Dutch so I'll have a go. erik.wust@easy.nl wrote: EW> Onlangs zag ik een demonstratie van Cheyenne Bitware, een EW> mooi telecom programma voor computer assisted telefoon EW> beantwoorden. Het programma was vrij meegeleverd bij een EW> gekocht modem .... ik kan de bron verder niet achterhalen... EW> kan iemand mij helpen aan een adres waar ik deze software EW> kan downloaden / kopen ? ==== Beginning of translation ==== Recently I saw a demonstration of Cheyenne Bitware, a nice telecom program for computer-assisted telephone answering. The program came for free with a modem ... I have no further information as to its source ... Can anyone tell me where I could buy or download this software? ==== End of translation ==== I don't know the answer though. Please remember that I just translated Mr. Wust's question; replies --> erik.wust@easy.nl. Jan Ceuleers ceuleerj@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #166 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 9 22:21:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA26829; Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:21:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 22:21:23 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604100221.WAA26829@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #167 TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Apr 96 22:21:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 167 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bungled Phone Numbers in Ads (888 and New NPAs) (Stanley Cline) Call For Papers, MOBICOM 96 (B.R. Badrinath) Indiana: 317 to Split (John Cropper) Summary: Advertisement of 900 Numbers (Jan Ceuleers) Invitation to Policy Workshop (Jongwon Park) Ameritech Billing Not Handling 708/847 Split Well (Earl Hall) New Web-Based Moderated Telecom Newsgroup (bes@brill.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Bungled Phone Numbers in Ads (888 and new NPAs) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 22:43:16 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services While listening to the radio at work today, I heard two ads (in a row!) that made me take notice, not because of the ad itself, but because of some of the stupid mistakes announcers made with phone numbers. Those got me thinking of even more area code screw-ups. 1) Ad for Primestar DBS dishes; phone number given in the ad is 1-888-200-xxxx, the announcer says "remember, the call is toll-free." In a voiceover at the end of the prerecorded ad, a second announcer advises to call 1-*800*-200-xxxx. Evidently the radio station running the ad doesn't know about 888 yet. I think they screwed up another 888 number a few weeks ago. Then ... 2) Ad for BellSouth Mobility; their local (Chattanooga) number is 423-894-xxxx. The announcer gave that number as, again, *1-800*-894-xxxx. (Other recent mistakes in BellSouth Mobility ads: stating that they uses a Motorola switch, when in fact they converted to a Hughes GMH2000 -- with much fanfare -- nearly six weeks ago [that ad ran last week.] Also, they used to give the wrong area code in print ads that ran near the cutoff date for permissive dialing.) Neither 800 version of the numbers is valid; 1-800-200-xxxx yields an AT&T announcement stating the number is not valid from my calling area (NPA 423); 1-800-894-xxxx is not in service (goes to LEC intercept, as number apparently isn't registered with a RespOrg.) Our local newspaper still lists its phone number as NPA 615 in its masthead. One of my prescriptions, from a pharmacy in north Georgia, listed their number as area code *404* -- for a number that's been in NPA *706* since *1992.* Wake up, media and drugstores: NPA 888 exists, local numbers are not 800 numbers, area codes have changed...GET IT RIGHT! Stanley Cline ** Roamer1 on IRC (see why?) mailto:scline@usit.net or mailto:scline@chattanooga.net CIS 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~scline/ ------------------------------ From: badri@cs.rutgers.edu (Br Badrinath) Subject: Call For Papers, MOBICOM-96 Date: 9 Apr 1996 18:31:33 -0400 Organization: Rutgers University LCSR MOBILE COMPUTING AND NETWORKING CONFERENCE 1996 (ACM/IEEE MobiCom'96) November 11-12, 1996 (Tutorials on Sunday, November 10, 1996 Rye Hilton, Rye, New York, USA Sponsored by: ACM CESDIS NASA IEEE Sigmobile, Sigcomm, Sigmetrics, ComSoc Sigops, Sigact The wireless communication revolution is bringing fundamental changes to telecommunication and computing. Wide-area cellular systems and wireless LANs promise to make integrated networks a reality and provide fully distributed and ubiquitous mobile computing and communications, thus bringing an end to the tyranny of geography. Furthermore, services for the mobile user are maturing and are poised to change the nature and scope of communication. This conference, the second of an annual series, serves as the premier international forum addressing networks, systems, algorithms, and applications that support the symbiosis of portable computers and wireless networks. PAPERS Technical papers describing previously unpublished, original, completed, and not currently under review by another conference or journal are solicited on topics at the link layer and above. Topics will include, but are not limited to: * Applications and computing services supporting the mobile user. * Network architectures, protocols or service algorithms to cope with mobility, limited bandwidth, or intermittent connectivity. * Design and analysis of algorithms for online and mobile environments. * Mobile network protocols * Performance characterization of mobile/wireless networks and systems. * Network management for mobile and wireless networks. * Data management in mobile computing * Service integration and interworking of wired and wireless networks. * Characterization of the influence of lower layers on the design and performance of higher layers. * Security, scalability and reliability issues for mobile/wireless systems * Mobile computing * Mobile agents * Power management * Wireless multimedia systems * Satellite communication * Location-dependent applications * Distributed system aspects of mobile systems * Adaptive applications interfaces suitable for mobile systems * Architectures of wireless and mobile networks and systems * Traffic integration for mobile applications All papers will be refereed by the program committee. Accepted papers will be published in conference proceedings. Papers of particular merit will be selected for publication in the ACM/Baltzer Journal on Wireless Networks and the ACM/Baltzer Mobile Networks & Nomadic Applications Journal. HOW TO SUBMIT Paper submission will be handled electronically. Authors should Email a PostScript version of their full paper to: mobicom96@gucci.mirc.gatech.edu In order to print the PS versions of the papers, authors should ensure that their papers meet these restrictions: - PostScript version 2 or later - no longer than 15 pages - fits properly on "US Letter" size paper (8.5x11 inches) - reference only Computer Modern or standard Adobe fonts (i.e., Courier, Times Roman, or Helvetica); other fonts may be used but must be included in the PostScript file In addition, authors should separately Email the title, author names, full address and abstract of their paper to the program chairs. All submitted papers will be judged based on their quality through double-blind reviewing where the identities of the authors are withheld from the reviewers. Authors' names should not appear on the paper or in the postscript file. TUTORIALS Proposals for tutorials are solicited. Evaluation of the proposals will be based on expertise and experience of instructors, and the relevance of the subject matter. Potential instructors are requested to submit at most 5 pages, including a biographical sketch to Arvind Krishna (krishna@watson.ibm.com). PANELS Panels are solicited that examine innovative, controversial, or otherwise provocative issues of interest. Panel proposals should not exceed more than 3 pages, including biographical sketches of the panelist. Potential panel organizers should contact Tom LaPorta (tlp@boole.att.com). STUDENT PARTICIPATION Papers with a student as a primary author will enter a student paper award competition. The student will receive a cash award of $500,- US Dollars. A cover letter must identify the paper as a candidate for the student paper competition. IMPORTANT DATES Submissions due: May 1, 1996 Notification of acceptance: July 15, 1996 Camera-ready version due: August 31, 1996 For More Information: Please contact Ian F. Akyildiz (ian@ee.gatech.edu) or Zygmunt J. Haas (zjh1@cornell.edu), the Program Co-Chairs. WWW/GOPHER INFORMATION This CFP and other ACM related activities may be found in http://info.acm.org/sigcomm/mobicom96 (for WWW browsers) GENERAL CO-CHAIRS: HAMID AHMADI RANDY KATZ IBM T. J. Watson Research Center Computer Science Division Room H3-C04 EECS Department P. O. Box 704 University of California Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 Berkeley, CA 94720-1776 Tel: 914-784-7219 Tel.: 510-642-8778 Fax: 914-784-6205 Fax.: 510-642-5775 Email: hamid@watson.ibm.com Email: randy@cs.Berkeley.edu PROGRAM CO-CHAIRS IAN F. AKYILDIZ ZYGMUNT J. HAAS School of ECE School of Electrical Engineering Georgia Tech Cornell University Atlanta, GA, 30332 Ithaca, N.Y. 14853 Tel.: 404-894-5141 Tel.: 607-255-3454 Fax.: 404-894-5028 Fax.: 607-255-9072 Email: ian@ee.gatech.edu Email: zjh1@cornell.edu TUTORIAL CHAIR LOCAL CHAIR ARVIND KRISHNA BOB FLYNN, Polytechnic University IBM T.J. Watson Research Center P.O. Box 704, H3-D32 VICE CHAIR Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 TOM LaPORTA, AT&T Bell Labs Tel.: (914) 784-7965 Fax.: (914) 784-6205 PUBLICITY CHAIR Email: krishna@watson.ibm.com B.R. BADRINATH, Rutgers Univ. TREASURER STEERING COMMITTEE CHAIR RAJIV JAIN, Bellcore IMRICH CHLAMTAC, Boston Univ. PROGRAM COMMITTEE Rafael Alonso, Matsushita Labs Victor Bahl, DEC Brian Bershad, U. of Washington Ramon Caceres, AT&T Imrich Chlamtac, Boston U. Tony Dahbura, Motorola John Daigle, U. of Mississippi Maurizio Decina, CEFRIEL JJ Garcia Luna, UC Santa Cruz Mario Gerla, UCLA Peter Honeyman, U. of Michigan Pierre Humblet, Eurecom Tom Imilienski, Rutgers U. David Johnson, CMU Phil Karn, Qualcomm Mark Karol, AT&T Jay Kistler, DEC Barry Leiner, ARPA Jason Ying Bin Lin, NCTU Teresa Meng, Stanford U. Mahmoud Naghshineh, IBM TJ Peter O'Reilly, GTE Labs Charlie Perkins, IBM TJ Ray Pickholtz, GWU Dhiraj Pradhan, Texas A&M Chris Rose, Rutgers U. Krishan Sabnani, AT&T Mischa Schwartz, Columbia U. Martha Steenstrup, BBN Gordon Stuber, GaTech David Tennenhouse, MIT Marvin Theimer, XEROX Mehmet Ulema, Bellcore Newman Wilson, D. Sarnoff RC Parviz Yegani, Qualcomm ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Indiana: 317 to Split Date: 9 Apr 1996 20:35:50 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA From Ameritech (also available on their web site): 317 Area Code Will Run Out of Numbers By 1997 Because of an ever-increasing demand for telecommunications services -- cellular phones, pagers, computer modems, fax machines and additional lines -- it's projected that the 317 area code will run out of telephone numbers by mid 1997. A telecommunications industry team has been convened to analyze the situation and provide a workable solution. The team is composed of companies that provide telecommunications services in the 317 area code. This group plans to seek input from community leaders and the public regarding how best to establish relief for the new area code. The team met for the first time December 12, 1995, and it's expected it will finalize an area code relief plan by mid 1996. The 317 area code serves central Indiana, including the city of Indianapolis. Indiana's other two area codes -- 219 in the north and 812 in the south -- are projected to have numbers available to supply demand for at least the next five years (based on current demand). See our press releases for more information. (JC Note: Ameritech has expanded their area code split info significantly on their web site; it can be accessed at www.ameritech.com/areacode) John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: Jan Ceuleers Date: Tue, 09 Apr 96 15:10:44 +0200 Subject: Advertisement of 900 Numbers A few weeks ago (OK, about a month) I requested information on the rules applicable to the advertisement of telephone numbers that, when called, carry a surcharge for the caller, part of which is paid by the telco to the called party. In many countries, including Belgium, these are called 900 numbers. I've received a number of excellent responses, but haven't had time to explore some of the leads they contained. However, since I had promised a summary, I suppose I'd better make some time for that first ... Here's my original question: Jan Ceuleers wrote: > 900 numbers, at least in Belgium, are numbers that carry a > surcharge which is partly paid to the subscriber of the 900 > number. This means that calling a 900 number is generally more > expensive than calling other numbers, and that the called party > makes money out of people calling him. > I'd be interested in hearing about the regulations applying to > the advertisement of 900 numbers or their equivalents in > different countries, particularly with respect to the requirement > or lack thereof to mention the price (per time unit) of a call in > the advertisement. If such a requirement does not exist, is there > a requirement to mention the price of the call during the first > few seconds of the conversation, giving the caller time to hang > up if he does not agree with the charges? A summary of the responses follows: David E A Wilson wrote: > Here in Australia our latest phone book says the following: > How are InfoCall calls charged? > Calls are either charged on a Timed Fee basis or a Fixed Fee > basis. Timed Fee tariffs consist of an initial Message > Introduction fee plus a per second charge for the duration of the > call. Fixed Fee tariffs consist of a set charge, including > Message Introduction fee, irrespective of the call duration. The > same tariffs apply Australia wide, irrespective of time of day or > day of week. > What do InfoCall calls cost? > The Service Provider sets the price they want to charge for their > InfoCall services. Callers will pay a minimum of 15 cents for the > message introduction. Calls that proceed beyond the Message > Introduction will be charged in accordance with the tariff for > the service called. > + Timed Fee call costs range between an average rate per minute > of $0.35 and $5.00, depending on the service called. Fixed Fee > calls have set charges between $0.35 and $30.00. (more information on access to InfoCall from payphones etc. deleted for brevity). This response, although very interesting, does not mention how the caller is informed of the actual cost of the call when it lasts beyond the Message Introduction period, short of consulting the tarriff beforehand. david.quinton@almac.co.uk (DAVID QUINTON) wrote: > Hi Jan, we run "0891" numbers, here in the UK and we are VERY > strictly regulated. > For a copy of the Code of Practice under which we operate see:- > As I said earlier, I haven't yet had time to look into these leads. FOURNOLS Romain COM/MKT wrote: [Extensive editing was required to compensate for a character translator gone haywire somewhere along the line. I apologize for any errors that may have been introduced in Mr. Fournols' post as a result, JCE]. > Jan Ceuleers asked in TD > V16#114 about "premium numbers" outside Belgium. > Here it is a list of those numbers in France and their leguals > requirements : (currency : 1 US$ = 5.04 FF) > 36.60.XX.XX, pagers services, differents prices per call or per > minute, no mention of price required, but companies do so > 36.61.XX.XX, pagers services, differents prices per call or per > minute, no mention of price required, but companies do so > 36.62.XX.XX, pagers services, differents prices per call or per > minute, no mention of price required, but companies do so > 36.63.XX.XX, local call rate, the company paid the difference > 36.64.XX.XX 0.74 FF/minute VAT included, mention of price > required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in > French francs per minute VAT included > 36.65.XX.XX 3.71 FF/call VAT included, mention of price > required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in > French francs per minute VAT included > 36.66.XX.XX 3.71 FF/call VAT included, mention of price > required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in > French francs per minute VAT included > 36.67.XX.XX 1.48 FF/minute VAT included, mention of price > required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in > French francs per minute VAT included > 36.68.XX.XX 2.23 FF/minute VAT included, mention of price > required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in > French francs per minute VAT included > 36.69.XX.XX 2.23 FF/minute VAT included, mention of price > required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, radio, ...) in > French francs per minute VAT included > 36.70.XX.XX 8.90 FF/call + 2.23 FF/minute VAT included, > mention of price required on any advertising (TV, newspapers, > radio, ...) in French francs per minute VAT included, and mention > of price of the call during the first 12 seconds of the > conversation, giving the caller time to hang up if he does not > agree with the charges. France Telecom adds an information > message BEFORE the connection and during its establishment, > including the price of the call. > Note : > - after 18 October 1996, add 08 prefix before the eight digits > number, 36.64.XX.XX to 36.70.XX.XX changes to 08.36.64.XX.XX > to 08.36.70.XX.XX. > - the 05.XX.XX.XX toll free numbers (called "Numero Vert") > changes to 0800.XX.XX.XX > - the 36.63.XX.XX (called "Numero Azur") changes to > 0801.63.XX.XX This seems to be an excellently organized system, where a lot seems to have been done to protect the innocent caller from surprises in his phone bill. Kenneth R. Wells suggested the following URL: http://www.tccg.com/scoop.html Judging from the instances where I've seen 900-numbers advertized in Belgium, it would seem that no requirement exists here to inform the caller of the cost of such calls, although the more responsable advertizers make an effort to. It's not always easy, particularly on a television commercial, to mention the peak and off-peak cost of a call and still get the rest of your message across. There have however been some echoes in the local press about prizes being given away "for free" to people who can answer some question or other by calling the number 0900 . These press articles claimed that the prizes were actually being more than paid for by the income generated by the 900 number, so that these games were in effect lotteries, and calling the 900 number was equivalent to buying a lottery ticket. Jan Ceuleers Jan.Ceuleers@f857.n292.z2.fidonet.org AKA ceuleerj@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 10:49:37 +0600 From: JONGWON PARK Subject: Invitation to Policy Workshop We are a graduate student organization named "Science Policy Dicussion Group" at Virginia Tech. We would like to invite everybody on the list to our workshop. The registration is free, but you need to register so that we can prepare your participation. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Send e-mail to: jongwonp@vt.edu or acrumpto@vt.edu. Yours, Jongwon Park Science Policy Discussion Group ----------------------- Dear Colleagues: The Science Policy Discussion Group is sponsoring a policy workshop on April 27. Below is more detailed information. We would enthusiastically welcome your participation! Practicing Policy Workshop: Exploring Tensions Between Democracy and Technocracy in Policy Making for the Environment, Health and Safety, Information and Urban Renewal Saturday, April 27, 1996 9:00 am - 5:30 pm Squires Brush Mountain Room A The Science Policy Discussion Group is hosting the Practicing Policy Workshop to critically explore the techniques and implications of public policy making for issues involving the environment, health and safety, information and urban renewal. The purpose of the workshop is to bring together academics, community organizers, government officials, business representatives, and interested others to discuss tensions between technocratic and democratic views on making public policy in these areas. The goal is to better understand how policies are made in a variety of social settings through the involvement of a number of different participants. Particular attention will be given to discussion of the roles of expert and lay knowledge, the meanings of democracy for a technoscientific society, and strategies for building new alliances among participants. The workshop format is intended to encourage an informative and creative exchange of ideas among participants with diverse backgrounds and interests. Four working groups will be set up to discuss the specific policy areas -- environment, health and safety, information and urban renewal -- around broad thematic questions. Participants will be assigned to begin discussions in one of the four groups based on their preference, as well as a need for balance/diversity of backgrounds in the groups. Group members will be rotated throughout the day so that participants may engage in at least three of the four topic areas and interact with participants from other groups. Facilitators and voluntary spokespeople will pull together reports from the groups to be presented at the ending plenary wrap-up session. The workshop is open to the public, with no registration fee. Pre-registration by April 25 is encouraged. Please call Amy Crumpton at 951-52554 (e-mail: acrumpto@vt.edu) or jongwonp@vt.edu to register or for further information. Schedule for Saturday, April 27: 9:00 - 9:30 Welcome - Squires Brush Mountain Room A 9:30 - 10:45 What are the roles of expert and lay knowledge in policy? Environment - Brush Mountain Room A Health & Safety - Brush Mountain Room A Telecommunication- Squires Room 302 Urban Renewal - Squires Room 217 10:45 - 12:00 What does democracy mean in a technoscientific society ? Rotate Working Groups 12:00 - 1:30 Lunch 1:30 - 3:00 Strategies for Forging New Alliances Rotate Working Groups 3:00 - 3:30 Break 3:30 - 5:30 Plenary Session and Group Reports Sponsored by the Science Policy Discussion Group and the Center for the Study of Science in Society. ------------------------ Registration template for science policy discussion group's _Practicing Policy Workshop._ Saturday, April 27, 1996 Name: Affiliation: Address: Telephone: E-mail: Please rank order (1-4) the following working grops according to your interests: Environment: ( ) Information/telecommunication: ( ) Health and Safety:( ) Urban renewal: ( ) Return form by April 25, 1996 to Amy Crumpton, CSSS (0247) 335 Lane Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0247, 540-951-5254: acrumpto@vt.edu Science Policy Discussion Group Formed in Fall 1991 by Dr. Doris Zallen (Virginia Tech Center for Interdisciplinary Studies), the Science Policy Discussion Group provides an informal setting for students, faculty and community members to explore science and technology policy issues, both regional and global, and to examine the institutional frameworks within which science and technology policy decisions are made. In 1993, the Group registered as a student sponsored organization at Virginia Tech. On-going projects of the organization are a speaker series and an annual conference or workshop. In April of 1995, the organization sponsored a three-day conference entitled, "Environmentalism and the Politics of Nature," which included a wide variety of participants from various universities, the local community, activist organizations and policy makers. ------------------------------ Subject: Ameritech Billing Not Handling 708/847 Split Well Date: Tue, 09 Apr 96 05:15:50 GMT From: ehall@wwa.com (Earl Hall) I received my latest home phone bill from Ameritech today, which contains the following charges under the heading "Long Distance": No. Date Time Place Called Number Code Min Amount 1 3-13 1234P ELK GROVE IL 708 718-nnnn E 1 .13 2 3-13 1235P ELK GROVE IL 708 718-nnnn E 1 .13 3 3-21 1110A ELK GROVE IL 708 718-nnnn E 1 .13 4 3-25 907A ELK GROVE IL 708 718-nnnn D 1 .14 Trouble is, these calls are not "Long Distance" calls from my home in Skokie, Illinois. These are calls to the place I work, not more than 12 miles away -- well within "Band B" of our 3-band Market Service Area. I think the problem is thus (any other theories welcome): The 708-718 exchange (soon to be 847-718) was recently created and part of it assigned to our DID lines at work when we finally upgraded to a modern PBX and management allowed us humble employees to have individual Direct Dial numbers to our desk. I think a billing system table somewhere is missing that 708-718 exchange, but might have one for 847-718. My billing number for my home is already listed for the new area code: 847-933-nnnn. But we are still in the Permissive Period for the 708/847 split, so my local switch still assumes the 708 area code for 7-digit numbers. The billing program probably can't find the 708-718 exchange in its tables and assumes it to be a Long Distance call. One question: Can Ameritech now handle "Long Distance" calls? (I haven't received any offers from them to become my LD carrier.) If not, how can their system bill for Long Distance calls? Earl Hall Unix Administrator AAR Corp +1-847-718-6077 Elk Grove Village IL ehall@wwa.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Billing for long distance (via other carriers) is not the same as 'handling' long distance calls. Ameritech is officially in competition for intra-MSA calls as of April 7 but I think they had some of that during March. Do you think the calls you mentioned above were possibly made through some other carrier which is using Ameritech -- technically their competitor! -- as the billing agent? You did not mention there being any reference to the name of a company at the top of the page. Any possibility that in dialing those calls some five digit carrier code was used? PAT] ------------------------------ From: bes@brill.com (BES, Inc.) Subject: New Web-Based Moderated Telecom Newsgroup Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 17:20:06 GMT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) Brill Editorial Services, Inc., creator of the popular Mutual Funds Home Page(sm) [http://www.brill.com/] and Intranet Journal(sm) [http://www.brill.com/intranet/], has now created a new, Web-based and moderated newsgroup for postings relating to telecommunications issues. The service is free, and can be accessed by pointing your Web browser to http://www.brill.com/telboard/ Thanks. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Good luck with your new feature! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #167 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 10 11:49:27 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA18203; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:49:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:49:27 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604101549.LAA18203@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #168 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Apr 96 11:49:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 168 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Pacific Bell Modifies ISDN Rate Request (Robert Deward) "Important" Notice From Sears (Chris J. Cartwright) Cellphone Security (Florida Times-Union via Tad Cook) Post-Pay Coin Phones Confused Kaczynski (Tad Cook) BellCore Updates Web Page (John Cropper) New Dutch Number Plan Now Final (Jan Joris Vereijken) The Right to Television Signals (Debbie MCDowell) NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong (Monty Solomon) Cellular Roaming Guides (Stanley Cline) Expiring Old Numbers (Michael J. Wengler) Sprint Fridays: Business or Residence? (WSJ via Michael J. Wengler) CDA vs ACTA and Other Interesting Questions (Terry J. Walters ) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bobd@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Deward) Subject: Pacific Bell Modifies ISDN Rate Request Date: 10 Apr 1996 13:06:08 GMT Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA Pacific Bell has modified the ISDN rate request it filed last December with the California Public Utilities Commission. The following statement is attributable to Tom Bayless, Director, Switched Digital Services for Pacific Bell: As a result of the California Public Utilities Commission March 13 order and related pricing rules that provide guidelines on how Pacific Bell will resell its products and services, we have modified our December filing on ISDN pricing. Under the amendment, we will raise the monthly fee for ISDN by $8, rather than increasing the per-minute usage charge. The CPUC order moved ISDN into a competitive product category. In this category, the rules for how the product should be priced require that each component of ISDN (i.e., usage, monthly fee and installation) be priced separately, and that each component be priced to enable us to recover our costs. As a result, the various components can no longer subsidize each other. Under this scenario, our December request proposing an increase in usage to help us cover our cost of providing the service is no longer viable. Our amended proposal will enable us to provide the service at a monthly rate that is still among the lowest in the nation, and with usage charges that are among the most reasonable in the U.S. It also reflects concerns weUve heard that raising the per-minute charges would have a significant impact on our heavy ISDN users. For further information, please check the public policy section of the Pacific Telesis Home Page on the World Wide Web. The Web siteUs URL is http://www.pactel.com. ********************************************** Bob Deward, Pacific Telesis External Affairs, S.F. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:48:20 EDT From: Chris J. Cartwright Subject: "Important" Notice From Sears Yesterday I received my Sears bill. While I usually just pitch all the flotsam and jetsam that they stuff in with the actual bill, there was one insert that I thought I should hold onto. It was titled "Ammendment to Account and Security Agreement". So I scanned it to see what new horror they were going to inflict on me for the *honor* of carrying their card, when I came across this tidbit in the neatly numbered twenty-five paragraphs that outlined the rules to my account; 19. PHONES CALLS: Sears may call me by telephone regarding this account. I agree that Sears may place such phone calls using an automatic dialing-announcing device. Sears' managers may listen to and record phone conversations between Sears' associates and me for training purposes or to evaluate the quality of Sears' service. As I have no objection to them calling me, or recording what goes on during that call, I *assume* they will have no objection if I use an "automatic answering-announcing caller-id'ing device" and choose not to answer the phone. But seriously, has someone complained so vigorously about getting a "machanized" call from Sears that they thought they actually had to write this thing in to the credit card agreement? Like Pat I generally hang up when I get the calls that say, "We have and important call for you, please hold the line". Yeah, so important that you can't have someone there when I say hello. I guess we aren't all that far away from having your machine call my machine, and my machine "saying" it's OK (or any other vaguely affirmative response) to start my four year subscription to "Roach Rancher's Quarterly", and while you're at it PLEASE bill my credit card in advance. But until then I'll hide behind my caller-id and IVR systems, so if you really want to talk to me leave a messaege at the tone. Christopher Cartwright, Tech. Engineer Mail dsc3cjc@imc220.med.navy.mil [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, people have complained vigorously thinking that people were spying on them when a supervisor at a company listened in on a call between a representative and a customer. It sounds silly, but some people have made an issue out of that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Cellphone Security Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 23:02:29 PDT Seminar Focuses on Security for Cellular Phones By Simon Barker-Benfield, The Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News Apr. 10--If you have a cellular phone, be careful - you are vulnerable to the rapidly growing, $500 million-a-year cellular fraud industry. But help from technology is on the way, said Mary B. Anderson, director of security for the cellular division of AT&T Wireless Services. Anderson was in Jacksonville yesterday for a day-long technical seminar for about 80 law enforcement officials. Stealing cellular service is an easy business to get into, said Anderson, and the most common technique used today is "cloning." "Cloning is where the real customer's telephone number and electronic number is stolen and programmed into another phone," Anderson said. "You can go into the cloning business for anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000," she said. What makes it particularly easy to steal cellular ID numbers is that the phones broadcast them the moment they are switched on, making them vulnerable to cloners armed with with electronic scanning equipment. One popular location for cloners is outside the stores where the phones are sold, Anderson said. Customers buy the phones, turn them on as they leave the store, and the signal is grabbed by the cloner, Anderson said. And the cloning business is booming. Two years ago, stolen cellular phone codes were being sold for $10 each. Today, the street price is 50 cents to $1, reflecting the huge increase in the availability of stolen cellular IDs. One cloner recently arrested in Miami had 22,000 stolen numbers, Anderson said. The stolen codes make it hard to trace phone calls, which appeals to drug dealers and other criminals, Anderson said. But the growing use of digital cellular phones is bad news for cell-phone con artists, Anderson said. Digital phones can include technology that automatically sends hard-to-crack authentication codes. Cellular phones with the authentication feature -- which will not cost extra -- should be available within six months, said Jim Lipsit, an AT&T Wireless project manager working with Anderson. "When we turn authentication on and it's running on your phone, you won't have to worry about turning your phone off," Lipsit said, referring to the telltale signal from cellular phones. In the meantime, there are things that cellular phone owners can do to protect themselves. "Be alert if you start to receive a lot of what appears to be either equipment problems or systems problems like fast-busy," Anderson said. And watch out for a lot of incoming wrong numbers, such as, "if people call and ask for Joe," she said. "Or if friends call you on your number and get someone else," said Anderson. ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Post-Pay Coin Phones Confused Kaczynski Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 23:17:26 PDT Unabomber Suspect Had Trouble Working Pay Phone By BOB ANEZ Associated Press Writer HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- The former math professor suspected of building sophisticated bombs in an 18-year campaign against technology couldn't figure out how to use a pay telephone, a phone company official said Tuesday. In a 1991 letter to the state Commerce Department, Theodore Kaczynski complained that a pair of phones in the small town of Lincoln sometimes took his money without allowing him to make a call. "He didn't understand how the pay phones worked," said Bob Orr, general manager of Lincoln Telephone Co. He said Kaczynski frequently complained about the two public phones along the highway that runs through Lincoln. Kaczynski did not understand he had to wait for someone to answer before he deposited his coins, Orr recalled. "The instructions were right on the phone," he said. "All he had to do was read them." Kaczynski, who lived a pauper's life in a 10-by-12 foot plywood shack with no water, phone, plumbing or electricity, often stopped by the phone company office to complain. "He came to the office and we gave him his dime back," Orr said. Kaczynski, suspected of being the mastermind behind the Unabomber bombings, was arrested last week at his home and charged with possessing bomb-making materials. He has not yet been charged with any of the Unabomber explosions that killed three and injured 23 people. Kaczynski, who holds a doctorate in mathematics and taught at the University of California at Berkeley in the late 1960s, complained to the state Commerce Department that the company wasn't acting on his complaints. "Clearly the phone company has an obligation either to replace defective pay phones or to repair them effectively and permanently, or to remove them altogether," he wrote. The phones are "still robbing the public of quarters" and the phone company is aware of the problem, he said. "Thus, they are consciously defrauding the public." Orr pointed out that the phones required only dimes to make a call. The letter was forwarded to the state Public Service Commission, which regulates phone companies. The commission staff referred it to the telephone company, which wrote a reply to Kaczynski. The response pointed out when coins must be deposited in order to make a call and that calls can be placed without putting in any money. Kate Whitney, who handles consumer complaints for the commission, said she found the letter, typed on a manual typewriter, in her files Monday and notified the sheriff's office, which in turn notified the FBI. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On the subject of TK and the Unabomber case, readers will recall that on the day TK was originally arrested I published here my own belief that the FBI had the wrong person; a belief I still espouse. I've promised a few people I would print some rebuttals and the only problem I am running into now are that there are *so many* rebuttals and other commentaries. In the pending queue I have 79 articles in basic disagreement with me and 60 articles in partial or complete agreement with me. I don't know where to begin in sorting it all out. This item brought more response to me than any article I can recall in the past. I'll see what I can do with it all a bit later today. PAT] ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: BellCore Updates Web Page Date: 10 Apr 1996 09:32:34 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA Welp, Bellcore *finally* updated their NANP web page (www.bellcore.com/NANP/newarea.html). New additions include: 809/664 Montserrat, effective 96/07/01, mandatory 97/06/01. Test #: 664-491-0025 809/868 Trinidad & Tobago, no date or test number announced 216/440 Cleveland, effective 97/07/05, mandatory 98/01/03. No test # available. (This was mistyped on the page itself as 513/440) Also added were the already-known info (216/440 was "known"), including 513/937. *Not* addressed: 508/978 and 617/781 for Massachusetts (and NYNEX's press release web page hasn't shown any new material since December 1995!) Well, they're getting there ... John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: janjoris@win.tue.nl (Jan Joris Vereijken) Subject: New Dutch Number Plan Now Final Date: 10 Apr 1996 11:44:14 +0200 Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands Reply-To: janjoris@ACM.ORG (Jan Joris Vereijken) Hi, For those of you that occasionally call to The Netherlands, please note that as of today the new dutch number plan has entered it's final phase. So as of today THE OLD NUMBERS IN THE NETHERLANDS DON'T WORK ANYMORE. This affects about 80% of all numbers in The Netherlands. If you have any "old" numbers you haven't renumbered yet, you'll find a renumbering table at: http://www.win.tue.nl/win/cs/fm/janjoris/decibel.html At that URL you'll also find a little information about the new numberplan in general. If you have any questions left, you can call: +31 6 0096 to reach a real human person at the helpdesk of the number-plan people, or, +31 6 0520 to get lost in voice-mail hell ("please press 0 for yet another random stupid menu"). Within The Netherlands, these are toll-free calls. From outside the Netherlands, you probably pay the normal international rate. Kind regards, Jan Joris ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 21:39:22 EDT From: Debbie MCDowell Subject: The Right to Television Signals I live in N. Va., directly under the air traffic routes using Dulles International Airport. With no cable or satellite, we would have 'zip' television reception. (We rent a dish from Time Warner (Primestar). Recently we recieved notice from the satellite carrier that a local television channel was challenging the carrier's right to furnish a network channel. (With our dish, we recieve NBC from a New England station. The local NBC station, WBC, is claiming it's right to be the only ones who furnish the NBC signal in this area. Therefore our signal that we purchase from Time-Warner is scheduled to be deleted.) If WBC is successful in their bid to cut the signal, our home will no longer be able to view the NBC signal ... due to the air traffic. While viewing the WBC channel without a paid provider, every time a plane flies over our house, (dozens of daily flights) our television signal cuts out. The notice we recieved refers to Satellite Home Viewer Act as the explaiation for the move. Even with an antenna, we still get unviewable reception. I am hoping someone can advise me how to stop this. Does a local station have the right to a monopoly, based on the location? Does the law allow that competition has the right to govern a paid service? If the local company is not able to furnish a product, how can it object to another company who can and is providing the service? Has anyone out there had this experience? Or heard of it? Another "control" issue ... Thanks in advance. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:27:04 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM The NYNEX "Time" number (+1 617 637 1234) is reporting the incorrect time. It is fast by about 20 seconds. How do the phone companies set this time? Is this the same time used by the billing computers? Thanks, Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01701-0405 monty@roscom.com ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Cellular Roaming Guides Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 22:43:11 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services For all those that are interested ... Cellular Directions no longer publishes its "Official Roaming Handbook". They have apparently decided to focus on their (expensive) Cellmaps series, which is distributed on CD-ROM. (The CDs start at around $350.) Also, they have moved down the Florida coast; their new number is 941-514-3998. HOWEVER ... "The Cellular Travel Guide," published by Communications Publishing of Seattle, is still available; a new edition is planned for August (according to their voice-mail message.) They can be reached at 1-800-927-8800. (I ordered one of the latter today.) Stanley Cline ** Roamer1 on IRC (see why?) mailto:scline@usit.net or mailto:scline@chattanooga.net CIS 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~scline/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 11:12:49 -0800 From: mwengler@qualcomm.com (Michael J. Wengler) Subject: Expiring Old Numbers gordon@sneaky.lerctr.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote: > Subject: Dr. Kevorkian? Sorry, Wrong Number > Date: 3 Apr 1996 23:26:27 GMT > An article in the {Dallas Morning News} describes how Diane Hackett > would like to euthanize her telephone. > Her home phone number used to be the number of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. He > used to have his number publicized in all the Detroit-area > directories. Eventually he got an unlisted number, and his old number > was eventually recycled and issued to the Hackett family. (The > article did not say how long it took the number to be recycled except > for a reference to his move "a few years ago".) They are getting calls > for Dr. Kevorkian at all hours of the day and night. Sometimes it's > the old and infirm or anxious or desparate and suicidal. Sometimes > it's reporters. What with the widespread prevalence of software and algorithms these days, may I make a suggestion to the phone companies out there? Record rate of hits on unused phone numbers. That is, record number of times each number is attempted, perhaps on a month by month basis. Then your list of unused numbers can be rank ordered from least-called to most-called. Or even simpler, numbers can be made available when they fall below some threshold level of 'wrong-number' dialing. That threshold could be as simple as the average hit rate on these unused numbers. In this way, Gramma's old phone number can get recycled almost as soon as she is, because she just never really took to the phone that much anyway. On the other hand, Kervorkian's number, old pizza parlor numbers, etc, will live on unused for as long as is needed for the system to wring out its continued incessant ringing of these numbers. Sponsored by "Alogorithms 'R Us", a non-existent organization. Michael J. Wengler mwengler@qualcomm.com A-290K7 at QualComm, Inc. Voice: (619) 658-5476 6455 Lusk Blvd Fax: (619) 658-1033 San Diego, CA 92121-2779 Beep: (619) 605-3580 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 09:02:46 -0800 From: mwengler@qualcomm.com (Michael J. Wengler) Subject: Sprint Fridays: Business or Residence? I found this article today 4/9/96 in the {San Diego Union Tribune}. The author is Guatam Naik with byline of {The Wall Street Journal}. Some of the claims in the article: In January, Sprint launced *Fridays Free* "giving small businesses a year of free long-distance calls every Friday." "But some Sprint representatives let some residential cusotomers sign up as well." "It apparently didn't take long for Sprint to realize it might lose tens of thousands of dollars in annual revenue from otherwise low-volume residential customers who insisted they signed up legitimately. "Sprint says these customers numbered 'in the hundreds,' but ... may have feared that droves of other residential customers also would demand the service." "At the end of last month, it sent Mailgrams to the Fridays Free residential customers seeking proof of their 'business status.' "In the message, Sprint said it had 'tried without success' to reach the customer, who would be switched to the standard Sprint Sense discount plan unless the proof was submitted soon." ... The article mentions a customer who was cut off March 28, and who called to get reconnected. "He says a Sprint representative told him he was among 8,000 residential customers who lost service." "Robin Lloyd, Sprint's small-business marketing chief, concedes: 'It was our fault: we do regret the confusion.' But the company hasn't formally apologized to its customers." ****** Business vs. residence status is not one of the protected distinctions over which you cannot discriminate in business, so presumably Sprint is within its legal rights to do this. But what is 'proof' of business status, I wonder? Michael J. Wengler mwengler@qualcomm.com A-290K7 at QualComm, Inc. Voice: (619) 658-5476 6455 Lusk Blvd Fax: (619) 658-1033 San Diego, CA 92121-2779 Beep: (619) 605-3580 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The reporter based his story on the series of articles which appeared in this Digest. In addition, he interviewed me by telephone a couple days before the story ran. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:19:12 -0700 From: tjwalt@ix.netcom.com (TJ & Peggy Walters ) Subject: CDA vs ACTA and Other Interesting Questions Pat, I recently read the filing by ACTA concerning the unfairness of "free" LD service by Internet Phone, Webphone, and others. Upon reading some of the replies by other Digest readers, I realized that no-one made the connection with the Communications Decency Act. So here are my two cents. Consider this (to the sound of the Twilight Zone theme) ... 1) If ACTA gets it's way and imposes FCC tariffs and rules on the Internet Service Providers, that will make them "Common Carriers" (this language was used in the filing). Common Carrier status means that a carrier is *not* responsible for content in the legal (lawsuit, big bucks) sense. This would cripple the CDA or save ISPs depending on your viewpoint. 2) If CDA wins the regulatory battle, then ISP's do *not* become common carriers because they would be publishers -- responsible for content and access. As such, they wouldn't be subject to tariffs (get over it LD companies, welcome to the competitive world). Other questions: Assuming the CDA resists the court challenges, ISP's would be responsible for preventing "indecent" content getting into the hands of kids. How would the sysops control "indecent" I-Phone and CU-SEE-ME data from traveling over the net? Before the reader answers, please remember, we'd be talking Federal wiretap laws now ... "CDA criminals" who are subject to jail time and big fines, are those who knowingly expose kids to "indecent" material. Does this include the parent who wants to show his 17 year old some sex education ... oops I mean porn ... er, indecent ... material that's on the net such as the "How to put on a condom" or birth control webpages? On the LD issue, I pay a tariff (local phone call) to call the ISP's POP, the ISP pays LD charges for a T1 line from the POP to their facility then additional charges to connect to the Internet backbone. Although the LD companies aren't getting nearly the same fees as private LD phone calls, the I-Phone option doesn't exactly leave them without an income. Regards, Terry Walters Serendipity Labs (619)695-8792 Where Creative Minds = Innovative Products ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #168 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 10 13:11:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA23896; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:11:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:11:04 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604101711.NAA23896@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #169 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Apr 96 13:11:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 169 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Gordon Hlavenka) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (David Sternlight) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Paul Robinson) Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN (Jonathan Cohen) Re: New Area Codes in SoCal - Boundary Questions (Paul Robinson) Re: Velocity of Propagation Values (Dave Fuller) Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ (Mark Fletcher) Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere (Paul Robinson) Re: Goliath at Bay - George Gilder's Latest Essay (Frank Pitt) Re: Having File Transfer Problems Across Modem/Termserv/Telnet (P Robinson) Re: Internet Kidnap Suspect Pleads Not Guilty (Andrew Laska) References Wanted For ARETE TELECOM, INC. (kerux@anet-dfw.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (gordon hlavenka) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Organization: Vpnet - Your FREE link to the Internet (708)833-8126 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 05:26:00 GMT Dave O'Shea (dos@panix.com) spaketh thusly: > I'll be amused to see the first case where a carrier is named as > co-defendant after a particularly horrid car accident attributed to > someone being inattentive while dialing that second string of digits. Bob Goudreau wrote: > People need to be responsible for their own actions instead of > always looking for some other party to blame. The fact is, if using > your cellular phone (whether listening, talking, dialing a PIN or > dialing some other number) diverts so much of your attention that you > are no longer able to drive well, then you have no business trying to > do these two things simultaneously. True. But my phone has one-touch dialing. Most of the numbers I call I can dial without taking my eyes off the road. I paid (well, a lot) extra for the genuine Motorola hands-free kit so I could dial, talk and hang up without taking my eyes off the road. Ameritech has decided to change that, in order to benefit themselves. The good news (I guess) is that Cell One tells me they currently have no plans to make PINs mandatory in Chicago. And I'm not under contract to Ameritech ... Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: david@sternlight.com (David Sternlight) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Organization: DSI/USCRPAC Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:39:00 GMT In article , C. Wheeler wrote: > While it maybe a slight pain in the ass, it does reduce the > probability of fraud a great deal. Consider that -- a hacker would > have to intercept your log in to get your PIN. Entirely possible, but > he only gets the chance to do that once when you first turn on your > phone. In other words the phone company is shifting the cost of combating fraud from where it belongs, on them, to the honest customer. And do you think for a moment they'll lower their exorbitant and collusive rates (can you say "Duopoly"?) because of the fraud costs avoided through all those customers dialing all those PINs? David ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:42:10 EST From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by (sic) the > carriers do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. What I think you mean is 'why don't they use voice recognition'? A similar answer I've quoted before explains: "Mom, why are the [video telephones] here in Kansas City all flatties? The ones back in Dallas are all [stereoscopic/3D]." "Donald, whenever someone asks, 'Why don't they?', the answer is almost always 'money'." - Maureen Johnson in Robert A. Heinlein's "To Sail Beyond the Sunset" Doing verification by PIN is cheap to do. Verifying by voice is bound to be expensive and require new hardware. The celluar switch already has Touch-Tone(R) (DTMF) decoders and reprogramming the switch to look for a DTMF-entered pin number is not that difficult, nor expensive _for the carrier_. Pushing the problem onto the customer is one of the great labor saving (and cost cutting) devices for businesses. That's why phone company employees no longer dial telephone calls. Soneone once said with the number of calls that were going out (in the late 1930s) eventually the telephone companies would need almost everyone in the country to be a telephone operator. And they were right! Now, everyone does what the operators did: places the call for the customer. In this case, it saved money for the company, and, not having to wait for an operator was a much greater convenience which well exceeded the minor inconvenience of the customer having to dial the call themselves. > Voiceprints are supposed to be unique. Yes, but the equipment to distinguish them requires lots of hardware to do it in real time and isn't cheap. Now, expand that by having it constantly available for every incoming channel that calls are dialed on, plus redundant circuitry for when some parts fail, and you are talking about a major expense. > The voiceprint would also help out with the fraud problem since the > switch would only recognize the phone owner's voice to go with the ESN. If there are multiple people (such as members of a family) using it on rare occasions, then you have to remember to register everyone. If you have a group of phones assigned to say, an organization where different people sign out for them because they are going somewhere and use one as needed, then everyone who uses a phone has to be registered for every single phone. For phones with the owner being the sole user this might not be a bad idea, however. > You would speak to the phone saying something like "Dial, five five > five one two one two send." Your unique voiceprint would go to the > tower and either it would be acceptable or it would not be. Voiceprint recognition and speech recognition are two different things, and speech recognition is even more complicated (and thus more expensive). How someone says a number with a cold, or in noisy conditions, is a different sound than when they say it under other conditions, and may cause such problems as non-recognition or misdialing errors. Has anyone noticed anything about our good friends over at the company with a wonderful attitude toward customers and sterling customer service, i.e. Sprint, and its voice-operated calling card? Are they still offering that service? Or did they find too many complaints (not that it would phase them) over problems of speech recognition and false dialing? > Using a combination of voiceprint and what has been termed the > 'RF print' unique to each phone -- in combination of course with > the ESN -- should help cut down on fraud. If you have the RF print of the phone and the ESN, if the theory of different machines giving off different RF signatures is true, then the only means of committing fraud in such cases is to steal the original telephone, which I believe is not a significant issue. If you're doing that, then you don't need voiceprints. Further, if you use voiceprints, then you don't even need to check the serial number of the phone, because whoever says the phone number and 'send' is already registered to the system, they can simply be charged to their account no matter what phone they are using! Interesting idea, indeed. Probably too expensive to implement now, but perhaps in a few years, maybe not. Paul Robinson General Manager Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. ------------------------------ From: parrot@spuddy.mew.co.uk (Jonathan Cohen) Subject: Re: Cellular Carrier Forces Use of PIN Organization: Spuddy, UK. - Call +44 1268 515441 for free mail & news! Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:13:30 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I have often wondered by the carriers > do not use something like a voiceprint of their users. Voiceprints are > supposed to be unique. This would solve a couple of problems. One is Pat. It amazes me that after thirteen or so years of service the US cellular carriers haven't added more in-built security to their networks! Over here in the UK we have two main types of phones, the digital GSM phones where security and cloning are not currently an issue, and the older TACS phones where cloning is as much an issue as in the US I believe. (TACS is the UK analogue standard very heavily based on AMPS). Of our two analogue TACS networks Vodafone and Cellnet, Vodafone have just introduced what they refer to as "Authentication". This requires a long PIN type number to be entered (once) into the phone which is then used to encrypt the ESN/MIN combination. I believe some sort of "rolling code" is used to prevent eavesdroppers from decrypting the codes. All this occurs on the control channels meaning the user is unaware or affected by the improved security. I believe current subscribers with compatible phones (most made in the last three years) are being mailed advice on how to enable the extra security features. I have also heard reports that our analogue cellular networks are to be closed within the next ten years. Jonathan Cohen, parrot@spuddy.mew.co.uk. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 18:12:34 EDT From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Re: New Area Codes in SoCal - Boundary Questions Linc Madison writes in Telecom Digest: > First off, I had always thought that the current area code 714 snuck > across the border into Los Angeles County, but in fact it's the other > way around -- a small slice of Orange County is actually in the > 310/562 area, the towns of La Habra and Alamitos. When I lived in Long Beach, California (LA County), it was then in area code 213, and the local telephone company was GTE. They were also the local company for the next city over, which was Seal Beach in Orange County, and also GTE. Seal Beach and Long Beach were part of the same "service area" meaning that Long Beach covered Seal Beach as well. For that part of the 213 (now 310) area code, GTE was using all of 420-429, 430-439, and 590-599. Some of those exchanges were reserved specifically for Seal Beach, Leisure World (in Orange County) and so on. If you lived east of Cherry Avenue in Long Beach -- which would include Seal Beach and the lower half of the portion of Orange County in the Long Beach service area - you got free calling as far as Huntington Beach, which was in the 714 area code. It was a local call, but you still had to dial 1+714. I note that Huntington Beach is ALSO served by GTE. If you lived east of Cherry Avenue but also north of Willow Street, in addition to free calling to Huntington Beach, you also got free calling as far as some exchanges in Anaheim, which I believe included the exchange Disneyland was on. Those exchanges were also in the 714 area code. (Disneyland, however, I remember is served by Pacific Bell; I remember their pay phones there.) Now, if you lived WEST of Cherry Avenue (and it did not matter which side of Willow Street you were on), all of the 714 area code was a toll call. In fact, you could tell approximately what part of town someone lived in by their exchange. As it turned out, Los Angeles county has some very strange rate structures that are not symetrical. For example, in some places it was a local call from point A to point B, but a toll call from B to A! ------------------------------ From: dave fuller Subject: Re: Velocity of Propagation Values Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 18:24:31 -0700 Organization: PCSlink Michael R. Neal wrote: > Does anyone know of a reference work that provides Velocity of > Propagation (Vp) values for most of the widly used cable types and mfg > brands used in telecommunications today. Andrew has that information in their catalog. ------------------------------ From: Mark Fletcher Subject: Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 17:40:24 -0500 Organization: Bell Atlantic Meridian Systems Bruce Crawford wrote: > What I don't understand is why, when the area code supply was > increased with the addition of codes *not* having a 0 or 1 in the > middle, BA and other companies didn't do what was done in New York > City with 917: add overlay codes for pagers, cell phones, and other > special services. That way, the current area codes could have been > kept intact for at least a few more years. I wish I could take credit for this idea, but I can't. It was one of the best ides I saw on the subject. Look at the number of *wasted* numbers sitting there as "roll-over" or hunt numbers at small to medium sized companies. For example, your main number is 201-555-2000, you have 29 additional POTS lines that complement your "hunt group" of 30 lines with 2000 as the pilot number. These 29 numbers, 555-1485, 555-2947, etc. are *wasted* 201-555-XXXX numbers! Why not convert the "rollover" lines to the new NPA overlay? No one EVER dials these numbers, except maybe for testing. It seems to me that overlays NPA's are inevitable, there are just too many of us out there with multiple lines, and the supply is short. But I can't see forcing 11 digit dialing across the street when there are so many wasted numbers out there. IMHO the pecking order for overlay NPA's should be: 1. Rollover numbers; 2. Voluntary second lines (I never call my data line at the house); 3. Pagers; 4. Cell Phones; 5. Fax/Data lines. Maybe fax and data should be number 3. After all these are more likely to be speed dialed than manually dialed. Just my $3.48 worth ... Mark Fletcher Bell Atlantic Meridian Systems Adv. System Technician Parsippany, New Jersey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 07:18:29 EST From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere On 26 Mar 1996 14:57:26 GMT, Joel M. Hoffman , writes in TELECOM Digest: > in the New York area, cellular rates run roughly $0.65/min., > not counting the "free minutes"... in TX, $0.20/min. is closer > to average... three cellular carriers... but the rates are all > higher than elsewhere... population density ought to make > lower rates possible. Things are *always* more expensive in the New York City area. Not counting the fact that there is a heavy CITY income tax on top of state and federal taxes, and that the costs for everything there are higher than other places, not to mention the anti-business attitude of the City Government which requires mountains of paperwork to do anything (not to mention how much has to be paid in bribes and "squeeze"), the simple fact is places there charge more because they can get it. New York City is a "premium" place to be, and thus is more "deirable" for some people to be there, thus those who operate businesses there can charge more for the privelege. As a result, NYC is a "high-overhead" environment; and let's not forget the significance of what a cellular phone is: a non-essential item. That makes it an excellent target for discriminitory pricing and extra taxes. Think about it: people who get cellular phones are paying for what is, in effect, a luxury item. Cellular phone service is not something one "has" to have; one can always use other options. Luxuries are always much more expensive. Especially in New York. But it's not just there. Any place that is a "premium" area is more expensive to be in, and even in the surrounding areas. Let me use my own situation to give an example. Where I live in Silver Spring, MD, I live in a multi-floor two bedroom single-family house on about 1/4 acre of land with a nice back yard and very large front lawn. This house rents for $200 a month _less_ than what a smaller apartment (town house) with no yard was costing only eight miles away. Of course, that apartment which was 8 miles away was in Southwest Washington, DC. It is considered a "premium" city, has many of the disincentives New York has, and thus many things there are more expensive. If I were to move, say, to the upper Midwest, to some of the medium-sized towns that are large enough to have sufficient businesses to be able to find work there, I could probably rent a house there of the same size I am living in now, for about half of what this place costs. Wages are very similar, too. I spoke to the owner of where I am living now, and asked if he'd be interested in selling if I decided to do so. He said that he would, and this house was appraised at around $125,000. In that fairly good sized town in a midwest state, a similar house would *sell* for around $35,000. I would guess that the rent in that town for a house similar to this one would be about 1/2 of what we are paying, and probably 1/3 of what our place in DC cost us. Yet you don't have to travel all the way to the midwest to notice a difference in costs. There are people who commute to Washington, DC some 90 min. by train from Martinsburg, West Virginia,because the income here is much higher but the cost of living there is much lower. In the movie, "The Taking of Beverly Hills," the person narrating a voice over at the opening mentions that the entire City Police Department -- even the executives -- all live outside of town because on their salaries, of course, none of them can afford to live in Beverly Hills! Places considered "premium" places to be in are more expensive. Everything costs more, so everything costs more to cover the costs from everyone else increasing their prices to cover the overhead and the "premium" of being in a "desirable" area. > Further, Nynex charges "roaming" rates inside it's own > network. I don't know if the other carriers do, too. It depends on the area. I suppose, if they think the market will pay it, they will charge whatever they think they can get away with. > Is this a matter of price-colusion, or is cellular service > really that much more expensvie to operate in NY? I am not sure what you mean by "price colusion" but if you mean are they charging a lot more because they can get away with it, I'm sure they are. But let's not forget expenses, too; I'm sure there is more cellular fraud there than other places. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:... surprised... how expensive > cellular service was in New York.... cell phones are > *really* outrageous in Los Angeles, Atlanta and Miami. PAT] "Premium" places, Pat, so they can get premium prices, and cell phones are "luxury" items, so the price goes up. Paul Robinson General Manager Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 18:57:58 +1200 From: Frank Pitt Organization: Munden's Bar Reply-To: "Frank Pitt" Subject: Re: Goliath at Bay - George Gilder's Latest Essay In article <04.01.96.7669gheq1@massis.lcs.mit.edu> you write: > I am always please when I can tell you another one is here, by George! > And that is the case again today. The attached was received over the > weekend, and as usual, Gordon Jacobson will introduce the article. Just a note to say thanks for propagating George's work. An extremely interesting article. And he writes so well, I couldn't tear myself away from it ! Had to read it _all_ on one sittng and then sit back and breathe again. Thanks again. Frankie [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A lot of good comments come in to me regarding George Gilder's work. Like yourself, I always read his articles in one sitting, and often times go back and read them again a second time to fully understand what he is saying. I'm glad to have him as part of the Telecom Archives. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 08:14:33 EST From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Re: Having File Transfer Problems Across Modem/Termserv/Telnet On 27 Mar 96 17:53:18 GMT, mark@enterprise.ifp.uiuc.edu (Mark Inaba) writes: > I'm having problems ...Transfering a file using xmodem/ymodem/zmodem/ > kermit in the following manner: > the termserver executes a telnet: telnet 4446) Stop right there. Except for Kermit, X/Y/Z modem all want 8-bit transfer paths. Telnet is a 7-bit service, from the days of dumb terminals and 7 bit with parity transmissions. > Everything seems to work fine as far as menus and commands, > but when I tested various flavors of xyzmodem for file > transfers, I get only errors (nothing gets transfered at all, > usually. These protocols demand and require end-to-end 8-bit data channel service. Telnet changes this to 7 bit. Did you actually use Kermit? As woefully deficient in transfer throughput as that protocol is, it should be able to transfer 8-bit material over 7-bit lines, although you might have to set some parameters. > 1) Do I need to look into specifying telnet 8bit? Yes, if you can. > when I do it on the command line it only seems to screw up a > login You may have to set some things there; the system may be expecting only 7-bit connections, you come along with an (unannounced) 8-bit connection and the other side is confused. > ... but I've tried setting my pc modem to 7bit and nothing > was different. Setting your modem to 7 bits with parity is doing the same thing that telnet is doing, i.e. preventing you from using a full 8-bit channel for data. When data communications first got started, there was a big problem with noisy phone lines and how to use them adequately. The idea was to use 7 bits, with the highest bit as an indicator that the byte was valid. This highest bit, or "parity" bit, is discarded by the hardware so the transmitting programs never see it. With todays error correcting modems parity is unnecessary, so 8-bit-service can and should be used. But telnet is an old protocol, it has remained the same because some places still need 7-bit data service, especially very poor countries where old equipment has to remain in service due to cost concerns. > What is this 8 bit telnet and why does it exist? It exists for the same reason you are having a problem: to allow a continuous 8-bit data channel from end to end. You may want to see if other options such as rlogin are available, or talk to the administrator of your site and see what can be done to allow you 8-bit end-to-end transmission. > If my paths are going from 7 to 8 and back again, wouldn't > ALL my data get screwed up, including character? No. Look at it this way. The character upper-case 'B', is expressed in ASCII as 65, or binary 0100 0001. 7 bit transfers mean the leftmost bit is always clear, as far as your program is concerned. Since, in this case, it's already a zero, clearing it doesn't do anything. Therefore plain text having ascii values below 128 are unaffected by whether the data stream is 7-bit or 8-bit. What gets damaged are binary files containing character values above 127, which is archive files, executable files, and many kinds of data files such as word processor documents, graphic images, etc. You need 8-bit capability, so you need to find out how to get it on your system. Or find out how to get Kermit to work there, although the abysmally low throughput it gives, I'd recommend if at all possible, to try to ask your administrator there how to get 8-bit capability if you can. Paul Robinson General Manager Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Among Other things, we sell and service ideas. Call 1-800-TDARCOS from anywhere in North America if you are interested in buying an idea to solve one of your problems. ------------------------------ From: laska@netcom.com (Andrew Laska) Subject: Re: Internet Kidnap Suspect Pleads Not Guilty Reply-To: alaska@wallstreet.net Organization: Bogus, Inc. Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:28:19 GMT In article , ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu says: > On Thursday in federal court, 'Internet Kidnap' suspect Richard Romero > was arraigned. He appeared in court without an attorney and stated > simply his intention to remain silent, neither entering any sort of > plea or speaking in his behalf. > Romero, 35, of Jacksonville, FL is accused in the case involving the > thirteen year old boy from the north suburbs of Chicago who ran away > from home with Romero after meeting the older man through email and > interactive chat programs on the Internet in March. > Romero appeared before Judge Charles Korcoran. Since he had no attorney > and apparently canot afford one the judge appointed an attorney to > represent Romero. He stated to Romero that due to his decision to > remain silent the court was required to make a total presumption of > innocence at this point and enter a plea of not guilty in his behalf. > Romero will remain in custody pending further legal action during May > and June. Thanks for posting this Pat. To the geenral populus" Why is this treated as "the internet kidnapping story." Why is it not treated as what it is? "A kidnapping story." The fact that this guy was successful via the internet is a trivial fact. and in fact he was not successful via the internet. He got caught. If he had decided to randomly prey on children, as opposed to using a data service, it is very possible that he could have gotten away free and would have never left the electronic trail that he did. Andrew Laska [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess the adjective 'internet' is in the title because it is the word which makes the story different than your 'typical' kidnap report. I do not think it is all that 'trivial' that he was successful via the internet. After all, the internet chat programs make it much easier to form new friendships and remove much of the initial taboo involved in 'talking with strangers'. Now I will agree that much of the initial friendship formed is based on fraud and deceit in many cases, but none the less it gets formed and many of the early barriers get removed which would otherwise prevent 'things' from happening. Where children might not stop in the park to sit and converse with an older person, they are much more likely to sit on a chat program and talk with someone they *think, and have been lead to beleive* is another child their own age. A teenage boy is unlikely to hang around with an older guy or discuss much of his personal life with such a person but he is not reluctant to do so in a chat program with someone he has been *deceived into thinking* is a teenage girl. So contrary to what you say, the internet does not play a 'trivial' role. It removes the need to disguise one's appearance in terms of age and beauty, and it removes the need to disguise one's voice on the telephone for the purpose of gender identification. Then once the friendship has been formed -- admittedly based on fraud and deceit -- it becomes a 'trivial' matter to create a few more lies in the process of meeting the child, i.e. 'when you come to visit is it okay if my father picks you up at the bus station and brings you to our house?' I mean, do any of those guys go hang around school playgrounds any longer? If so, why? Now, more than ever, kids need to be told to *talk freely* with their parents about their friendships and the people they meet. The old safeguards won't always work. PAT] ------------------------------ From: kerux@anet-dfw.com Subject: References Wanted For ARETE TELECOM, INC. Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:46:21 GMT Organization: Anet I've been approached by a representative from ARETE TELECOM reselling long distance service thru Pioneer Telecommunications ... anyone heard of these companies? Do they have a track record? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #169 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 10 15:08:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA03501; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:08:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:08:26 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604101908.PAA03501@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #170 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Apr 96 15:08:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 170 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Latest NANP Information, Including Caribbean (Mark J. Cuccia) Can Cellular Phones Access Fonorola? (Patrick Coghlan) Re: Separating Fact From Fiction in the Movies (Gary Novosielski) Re: Social Insecurity (Steve Bagdon) Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library (Martin Baines) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Jawaid Bazyar) The Cost of LD (Paul Robinson) Last Laugh! IVRU Greeting (Mark Tenenbaum) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:17:33 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Latest NANP Info, Including Caribbean Bellcore NANPA updated their webpages on Tuesday 9 April 1996. The two most recently announced area codes for Ohio (announced in this forum by other participants) are on the website now: 440 OH splits from 216, permissive dialing begins 7-5-97, ends 1-3-98 (Cleveland metro will remain 216) 937 OH splits from 513, permissive dialing begins 9-28-96, ends 6-14-97 (Cincinnati metro will remain 513) And there are *several* updates on splits from 809, most of the Caribbean. 809 is becoming less and less of the Caribbean these days, and it is expected to be *exclusively* for the Dominican Republic, as each island territory or country requests their own new NPA. The Dominican Republic has been the only Caribbean entity which has *not* requested their own *new* NPA, so be "default" it could be that 809 will be their *own* NPA. 664 is listed as Montserrat Island, permissive dialing begins 7-1-96, ends 6-1-97. 868 is listed as Trinidad & Tobago, effective dates TBA. The proper effective dates for 268 Antigua/Barbuda and 758 St. Lucia are now indicated on the webpages. Incidently, over the past week, Bell South *has* added 268 as a valid (new) NPA in most of its ESS local switches throughout the metro New Orleans area, and I've been told by others that US West has been adding the 268 NPA into its switches in the Minneapolis area as well! I spoke with the Area Code administrator of Bellcore NANPA this morning, and was told that "ILs" (Information Letters) are being mailed out regarding the latest new area codes announced yesterday on their webpage. Please note, however, that there *are* some text and html formating errors in Bellcore's webpage, and even some minor factual errors. Hopefully, Bellcore will correct them. And now, here is a compilation of the NANP Caribbean: Begin End New permissive permissive NPA Location ("letters") dialing dialing 242 Bahamas (BHA) - - - - - - - - - 01 OCT 96 31 MAR 97 246 Barbados - - - - - - - - - - - 01 JUL 96 15 JAN 97 268 Antigua/Barbuda (ANT) - - - - - 01 APR 96 31 MAR 97 284 British Virgin Is. (BVI) - - (dates to be announced) 340 *** reserved *** (location and dates to be announced) 345 *** reserved *** (location and dates to be announced) 441 Bermuda - - - - - - - - - - - - 01 OCT 95 30 SEP 96 473 Grenada/Carricou (GRE) - - - (dates to be announced) 649 *** reserved *** (location and dates to be announced) 664 Montserrat Is. (MNI) - - - - - 01 JUL 96 01 JUN 97 758 St. Lucia (SLU) - - - - - - - - 01 JUL 96 01 JAN 97 784 *** reserved *** (location and dates to be announced) 787 Puerto Rico (PUR/PTR) - - - - - 01 MAR 96 31 JAN 97 868 Trinidad & Tobago (TNT) - - - (dates to be announced) 869 St.Kitts/Nevis - - - - - - - (dates to be announced) 876 *** reserved *** (location and dates to be announced) As of today (10 April 1996), only Bermuda, Puerto Rico and Antigua/Barbuda have begun permissive dialing. No location has completely split from 809, i.e. nothing is in "mandatory" dialing (yet) with their new NPA, except that with many of these Caribbean NPA splits, new central office NXX codes assigned in an area which has begun permissive dialing will be assigned *only* for the *new* NPA. Those new exchanges are *not* being assigned such that they are also in the 809 NPA. NPA's marked "reserved" are assigned to a Caribbean location, but it has not (yet) been "officially" announced. They were marked that way on the "master" NPA assignment and reservation listing I received from the Bellcore Area Code administrator at the "INC" meeting last month here in New Orleans. Another handout from the Bellcore NPA Code Administrator mentioned that the the following Caribbean locations have requested an NPA, but that an "official" assignment has not been announced: Cayman Islands; Dominica (please note that this is *not* the Dominican Republic) Montserrat (we now know that this *is* going to be 664) Trinidad & Tobago (we now know that this *is* going to be 868); At the March 1996 "INC" meeting, I spoke with the Cable & Wireless Cayman Islands representative who told me that they requested 345 for their new NPA code, but that Bellcore had not yet officially assigned it to them. 345 is noted above as "reserved" for the Caribbean. The following Caribbean locations haven't been mentioned in anything above, but I would *assume* that *they too* are going to be requesting their *own* new NPA codes: Jamaica; U.S. Virgin Islands; St. Vincent and the Grenadines (Bequia, Mustique, Palm Is, Union Is); Turks and Caicos Is. There will have to be more codes reserved for all of these locations if they are to split from 809, as the number of reserved codes identified above doesn't cover all of the Caribbean locations. Bellcore (on behalf of the particular Caribbean carrier and government) will probably pick a code from the "General Purpose" list of unassigned area codes. For more info on that, please refer to my "INC Report" or "Master List" of Area Codes, both of which have been submitted to this forum recently. While the following two Caribbean locations haven't been mentioned (yet) by Bellcore as requesting their own new NPA's yet, I would *guess* at the following: 784 SVG/SVI St. Vincent and the Grenadines 876 VRN U.S. Virgin Islands MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: bn207@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Patrick Coghlan) Subject: Can Cellular Phones Access Fonorola? Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:57:04 -0500 Organization: National Capital Freenet A friend of mine is considering purchasing a cellular phone. The deal includes free calling in the evenings and on weekends. The only problem is that she wants to be able to continue using her long distance carrier (Fonorola, in Canada). Currently, she can dial up the local Fonorola number (no PIN required - I guess it obtains her calling line ID automatically) from her home phone and place all her long distance calls. When she asked Fonorola if she could use the service from a cellular phone they said no, but I don't understand why. Do the cellular networks generally not signal calling line ID or whatever a company like Fonorola needs to validate the caller prior to allowing its network to be used? Thanks in advance. Pat bn207@FreeNet.Carleton.CA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Generally the cellular carriers are not under the same 'equal access' restraints as the land line carriers, at least here in the USA. They are not required to allow customers to use the long distance carrier of their choice. Some may choose to do so, but it appears the cellular company in your instance does not. I suggest your friend as Fonorola if they can give her a dialup number and a PIN to be used with her cellular phone. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: GPN Consulting Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 15:39:04 -0400 From: Gary Novosielski Subject: Re: Separating Fact From Fiction in the Movies In TELECOM Digest V16 #135, Gregory Edwards wrote: > In the book "Six Days of > the Condor" (the movie was "Three Days of the Condor") the hero pulled > a phone stunt of somehow wiring a number of pay phones together so > when they traced him they went to the first pay phone, found it and > then had to trace to the second, etc. In the movie "Sneakers" they > did something similar, but just online. Is this real or just made up? As shown in the movies, it is something of a dramatic device, but it is based on a genuine practice, known to old-time phone phreaks as "stacking tandems". This was a game played by users of the infamous and highly illegal "blue boxes" (which gave their owners the full powers of a real long-distance operator from any ordinary phone). Instead of simply calling point B from point A through one of the major call-switching centers ("tandems") around the country, they would route the call through one, then another, then another tandem, until a single call might travel the equivalent of (and in some cases literally) many times around the world, putting a small dent in the call carrying capacity of the network (and doing no good to the voice quality of the call, either). Often the same call passed through the same tandem many times simultaneously, in each case using up one incoming and one outgoing trunk line. Needless to say, no normal call would ever be automatically routed in such an extraordinary way. While the main point of these activities (if there was one) was simply "playing" with the system, it would make sense for someone who wished his location to remain unknown to pull a similar stunt. Tracing the call back to the origin would have involved unraveling the string one step at a time, and without the aid of today's computers, either. This would have frustrated nearly any attempt to trace the call. In "Sneakers," the concept of being able to tell, from the origin end, how far back the trace had progressed from the destination end, and the zooming map which showed the trace getting closer and closer are simply movie bunk. But "The Days of the Condor" was set in a time when "blue-boxing" was still feasible. Nowadays, with electronic switching systems having replaced nearly all of the sixties-era equipment, this sort of thing can't be done from the average basement any more, at least not as far as I would be willing to guess. But CONDOR was, after all, a member of the intelligence "community," and therefore might have had access to resources the average person does not. Though he was an employee of the Intellegence branch, not Operations, he was nevertheless an avid reader, and could be expected to know a lot about the workings of the phone system. Who knows but that there might still be some back-door "maintenance" features available by phone, even at this late date, just better hidden than they used to be. As an aside, fans of the movie will recall the last scene when CONDOR (Robert Redford) and his ex-boss (Cliff Robertson) are standing in front of the New York Times building, then located in Times Square, NYC. The boss has just realized that the entire story is now in the hands of The Times, and we (the audience) are taking our first deep breath in some minutes. But then he asks, "How do you know they'll publish it?" And we get that sinking feeling that they just might not. The parallel to the Pentagon Papers case is striking. And, as it happens, I had occasion to meet Daniel Ellsberg at a dinner about a year ago, and mentioned it to him. He said that final scene always gives him the chills, too. So I asked, "Do you think if you took a story like the Pentagon Papers to the Times today, they would still publish it?" "I doubt it," Ellsberg answered, "in fact, it was by no means a sure thing even *then* that it would be published. I personally believe that a major reason the Times finally decided to run the story was the fierce competition that then existed with the Washington Post. The Times didn't want to get scooped again, as they had been on more than one occasion. There was a rumor about that I had also secretly been in contact with the editors of the Post. (This was quite untrue, but I did nothing to correct the impression.) I suspect it was this, as much as any perceived duty to promote the 'good of the country,' that motivated the Times to publish the Pentagon Papers in the first place." Gary Novosielski mailto:gpn@village.ios.com PGPinfo: keyID A172089 GPN Consulting http://village.ios.com/~gpn 2C 5C 32 94 F4 FF 08 10 B6 E0 DE 4F A2 43 79 92 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:14:58 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Social Insecurity > FYI. Excerpt from Edupage, 7 April 1996. > SOCIAL INSECURITY > Several employees of the Social Security Administration are accused of > using access to the agency's computerized database to obtain private > information on 11,000 individuals and pass the information (such as > the person's mother maiden name) to a credit card fraud ring, which > was able to activate cards it had stolen. (New York Times 6 Apr 96 p6) Did anyone else notice the one(!) line comment in the wire story, that 99% of all computer fraud is performed *not* by 'hackers' (please notice the enclosing apostrophes) but by employees and other people (tech, support) who have genuine reason to have access to a computer system. Then why do 'hackers' get 99% of the press? But, oh well, my wife (newspaper employee) has to listen to me rant and rave about the technical inaccuracies and misreprentations in the paper every day. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net http://www.rust.net/~bagdon [TELECOM Digest Editors's Note: I don't know about the exact percentage of fraud committed from one side or the other, but I do know a great deal of it is 'inside jobs'. In one early case of computer fraud back in the middle 1970's in which the Amoco Oil/Diners Club credit card billing office took a big hit the fraud was perpetrated by a ring of employees right in the office who knew how to manipulate the computer records. What they did was find a bunch of records on the computer which had been left over from manual bookkeeping times. Most of these were very scanty, and had virtually no details about the customer. All were inactive accounts unused for many years. The employees changed the addresses on these inactive (probably deceased) customers over to post office boxes under their control and then proceeded to issue new plastic cards to those 'customers' via their own post office boxes. The fraud ring included three or four employees at the 60690 lockbox post office in downtown Chicago. I think they hit Amoco/Diners for about a hundred thousand dollars over a few hundred accounts. There were a couple of Amoco dealers in cahoots with them and a few Diner's merchants in on it also. I think I said yesterday credit card billing offices rank only behind Social Security back offices and Postal Service sorting rooms as snakepit-like places to work. When the above fraud was done, Amoco Credit Card occupied about half the building at 165 North Canal Street in Chicago with about 2000 employees; Social Security had the rest of the building for their operations with nearly 3000 employees. The whole place was a zoo. Many of the Social Security employees had their own scams going also. You are correct; the people we call 'hackers' had nothing to do with it. In one instance about 1968-69 Illinois Bell got hit with about a quarter-million dollars in fraud because of insiders at the company. Naturally, IBT tried to blame it all on the phreaks , and the simple facts were that yes, there were a lot of phreaks working for telco in those days along with a variety of war-protestors and other dissidents, all of who pretty much stayed in the closet. But it wasn't phreaks who ripped them off that time, it was a few people in their accounting and remittance-processing departments who knew too much for their own good. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Martin Baines Subject: Re: Bill Gates Gives Million Dollars to Our Library Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 14:58:23 +0100 Organization: Silicon Graphics Stan Schwartz wrote: > In TELECOM Digest V16 #150, edellers@shivasys.com (Ed Ellers) wrote: >> Of course, one guy has made a bizarre claim in several newsgroups that >> MS and Intel have some agreement that anybody selling x86 PCs is >> required to license Windows for every unit, whether they bundle >> Windows with it or not! > This is probably a mis-interpretation of the old agreement between MS > and IBM that said in part that no matter which version of DOS the PC > was shipped with (IBM PCDOS or otherwise), that a small license fee > was paid to Microsoft. As far as I know, this no longer applies. It could possibly also apply to some agreements where the PC vendor was offered a better price by Microsoft if they agreed to bundle a licence with *every* system, even if the customer didn't want it (e.g. the system was going to run Unix or OS/2). The reason for this might be MS ideas of hegemony, but it also might simply be that it made better commercial sense for both Microsoft *and* the PC vendor. For a start such a system is *much* easier to audit - hence reducing the vendors costs (all they need do is a "head count") *and* Microsoft's (they just need to verify the total shipped systems and not follow lots of other audit trails to see what shipped with the systems). If a vendor is shipping systems where over 90% of the systems are going to have a Microsoft licence, it may even make to sense to suggest the idea to Microsoft, just to reduce the paperwork! Martin Baines - Business Development Manager Silicon Graphics, 1530 Arlington Business Park, Theale, Reading, UK, RG7 4SB email: martinb@reading.sgi.com phone: +44 (0)1734 257842 fax: +44 (0)1734 257606 vmail: +1 800 326 1020 (in USA), 0800 896020 (in UK), mailbox: 57940 URL: http://reality.sgi.com/martinb_reading/ Surf's Up at Silicon Graphics: http://www.sgi.com/International/UK/ ------------------------------ From: Jawaid Bazyar Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:44:46 -0600 Organization: Procyon Enterprises Inc. VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS wrote: > I am constantly amazed at the tactics long distance companies use to > con people into signing up. Why it is that these deceptive marketing > methods have never came back to haunt the BIG 3 carriers is beyond me. > You would think that someone in the media would pick-up on this stuff. > I guess that very few people bother to actually check their phone > bills. I decided a long time ago I wasn't going to give AT&T any more money directly. I now go through one of the bulk-buy carriers, in my case, Telephone Express. $0.10/minute, anytime, anywhere in the continental US, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no ifs, ands, or buts. In fact, if they ever charge me more than $0.10/minute, I get the whole call free (I have that in writing). Their 800/888 service is $0.17/minute during the day, and even less at night. Their 800/888 service is *cheaper than AT&T's nighttime rate in many cases*. I'm not too concerned about whether Telephone Express rides on AT&T's (or MCI or Sprint's) backbone - the 'Big 3' are less likely to jerk around a company that buys millions of minutes in bulk every month than they are an end-user like me. And if they jerk too hard, there are lots of great technologies coming about that will allow Tel Express to jerk back. I'm not affiliated with Telephone Express in any way except as a VERY satisfied customer. Jawaid Bazyar | Affordable WWW & Internet Solutions Interlink Advertising Svcs | for Small Business bazyar@hypermall.com | P.O Box 641 (303) 781-3273 --The Future is Now!-- | Englewood, CO 80151-0641 (303) 789-4197 fax ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:03:26 EST From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: The Cost of LD On Mon, 01 Apr 1996 00:21:29 -0500, Gabriel Hutson writes in TELECOM Digest: > [Local Telephone] Companies charge the long distance > carriers.. to connect a call [at the local end.]... Of the > $.10-$15 (sic)... minute of LD, 60+% of that money will go > to paying the Bell companies. > Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Bell companies > will be allowed to offer long distance. However, > they don't own the nationwide networks like AT&T. But they do own regional networks. Bell Atlantic, for example, can carry a call as far south as the local areas in North Carolina, Kentucky and Tennesee State Lines that touch Virginia on the South, the parts of Ohio that are local to it from West Virginia, and the parts of New York that are local to it from Pennsylvania and New Jersey. This it can do without paying anyone for access charges or per minute rates. This is in addition to carrying calls anywhere within the area it has service connections in, which is Virginia, Maryland, District of Columbia, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. It already has these circuits and could offer short-distance toll calling today. > So, when a Bell does go into LD, and doesn't have its own LD > network and has to pay a LD carrier for access to its network, Who says it will pay a LD carrier for access to its network (or at least, pay by the minute)? It may simply do what the smaller LD companies do: lease circuits in areas it does not cover from one of the big five (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Cable & Wireless, and LCI/Wiltel) at bulk rates. Or it may go into cooperative arrangements with other Local companies for access to their lines, similar to the way Bell Atlantic and NYNEX decided to merge their cellular operations. Bell Atlantic is not competing for local phone service, for example, with Southwestern Bell, there is no reason the two of them couldn't decide to interconnect calls between one another and do settlements on the basis of however much traffic was carried one way or another beyond their own usage. Thus, for example, Bell Atlantic and Southwestern Bell could offer both offer long distance service over their own or the other company's networks, all the way from the Tip of Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico, to the Veranno Bridge in New York City, without using any circuits from ANY of the Long Distance Carriers. Or add in NYNEX and you have coverage over the entire East Coast to the Canadian Border and as far west as Ohio. Without using one foot of cable owned by AT&T, MCI, Sprint, C&W, or Wiltel, or paying any of them so much as one dime for usage. Bell Atlantic is already doing this on a limited basis: If I dial 411 from a telephone in Silver Spring, MD, DC, or Northern VA, or certain other areas in Bell Atlantic's territory (or a caller dials, for example, 202 / 301 / 410 / 703 + 555+1212, that call is carried over 50 miles from here to the directory assistance center located in West Virginia, which is outside of the LATA for this area. I'm sure, since DA calls are not time charged, and in fact, are provided free at Bell Atlantic pay phones, plus the first 6 are free for residential (3 for business) telephones and are 25c each after that, that the calls are being carried over Bell Atlantic's internal network which means the call does not cost them anything for transport. > [will] LD carrier's...charge the same huge [access charges] > Bell's have made them pay? No. > if not, then how much? Well, let's see. Last time I checked, a T1 connection was running about $800 a month per port, no time charges. (It may be more elsewhere and less in other areas.) This is the equivalent of about 24 dial connections, so for each region that they need to carry calls across, they can lease circuits from the long distance company for roughly $33 per line, per month. If you figure there are 3500 counties in the US, one company could lease a T1 that terminates in a switch in every county in the US, thus giving them direct T1 access to every local circuit in the country, for less than $4 million a month. There are other options, but this is one crude example of putting a hard circuit into every switch in the country. Of course, you don't even have to go that far. You only have to provide a point of presence somewhere in a Local Access Transport Area (LATA); the local telephone company has to provide a connection to you when a long-distance call is placed from anywhere in that LATA into your network, so that means you only have to provide T1s to each of the about 180 LATAs nationwide. With that, you can either lease circuits from the Big 5, or run your own circuits to the places offering the most cost effective choice as opposed to renting them from a carrier, or perhaps renting them from the other local telephone company as I noted earlier. So you can buy dedicated circuits in the largest areas to save lease charges, and you lease slightly more expensive virtual circuit time in the areas in the "middle of nowhere" (where you don't expect to have much traffic to justify full connections) from one of the big four. That's another option. Or, there is no reason that some of these local operating companies can't simply buy one or more of the smaller long distance companies that has full or partial coverage across the country, and thus work from already having a customer base and installed access in all 180 LATAs, then upgrade to expand capacity to be used as desired. Paul Robinson General Manager Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 12:20:28 -0500 From: Mark Tenenbaum Subject: Last Laugh! IVRU Greeting Mr. Townson: We can all use a little humor now and then, so here's some that was given me by a friend -- original source unknown. Mark D. Tenenbaum Plano, TX (214 soon to be 972) ************** IVRU Greeting from the Personality Disorder Hotline: "Welcome to the personality disorder hotline. If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly. If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2. If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5 and 6. If you are paranoid-delusional, we know who you are and what you want. Just stay on the line so we can trace the call. If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a little voice will tell you which number to press. If you are manic depressive, it doesn't matter which number you press. No one will answer." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #170 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 10 17:45:43 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA16366; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:45:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:45:43 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604102145.RAA16366@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #171 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Apr 96 17:45:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 171 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Who Retains The 809 Area Code? (Wil Dixon) Re: Latest NANP Info, Including Caribbean (Garrett Wollman) I Heard the News Today, Oh Boy! (Paul Robinson) Re: Bungled Phone Numbers in Ads (888 and New NPAs) (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: How Burglers Use CDROM Phone Lists to Find Easy Targets (Tim Dorcey) Re: AT&T Wireless Cellular: Caller-ID and PIN's (Lynne Gregg) Re: AT&T Wireless Services: Building a Factory? (David Breneman) Re: AT&T Wireless Services: Building a Factory? (GHarlow104) Re: Long Distance Solitations (Henning Voldtofte) Free EMail Address For Your FAX Machine (CALLFAX Information Service) Indiana to Get Criss Cross Directories Issued (George Goble) Re: Post-Pay Coin Phones Confused Kaczynski (John Cropper) Re: New Area Codes in SoCal - Boundary Questions (John Cropper) Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong (Danny Burstein) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wildixon@uiuc.edu (Wil Dixon) Subject: Re: Who Retains The 809 Area Code? Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 17:49:41 GMT Organization: University of Illinois Reply-To: wildixon@uiuc.edu Puerto Rico Specifically ... PR Puerto Rico 809 Adjuntas-A 829L Aguada-A 252L 868L Aguadilla-A 882L 890L 891L Aguas Buenas-A 732L Aguirre-A 853L Aibonito-A 735L Anasco-A 826L Arecibo-A 878L 879L 880L Arroyo-A 271L 839L Barceloneta-A 846L 881L Barranquitas-A 857L Bayamon-A 251L 269L 740L 780L 785L 786L 787L 794L 798L Cabo Rojo-A 254L 255L 851L Caguas-A 258L 743L 744L 745L 746L 747L Camuy-A 262L 820L 898L Canovanas-A 217L 218L 219L 256L 376C 704L 716L 876L 886L Caparra Heights-A 273L 277L 375C 380L 381L 382L 383L 384L 385L 386L 387L 388L 390L 391L 396C 397C 398C 399C 749L 781L 782L 783L 792L 793L Carolina-A 257L 276L 750L 752L 757L 762L 768L 769L Cayey-A 263L 738L Ceiba-A 865L 885L Ciales-A 871L Cidra-A 739L Coamo-A 825L Comerio-A 875L Corozal-A 859L Culebra-A 742L Dorado-A 278L 796L Fajardo-A 860L 863L Florida-A 822L Guanica-A 821L Guayama-A 864L 866L Guayanilla-A 835L Guaynabo-A 272L 303C 304C 305C 330C 416C 720L 731L 789L 790L Gurabo-A 737L Hormigueros-A 849L Humacao-A 285L 850L 852L Isabela-A 830L 872L Isla Verde-A 253L 791L Jayuya-A 828L Juana Diaz-A 260L 837L Juncos-A 734L Lajas-A 899C Lares-A 897L Las Marias-A 827L Las Piedras-A 733L Levittown-A 261L 784L 795L Luquillo-A 889L Manati-A 854L 884L Maricao-A 838L Maunabo-A 861L Mayaguez-A 265L 831L 832L 833L 834L Moca-A 877L Morovis-A 862L Naguabo-A 874L Naranjito-A 869L Orocovis-A 867L Penuelas-A 836L Ponce-A 259L 284L 840L 841L 842L 843L 844L 848L Quebradillas-A 895L Rincon-A 823L Rio Grande-A 887L 888L Sabana Grande-A 873L Salinas-A 824L San German-A 264L 892L San Juan-A 200L 213C 215C 249C 250L 268L 274L 275L 279L 281C 282C 289C 306C 308C 309C 313C 315C 316C 360C 370C 372C 374C 378C 379C 395L 401C 402C 403C 405C 406C 413C 482C 483C 486C 487C 505C 721L 722L 723L 724L 725L 726L 727L 728L 729L 730L 751L 753L 754L 756L 758L 759L 763L 764L 765L 766L 767L 788L 797L 799C San Lorenzo-A 736L San Sebastian-A 280L 371L 896L Santa Isabel-A 845L Toa Alta-A 870L Trujillo Alto-A 212C 214C 216C 283L 286C 312C 314C 317C 318C 319C 389L 748L 755L 760L 761L Utuado-A 894L Vega Alta-A 270L 883L Vega Baja-A 855L 858L Vieques-A 741L Villalba-A 847L Yabucoa-A 266L 893L Yauco-A 267L 856L VI Virgin Islands 809 Charlotte Amalie-A 690L 691C 692L 693C 712L 713L 714L 715L 770L 771L 774L 775L 776L 777L 779L Christiansted-A 773L Frederiksted-A 772L Kingshill-A 778L Wil ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: Latest NANP Info, Including Caribbean Date: 10 Apr 1996 15:46:15 -0400 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Mark J Cuccia wrote: > Incidently, over the past week, Bell South *has* added 268 as a valid > (new) NPA in most of its ESS local switches throughout the metro New > Orleans area, and I've been told by others that US West has been > adding the 268 NPA into its switches in the Minneapolis area as well! I tried to call 268-ANTIGUA from my home last Monday and had the following results: (1+ AT&T) succeeded (10211 Frontier/old RCI) intercept (10222 MCI) intercept (10333 Sprint) intercept (10444 Frontier/old Allnet) intercept MIT's 5ESS doesn't correctly parse new interchangeable NPAs, so I can't test this from work. So, it seems like NET^H^H^HNYNEX and AT&T are on the ball and the other carriers, well, aren't. I am served by the 617 277 (ASPinwall) exchange. Garrett A. Wollman wollman@lcs.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 04:05:16 EDT From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: I Heard the News Today, Oh boy! In hearing about problems people have with interference from radio stations, I'd like to mention an interference that isn't causing a problem. I have an ordinary telephone line which when I use it to place calls, there is no background noise or other problems. But, when my modem picks up the line, I can hear a radio station in the background. Sometimes it is faint, but other times it is loud enough to listen to as a radio station. But *only* when the modem takes the phone off-hook. It is WTOP, 1500 AM, which is the All-News station for Washington, DC. My guess is their transmitter is probably at least five miles away, so I'm not receiving it otherwise. I guess the addition of a modem inside a computer has in effect acted like a radio receiver, and thus it's strong enough to pick up that station. But not strong enough for it to be a problem. I note that it has even happened on this call which I am using to send this message. In other words, the radio signal is probably at this moment on the line with the data I am transmitting, but has no effect on it. This message is just to point out that in some cases, you can have known interference which is essentially harmless. WTOP isn't preventing my making data calls, so I don't have to do anything. So, I can still read the news (groups) I want to read. :) ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: Re: Bungled Phone Numbers in Ads (888 and new NPAs) Date: 10 Apr 1996 09:03:09 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) (Stanley Cline) says: > While listening to the radio at work today, I heard two ads (in a row!) > that made me take notice, not because of the ad itself, but because of > some of the stupid mistakes announcers made with phone numbers. Those > got me thinking of even more area code screw-ups. > 1) Ad for Primestar DBS dishes; phone number given in the ad is > 1-888-200-xxxx, the announcer says "remember, the call is toll-free." > In a voiceover at the end of the prerecorded ad, a second announcer > advises to call 1-*800*-200-xxxx. Evidently the radio station running > the ad doesn't know about 888 yet. I think they screwed up another 888 > number a few weeks ago. > Then ... > 2) Ad for BellSouth Mobility; their local (Chattanooga) number is > 423-894-xxxx. The announcer gave that number as, again, > *1-800*-894-xxxx. (Other recent mistakes in BellSouth Mobility ads: > stating that they uses a Motorola switch, when in fact they converted > to a Hughes GMH2000 -- with much fanfare -- nearly six weeks ago [that > ad ran last week.] Also, they used to give the wrong area code in > print ads that ran near the cutoff date for permissive dialing.) > ... Wake up, media and drugstores: NPA 888 exists, local numbers are > not 800 numbers, area codes have changed ... GET IT RIGHT! Stanley, telecommunications is the only industry where operations rules product and service design. These errors in product and service use are the result, not because the marketplace hasn't gotten it right, but because the industry doesn't listen to its customers and design based on their needs in the first place. What other industry gets away with such foolishness? Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ ------------------------------ From: Tim_Dorcey@cornell.edu Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:01:02 -0400 Subject: Re: How Burglers Use CDROM Phone Lists to Find Easy Targets PAT, I didn't see any suggestion in Bill's posting that distribution of CDROM phone lists should be limited, as you seemed to imply in your reaction. I think we would all agree that you can't stop the flow of information. What I heard Bill say, was that we should fight fire with fire and develope the technology to get more information flowing in the opposite direction i.e., to identify who is making casing-calls. This is exactly the kind of thinking we need in the information age. Tim Dorcey Tim_Dorcey@cornell.edu CIT Network Resources (607) 255-5715 Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Cellular: Caller-ID and PIN's Date: Tue, 09 Apr 96 16:44:00 PDT jfh@acm.org (Jack Hamilton) wrote: > I called AT&T Wireless today and asked them about two topics which have > been discussed here: > 1) Q: Will my cellular phone provide caller-id blocking on outgoing calls? > A: Yes. When caller-id starts in California, the default will be > blocking for cellular phones, exactly the opposite of land-line > phones. NO. This is not accurate. The default is to SEND Calling Party Number. The FCC Orders that CPN must be sent unless the consumer uses *67 on a per call basis to block presentation of the number. The other option for the consumer is to expressly order per line blocking. AT&T Wireless will notify and offer customers per line blocking at no charge (where State laws permit). In California, per line blocking will be offered. We fully understand and comply with the FCC's Orders on Calling Number Services. Jack, you also asked for a description of the "Casual Caller" plan. Seems like a very reasonable request to me. I'll dig and post to you directly. Feel free to do likewise. Regards, Lynne Gregg Product Manager, Personal Services (Caller ID and other network services) AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Headquarters ------------------------------ From: david.breneman@attws.com (David Breneman) Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Services: Building a Factory? Date: 9 Apr 1996 19:50:38 GMT Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. In article EschRob@aol.com writes: > Can anyone explain to me what is going on near Seattle with AT&T > Wireless Services? I have seen large advertisements posting job's > wanted for manufacturing and design engineers. I have also been told > by a friend that it looks like AT&T is building a factory there. Why > would a company who just announced the split of their equipment > company start putting up what looks like an equipment manufacturing > site, and start hiring equipment design engineers? Does this make > any sense? Can anyone explain? I don't know about a factory, but ATTWS is building a new "Corporate Campus" on the old golf course in Redmond. Currently, operations are split among a dozen buildings all over the Pugetopolis Metroplex (tm). Plans are to bring everybody together in one central site with bad freeway access. That may be the construction you're referring to. David Breneman Unix System Administrator AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Mail: david.breneman@attws.com Phone: +1-206-803-7362 Fax +1-206-803-7410 ------------------------------ From: gharlow104@aol.com (GHarlow104) Subject: Re: AT&T Wireless Services: Building a Factory? Date: 9 Apr 1996 14:00:00 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: gharlow104@aol.com (GHarlow104) They are gearing up for their PCS service offering. They have invested a lot of money to bid on the PCS licenses and need infrastructure and PCS technically qualified people to get their service offering to market. Not unlike all of the other carriers in the U.S. GH ------------------------------ From: hvoldtof@franklin.fairfield.com (Henning Voldtofte) Subject: Re: Long Distance Solitations Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 17:35:31 -0600 Organization: USA Global Link In article , Stan.Schwartz@IBMMAIL wrote: > Caller: "May I speak with the person responsible for making decisions > about long distance calling in your household?" > Me: (Sigh) "Speaking." > Caller: "Hi, this is (I forgot his name) from AT&T. I'd like to offer > you 6 months of calling at a 35% discount off of standard AT&T > rates." (continued speil about AT&T quality) > Caller: "So, may I switch you to AT&T?" > Me: "Isn't there usually some monetary inducement?" > Caller: "I'm glad you asked that. I'm able to offer you either a $50 > check or $50 in AT&T Long Distance gift certificates. Which > would you prefer?" > Essentially, they are paying me $50 and increasing my discount by 5% > in order to stay with the same company that I was using. > So ... what are the ethical problems (if any) with this? There are no ethical problems. It is not your fault that they can't manage to exclude their *own* customers from the lists of people to call. They didn't ask you who you currently used for long distance, and I don't see why you should have to volunteer it. Take the money and the discount and be happy. Henning Voldtofte hvoldtof@franklin.fairfield.com Phone (work): USA Global Link (515) 472 1550 ------------------------------ From: CALLFAX Information Service Subject: Free EMail Address For Your FAX Machine Date: 10 Apr 1996 20:34:56 GMT Organization: a2i network GIVE AN EMAIL ADDRESS FOR YOUR FAX MACHINE Dear Netter, If you are located in San Francico Bay area and have a dedicated fax line, we would like to invite you to check out our EMAIL ADDRESS FOR YOUR FAX MACHINE 3 Month FREE BASIC service. Once approved, your fax machine will be assigned an email address like: john_doe.fax@callfax.com This service will allow you, your friends, your clients worldwide to send emails directly to your fax machine. You get the immediate attention without turning on your computer and the sender will receive the email confirmation whether the transmission succeeds or fails. The service will automatically terminated after the trial period. Please note that your fax's email address is your privacy and CALLFAX should not reveal it to anybody. Please respond to this email or send fax to (408)247-5703 if you are interested. Thank you. CallFax ------------------------------ From: ghg@cidmac.ecn.purdue.edu (George Goble) Subject: Indiana to Get Criss-Cross Directories Issued Date: 10 Apr 1996 20:36:40 GMT Organization: Purdue University There have been constant radio spots here in Lafayette, IN for some company called "Thompson Directories".. They claim everyone on Indiana will receive their phone directory this summer. It is touted to contain number-to-name lookup (crisscross) for called-ID users and "a section for cellular users" (dont know if that means listing cell phone numbers?). ghg ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Post-Pay Coin Phones Confused Kaczynski Date: 10 Apr 1996 20:00:53 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA > In a 1991 letter to the state Commerce Department, Theodore Kaczynski > complained that a pair of phones in the small town of Lincoln > sometimes took his money without allowing him to make a call. > "He didn't understand how the pay phones worked," said Bob Orr, > general manager of Lincoln Telephone Co. A majority of the payphones in the US are PRE-pay, hence the confusion. A few small companies still have POST-pay phones, but they are not as popular here as in the UK ... John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I said here earlier today, the mail concerning JK and my earlier comments of a week ago is continuing to come in heavily. I've got about a hundred letters leaning each way on this. I'll pick one or two to use here, and try to summarize it all as soon as I can. PAT] ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: New Area Codes in SoCal - Boundary Questions Date: 10 Apr 1996 19:58:15 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA > As it turned out, Los Angeles county has some very strange rate > structures that are not symetrical. For example, in some places it > was a local call from point A to point B, but a toll call from B to A! That's not an unusual occurence here in the east. You can get from Dillsburg, PA (near Carlisle) one-way to Harrisburg, nearly 20 miles distant, but the reverse is a toll call. John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong Date: 10 Apr 1996 15:07:56 -0400 Organization: mostly unorganized In Monty Solomon writes: > The NYNEX "Time" number (+1 617 637 1234) is reporting the incorrect > time. It is fast by about 20 seconds. How do the phone companies set > this time? Is this the same time used by the billing computers? Ah, you see, the phone companies use TWO clocks. the first one, which is properly synchronized with UTC and the US Naval Observatory, et al, marks down the _start_ of the phone call. The second one, which you accessed (no doubt due to telco error), is used for timing the _end_ of the call. danny "20 seconds here, 20 seconds there, pretty soon you're talking real money(*)" burstein * with apologies to the late Senator Everett Dirkson dannyb@panix.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Speaking of clocks, how is everyone coming along who ordered one of the old WUTCO clocks from Jim Hill? I got mine (yes, still another one; now I have three in my basement office/computer area) cleaned up and mounted about ten days ago. I think everyone knows the most important thing of all in making old clocks of this nature run correctly is that they must be hung so they are *absolutely level*. Then the pendulum has to be adjusted by *very tiny* distances; literally the regulating screw has to be turned as little as a quarter or an eighth of an inch to the right or left as indicated. Then you set the hands *perfectly* and start the pendulum rocking back and forth. After 24 hours, you observe the time and reset the pendulum by about half the amount you set it before, and again reset the hands perfectly. You repeat this for a couple days, and when it gets to the point after a few days at a time you are unable to notice any discrepancy in the clock time versus an official source such as NAVOBS, then you let it go for about a week, and if you see a slight discrepancy at that point you again *barely* tweak the set screw as needed. I now have my newest addition regulated to the extent it has lost four seconds in the past week. I don't know if I dare tweak the set screw again or not. I guess a difference of less than a minute per month is not too bad for a clock like this. Jim Hill said he might be able to get a few more WUTCO clocks so if you don't have one and want to have one to examine and play around with, contact him direct at eli@seldon.terminus.com. I now have the three basic styles of clocks they used, so probably won't order any more for awhile. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #171 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 10 20:08:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA27017; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:08:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:08:22 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604110008.UAA27017@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #172 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Apr 96 20:08:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 172 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Cellular PINs/Roaming (James E. Bellaire) SMSC Numbers Wanted For a List (Alex van Es) Updated GSM List 96/04/09 (Jurgen Morhofer) Re: New 440 NPA, Cleveland Suburbs (Bradley J. Bittorf) The Unabomber and Where I am Coming From (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case (David Sternlight) Re: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case (Greg Hennessy) Re: The Unabomber Captured? I Don't Think So (Ralph Doncaster) Re: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Re: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case (John Higdon) Re: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case (phs3@waterloo.ca) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 03:00:39 -0500 From: James E. Bellaire Subject: Cellular PINs/Roaming It seems foolish to me to identify any cellular CO as a roaming only code. It would be much better to resrict the areas that a user's phone was able to roam in. The cellular companies need to set up a quick system to see if MIN/ESN matches the 'permitted to roam' list and allow the user to select the regions that their phone will work in. Or does this make too much sense? James E. Bellaire (JEB6) bellaire@tk.com WebPage at http://www.holli.com/~bellaire/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I don't think they are making those special prefixes for 'roaming only'. I think they are saying users cannot roam unless they are using one of those prefixes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alex@worldaccess.nl (Alex) Subject: SMSC Numbers Wanted For a List Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:25:09 GMT Reply-To: Alex@worldaccess.nl Hi all, Me and a friend of mine (Eamonn from Ireland) are compiling a list of SMSC numbers. SMSC (Short Message Service Centre) numbers are the numbers you program in your GSM phone in order to send out a message using SMS. So far we got about ten countries listed, but there are many more countries that support GSM and SMS service. So, if anyone reading this knows the SMSC number of his service provider, please email this to me at alex@worldaccess.nl. A list of what we got so far is available at http://www.worldaccess.nl/~alex/sms/smsc.htm. Regards, Alex Alex@Worldaccess.NL Apeldoorn, The Netherlands GSM: +31-6-53398711 or +31-6-54773429 Try to page me using my homepage at: http://www.worldaccess.nl/~alex/sms/beep.htm [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps the next message in this issue which Jurgen Morhofer sends to us from time to time as an update will be of some assistance to you in getting the information you are seeking. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 13:23:03 +0200 From: Jurgen Morhofer Subject: Updated GSM List 96/04/09 For the latest edition of this list look at my Web-Site: http://www.cs.tu-berlin.de/~jutta/gsm/gsm-list.html kindly supplied by Jutta Degener. And if you're already on the Web, take a look at my commercial site: http://www.pobox.com/~globaltel I really would appreciate your business! (Changes in the list marked by "*") Date 04-09-1996. Country Operator name Network code Tel to customer service ------ ------------- ------------ ----------------------- Andorra STA-Mobiland 213 03 Int + 376 824 115 Argentina Australia Optus 505 02 Int + 61 2 978 5678 Telecom/Telstra 505 01 Int + 61 18 01 8287 Vodafone 505 03 Int + 61 2 415 7236 Austria Mobilkom Austria 232 01 Int + 43 1 79744 Bahrain * Batelco 426 01 Int + 973 885557 Belgium Belgacom 206 01 Int + 32 2205 4000 * Mobistar Brunei Bulgaria Citron 284 01 Cameroon China Guangdong MCC Guangxi PTB Liaoning PPTA Croatia Post & Telecom =20 Cyprus * CYTA 280 01 Int + 357 2 310588 Czech Rep. Eurotel Praha Denmark Sonofon 238 02 Int + 45 80 20 21 00 Tele Danmark Mobil 238 01 Int + 45 80 20 20 20 Egypt Estonia EMT 248 01 Int + 372 639 7130 Int + 372 524 7000 Radiolinja Eesti 248 02 Int + 372 639 9966 Fiji * Vodafone 542 01 Int + 679 312000 Finland Radiolinja 244 05 Int + 358 800 95050 Telecom 244 91 Int + 358 800 1 7000 France France Telecom 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Germany D1, DeTeMobil 262 01 Int + 49 511 288 0171 D2, Mannesmann 262 02 Int + 49 172 1212 Gibraltar GibTel 266 01 Int + 350 58 102 000 G Britain Cellnet 234 10 Int + 44 860 321321 Vodafone 234 15 Int + 44 836 1100 Jersey Telecom 234 50 Int + 44 1534 88 28 82 Guernsey Telecom * Manx Telecom 234 58 Int + 44 1624 636613 Greece Panafon 202 05 Int + 30 94 400 122 STET 202 10 Int + 30 93 333 333 Hong Kong HK Hutchinson 454 04 SmarTone 454 06 Int + 852 2880 2688 Telecom CSL 454 00 Int + 852 2803 8450 Hungary Pannon GSM 216 01 Int + 36 1 270 4120 Westel 900 216 30 Int + 36 30 303 100 Iceland Post & Simi 274 01 Int + 354 96 330 India PT SATELINDO Airtel 404 10 Int + 98 10 012345 Essar 404 11 Int + 98 11 098110 Maxtouch 404 20 BPL Mobile 404 21 Command 404 30 Mobilenet 404 31 Skycell 404 40 RPG MAA 404 41 Indonesia TELKOMSEL 510 10 Int=A0+ 62 778 455 455 * PT Satelit Palapa 510 01 Int + 62 21 533 1881 Iran * T.C.I. Int + 98 2 18706341 Ireland Eircell 272 01 Int + 353 42 31999 Digifone Israel Cellcom Israel Ltd Int + 972 2 795944 Italy Omnitel 222 10 Int + 39 2 41431 Telecom Italia Mobile 222 01 Int + 39 339 9119 Japan Kuwait MTC 419 02 Int + 965 484 2000 Laos Latvia LMT 247 01 Int + 371 2256 7764 Int + 371 2256 9183 Int + 371 2934 0000 Lebanon Libancell 415 03 Liechtenstein Natel-D 228 01 Lithuania Comilet * Mobilos Telkom 246 02 Int + 370 2 232323 Luxembourg P&T LUXGSM 270 01 Int + 352 4088 7088 Lybia Orbit Macao CTM 455 01 Int + 853 8913912 Malaysia Celcom 502 19 Binariang 502 12 Malta Advanced Marocco O.N.P.T. 604 01 Int + 212 220 2828 Mauritius Monaco France Telecom 208 01 Int + 33 1 44 62 14 81 SFR 208 10 Int + 33 1 44 16 20 16 Namibia MTC 649 01 Int + 264 81 121212 Netherlands PTT Netherlands 204 08 Int + 31 6 0106 Libertel 204 04 Int + 31 6 0500 New Zealand Bell South 530 01 Int + 64 9 357 5100 Telecom NZ Int + 64 4 801 7400 Nigeria Norway NetCom 242 02 Int + 47 92 00 01 68 TeleNor Mobil 242 01 Int + 47 22 03 03 01 Oman Pakistan Mobilink 410 01 Philippines* Globe Telecom 515 02 Int + 63 2 813 7720 * Islacom 515 01 Int + 63 2 813 8618 Portugal Telecel 268 01 Int + 351 931 1212 TMN 268 06 Int + 351 1 793 91 78 Qatar Q-Net 427 01 Int + 974 325 000 Rumania Russia Mobile Tele... Moscow 250 01 Int + 7 095 915-7734 United Telecom Moscow =20 NW GSM, St. Petersburg 250 02 Int + 7 812 528 4747 SaudiArabia Saudi Telecom=20 Serbia Singapore Singapore Telecom 525 01 Int + 65 738 0123 Slovenia South Africa MTN 655 10 Int + 27 11 445 6000 Vodacom 655 01 Int + 27 82 111 Sri Lanka MTN Networks Pvt Ltd 413 02 Spain Airtel 214 01 Telefonica Spain 214 07 Int + 34 1 336 3300 Sweden Comviq 240 07 Int + 46 586 686 10 Europolitan 240 08 Int + 46 708 22 22 22 Telia 240 01 Int + 46 771 91 03 50 Switzerland PTT Switzerland 228 01 Int + 41 46 05 64 64 Syria SYR MOBILE SYR 263 09 Taiwan ROCLDGSM 886 92 Tanzania Thailand TH AIS GSM 520 01 Int + 66 2 299 6440 Turkey Telsim 286 02 Int + 90 212 288 7850 Turkcell 286 01 Int + 90 800 211 0211 UAE UAE ETISALAT-G1 424 01 UAE ETISALAT-G2 424 02 Uganda * Celtel Cellular 641 01 Vietnam MTSC 452 01 Zimbabwe Many Thanks to Kimmo Ketolainen, Robert Lindh and Alex van Es for their precious Help ! ------------------------------ From: bjb@petrel.cle.ab.com (Bradley J. Bittorf) Subject: Re: New 440 NPA, Cleveland Suburbs Date: 10 Apr 1996 16:39:45 GMT Organization: Rockwell Automation/Allen-Bradley Company, Inc. In article catfood@apk.net (Mark W. Schumann) writes: > The {Cleveland Plain Dealer} announced today that the remainder of NPA > 216 (which was just last month split by NPA 330) will be split again > in 1997. > 216 will retain almost all of the city of Cleveland except for a very small > cluster at the very end of what looks like Lorain Avenue on the low-res > map. 216 will also retain part or all of: Parma, Lakewood, East Cleveland, > Linndale, Brooklyn, Cleveland Heights and a few other close suburbs. I've been speculating about the "second" 216 split for some time now, wondering whether it would essentially be only Cuyahoga County in 216 and everybody else in 440. As it turns out, 440 looks almost as gerrymandered as the 13th U.S. Congressional district that lies coincident with much of it. [Hmmm, maybe we should deed over the nasty business of redistricting to ... nah.] It appears that on the east and south, the borders are essentially the interstate highways -- I-271 and I-480, respectively. There are some exceptions that appear to deal with median income in the communities retained. If you have enough clout, you stay in 216 ;-). But no communities outside Cuyahoga County are in 216, and many Cuyahoga County communities are changing, too. According to Ameritech, there will be no change in rates or local calling areas (other than 11-digit dialing [or will it be 10?]) after the 440 implementation dates, which, by the way, are June 1, 1997 for permissive dialing and January 1, 1998 for required use of 440. Of course, rates might eventually change ... and some of us are not served by Ameritech, but rather by local providers such as "Alltel: The Western Reserve Telephone Company." I'll wait to see what *they* say about rates. And whether I'll still be able to call metro Cleveland as a local call. Currently, my GTE Mobilnet cellular "local" area covers virtually all of northeast Ohio -- from about Vermillion to nearly the PA border west-to-east, and from Lake Erie past Canton north-to-south. In mid-'97, this will encompass major portions of 3 NPA's: all of 216, most or all of 440, and much of 330. I suspect this northeast Ohio region will be sliced up into smaller local regions, with the blame to the area code splits. If so, I'll be quite disappointed; I've become accustomed to this capability; under many plans cellular is cheaper than calls within the LATA. -Brad, who will be "moving" to 440 for everything. Bradley J. Bittorf O- Phone: 216.646.4629 Allen-Bradley Company/Rockwell Automation FAX: 216.646.3124 1 Allen-Bradley Drive, Mayfield Heights, OH 44124 bradley.bittorf@ab.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:39:35 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: The Unabomber and Where I am Coming From Altogether at this point, about 5:00 pm on Wednesday afternoon, I have received 215 messages responding to my remarks about the Unabomber case and Ted K ... the 'most likely suspect' at this point. Since each issue of the Digest typically has 10-15 messages, I could use the next 15-20 issues of the Digest merely printing them all. First of all, *thank you to everyone who wrote*. A recent earlier item of mine entitled 'How Some Netizens Abuse the First Amendment' also brought a large volume of replies and I used quite a few of those. The queue of pending mail presently has about 675 articles waiting for review and I am sorry to report, most of it will have to be flushed unused in the next day or so. I do read everything, and use as much as possible with my limited resources. Now on to the subject of Unabomber. A great many replies expressed much indignation with me for two main points: Some said it was a great insult to the FBI to accuse them of 'framing' TK. Many of those same writers suggested I was into conspiracy theories, etc. I assure you I generally am not. I'll admit to some hostility where the FBI is concerned since I have been spied on by that organization in the past, although it was many years ago. During the late 1960's and into the early and middle 1970's I made my own negative feelings about the war pretty well known. I 'hob-nobbed' here in Chicago with people who were activists although I was not nearly as involved as they. During the August, 1968 Democratic Presidential Convention here I was in attendance at the demonstrations which took place daily. I was at the 'Battle of Michigan Avenue' that Wednesday night ... Throughout 1968 much of the United States was embroiled in rioting, acts of disobedience, etc. About that same time, the Cook County States Attorney conducted an early morning raid on the headquarters of an organization known as the Black Panthers, killing several who were asleep. I wrote very critically of that event and of the conduct of the police throughout 1968 when times were very tough here. On two occassions I had the honor to meet Dr. Martin Luther King personally. The second such occassion was at a private dinner after he had been the speaker that night at the Chicago Sunday Evening Club. I found out *nine years later* that I was listed in the files of the Chicago Police 'Red Squad' because of having been seen that evening in Miller's Pub in downtown Chicago in his presence. The file included references to me during the Democratic convention in 1968 and a few other things. Much of the file was stuff the FBI had collected on me. So you'll have to excuse me, but I *know* how those guys can operate. I know they can twist and distort things around to reach any conclusion they desire, and they have unlimited resources to do so. Still bitter? Yes, I am a little. I thought it only fair to say I did not start this thread without a personal agenda of my own, but even so, I believed then and now there are serious questions in the Unabomber matter. Some people were totally unwilling to entertain the idea at all that the government also has an agenda here as does David K, the brother of Ted. No one seems to have their hands very clean at all in this mess, IMO. Some people wrote to say I was very unfair to the poor victims, but I did not mean anything like that at all. The second point raised by many writers was that I really had misused my position as 'moderator' by even mentioning anything about it at all in this forum. Most of you who been readers here for any period of time know me well enough to know I go 'off topic' now and then for refreshment. There were many who responded in agreement with me, but not all for the same reasons. A small sampling of the mail received follows at this time. PAT ------------------------------ From: david@sternlight.com (David Sternlight) Subject: Re: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case Organization: DSI/USCRPAC Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:19:00 GMT In article , ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote: > I really am not convinced this is the guy. > Something is wrong. The newspapers and FBI have told you TK is the > man and you are willing to accept that at face value. I am not. According to the LA Times of 4/6/96, peculiarities of his typewriter seem to match those in the letter sent to the NY Times. The typewriter has gone to the FBI lab for confirmation. Other than a paranoid "the government is framing him" theory, this evidence, if corroborated, seems impressive. David ------------------------------ From: Greg Hennessy Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 14:39:19 EDT Subject: Re: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA In article you write: > Something is wrong. The newspapers and FBI have told you TK is the > man and you are willing to accept that at face value. I am not. Pat, *MOST* of us are operating under the "innocent until proven guilty" and waiting until the accused has his say in a court of law. On the other hand *you* are printing multiple postings accusing the FBI of various felonies without any shred of evidence, and concocting scenarios where heads the FBI is wrong and tails the FBI is wrong. You are not displaying anything close to an impartial attitude on this issue. You should consider that. ------------------------------ From: Ralph Doncaster Subject: Re: The Unabomber Captured? I Don't Think So Organization: Bell Sygma Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:24:49 GMT Pat, You offer some interesting food for thought. I, too, am not convinced that this is the man. However, if the FBI is really setting him up, aren't they running a HUGE risk? If Ted is not the Unabomber then the real one is out there. The next time the "real" Unabomber strikes what do they do? (Claim there is a copycat now?) Ralph [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Precisely. Haven't we been told lots of times that once information gets out about something like this that there will always be 'copycats'? ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: rishab@nntp1.best.com (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Subject: Re: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case Date: 10 Apr 1996 23:38:31 GMT Organization: Best Internet Communications TELECOM Digest Editor (ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu) wrote: > Something is wrong. The newspapers and FBI have told you TK is the > man and you are willing to accept that at face value. I am not. Sometimes one can't help but believe in Chomsky's theory of a media conspiring with the government to fool the public. What the press is saying now doesn't fit with anything they said earlier -- when the FBI didn't know who Una was, and was willing to admit it. Now, not only does nobody notice the inconsistencies, but the media (with FBI encouragement, presumably) goes around quoting TK's high school classmates as saying that he was thin and wore glasses, and a good math student. Implying that every smart kid grows up to be a technophobe bomber? Everything about TK has suddenly been cast in a new light -- he seemed a nice guy, but now that you think of it, he did walk as if he thought someone was looking for him, no? He was always suspiciously quiet, remember? It's ridiculous how ordinary people -- the sort who form juries -- are capable of being hypnotised by the opportunity of appearing on TV, and imagining the past to fit what the FBI tells them is present fact. No matter how fair the courts are, no matter how many lawyers get involved, the principle of innocence until guilt is proven is very shaky these days. "Due process" has to apply to the whole legal system, and this extends far beyond the courtroom into the society that surrounds it. The Indian Techonomist - newsletter on India's information industry http://dxm.org/techonomist/ rishab@dxm.org Editor and publisher: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab@arbornet.org Vox +91 11 6853410; 3760335; H 34 C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:31:49 -0700 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case At 11:51 AM on 4/8/96, Patrick A. Townson wrote: > Something is wrong. The newspapers and FBI have told you TK is the > man and you are willing to accept that at face value. I am not. Neither am I. While a thorough search of an expansive estate MIGHT take in excess of a week, it is really a stretch to accept that a ten-by-twelve room would require more than a few hours at the most for a complete examination. Shortly after the suspect was safely removed to Helena, we learn that "bombs" in various states of incompletion and the infamous typewriter were found. Now, many days later, we learn that a completed bomb was found under the bed. UNDER THE BED? It took over a week to find something UNDER THE BED? Sandwiched in with the metered reports of the daily discovery of "key evidence" fragments, we hear that the suspect was turned in by a family member. Also revealed was that there is a substanial reward, which the family instantaneously assured the press would be used to help "the victims". This smells to high heaven. I am constantly reminded of Bradbury's _Farenheit 451_, in which Montag, the hero, is fleeing authorities. He escapes, but his "death" is faked on television so that the masses will believe "justice" is always served. "The criminal Montag is dead." I am disturbed by the thought that our FBI, burdened of late by a less than shiny image, may have found redemption in a made-to-order suspect. Planting evidence? Of course not. But how do we know? John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 | http://www.ati.com/ati | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Now we are told that brother David is writing a book on it; the first of the Unabomber books is supposed to be in distribution in about two weeks. Between the book sales and the reward, David is going to be a very wealthy man. Everyone knows by this point I guess that he and Ted had been on the outs for some time; David was 'appalled' by Ted's lifestyle. It does seem strange that items like a typewriter and a fully operational bomb *under the bed* -- in this 10x12 foot little space were not seen immediatly doesn't it? And note what Rishab says in the article before yours: the newspapers have done a total about-face in their stories from a year ago. You are not supposed to notice the various inconsistent reports. As Mr. Pulitzer, for whom the prize is named once said about his own brand of yellow journalism at the start of this century, 'Damn the public and their opinion! They'll believe what I tell them to believe ...'. To their discredit, newspaper reporters still covet that award when it is given each year. Ever called or written to a newspaper reporter to challenge the accuracy of a story? What is the first thing they do? They challenge your credentials to even speak up. Rarely do they get to the point of refuting your actual arguments. 'You will believe what we tell you to believe.' PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 11:13:30 EDT From: phs3@watdcs.uwaterloo.ca Subject: Re: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case In article , ptownson@massis.lcs. mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote: > Something is wrong. The newspapers and FBI have told you TK is the > man and you are willing to accept that at face value. I am not. I'm not willing to accept it at face value, but I'm also not going to reject it based on alleged information about the Unabomer released in the past few years -- if I were the FBI, I wouldn't necessarily have given out all the evidence I had, nor would I have necessarily made all the evidence released be 100% correct. I'm a little surprised, Pat, that you're doing so -- you seemed in your earlier post to be saying "The FBI said X last year and therefore Ted can't be the guy because they're now saying Y", which means you're believing them in the past but not now?! As for "electronic detonators", they aren't real tricky to build. Mr. Unabomber was certainly willing to tolerate technology where required; it doesn't surprise me in the least that the evil, bad technology would be employed in his quest for whatever he sought. None of which proves anything either way; but your critical thinking in this matter sounds a bit less clear than I've come to expect from you, which is disappointing. phsiii [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ahhh, I'll try not to disappoint you any more. In conclusion, I'll tell you this much ... I hope when Ted's trial starts -- and its just a matter of time before they find more stuff under the bed to feel confident in putting him on trial -- he refuses a jury and goes with a bench trial. You know the government will try to force him to go with a jury so that if he gets off they can blame the jury clowns for it and the 'prejudicial advance news in all the papers', etc. On the other hand, if the jury convicts him then justice will have been served and we can all sleep easier. Either way, the jury will be a valuable asset to the government, and the jury members will get to write their own books. I wonder if his trial will take as long as OJ, and be on television pre-empting everything else for several months or maybe even a year or two years. Yes, I hope Ted decides on a bench trial and sticks it to the judge who will have to decide on the basis of facts and proof-positive or depending on how much the judge is personally in hock to the FBI whether he wants to get his own head chopped off afterward. As John Higdon phrased it, TK is just too 'made to order' ... too convenient. Again, my sioncere thanks to all who wrote me. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #172 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 10 22:57:42 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA09873; Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:57:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:57:42 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604110257.WAA09873@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #173 TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Apr 96 22:57:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 173 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case (Mike P. Storke) Re: I Heard the News Today, Oh boy! (Gary Breuckman) Re: More About the Netizen's Association (Tom Goodden) More About the Mysterious Collect Calls From Jail (Larry Mayhew) Re: "Important" Notice From Sears (Richard H. Miller) Re: "Important" Notice From Sears (Gary Breuckman) Re: The Right to Television Signals (lr@access2.digex.net) Telephone Numbering Conference (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: Intelligent Networks (Art Kamlet) Re: Intelligent Networks (Ram Chamarthy) TelIt to Release Free Internet Phones (rhaynes1@microdigit.com) Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ (Art Kamlet) Re: AT&T Still Has "We Are the Phone Company" Attitude (Stuart Zimmerman) Re: Sprint Free Fridays - Morer Good News (Michael J. Wengler) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com (Mike P. Storke) Subject: Re: FBI Tidies Things up Nicely in Unabomber Case Date: 11 Apr 1996 00:41:45 GMT Organization: Great Basin Public Access UNIX, Reno, NV In article , TELECOM Digest Editor wrote: > Something is wrong. The newspapers and FBI have told you TK is the > man and you are willing to accept that at face value. I am not. I have to agree with this. The way this is going (and I am just hearing on the national news that they found a wrapped bomb, ready to mail) just seem WAY too perfect -- it smells of "SET-UP" all over it. Plus, look at the guy!! Does that look like a mind that could make these kinds of intricate devices and mail them anonymously? The guy doesn't even look like the Unibomber sketch (which I have noticed is suddenly absent from the media). Personally, I think that the FBI got so damned fed up with having absolutely no leads to go on that they decided to "manufacture the truth" (tip-of-the-hat to "Nowhere Man" for that phrase). Either they want to put someone behind bars, or they figure that the real Unibomber has some sort of conscience and that he'll go crazy when he sees what the government is doing to an innocent man. Either way, the FBI wins and Mr. K (I have no idea how to spell it!) loses. Mike P. Storke N7MSD Snailmail: 2308 Paradise Dr. #134 Inet: storkus@heather.greatbasin.com Reno, NV 89512 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well I certainly think he has the intelligence for it; after all, look at his credentials in the past. And yes, that sketch is now missing from the papers, along with all the parts of the 'profile' which don't match current reality. An interesting point about some rights of his that have been violated: search warrants do *not* extend any rights to the media to enter or examine the property being searched. That is to say, although I have no right to stop you, as a government agent in the execution of your warrant, I have a perfectly legal right to refuse entrance to any non-government tag alongs; i.e. the newspaper reporter, etc. None the less, the FBI is now allowing the media to traipse all through the little hut, examine all TK's possessions, etc. They did not ask TK his opinion on this of course, nor are they allowing him any media contact at all. The FBI will do all the talking if you please. I don't believe he has been allowed to make any phone calls or contacts at all with anyone other than the court-appointed attorney they gave him some three or four days into his custody. I think you can understand why it is very important that they keep TK out of the way until they have their case completely developed and public opinion firmly on their side. Has anyone heard anything at all from TK? Has there been anything at all in the papers which quoted him? And get this: to further demoralize him -- that's important! -- they have people sitting outside his cell staring at him 24 hours per day. Naturally when they take him to a head doctor sometime soon, the shrink is going to pronounce Ted to be very angry and hostile -- the shrink won't be able to imagine why -- it must be a mental condition. Prison psychiatrists know who signs their paycheck. So you see, it is a good thing we caught him. You can sleep better tonight. PAT] ------------------------------ From: puma@netcom.com (Gary Breuckman) Subject: Re: I Heard the News Today, Oh Boy! Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:27:11 GMT In article , Paul Robinson wrote: > I have an ordinary telephone line which when I use it to place calls, > there is no background noise or other problems. > But, when my modem picks up the line, I can hear a radio station in > the background. Sometimes it is faint, but other times it is loud > enough to listen to as a radio station. But *only* when the modem > takes the phone off-hook. > It is WTOP, 1500 AM, which is the All-News station for Washington, DC. > My guess is their transmitter is probably at least five miles away, so > I'm not receiving it otherwise. I guess the addition of a modem > inside a computer has in effect acted like a radio receiver, and thus > it's strong enough to pick up that station. But not strong enough for > it to be a problem. When radio-frequency signals get into a telephone line, it takes something non-linear (a semiconductor or a corroded poor connection, for example) to demodulate the signal so you can hear the audio. This problem is very often worse (or only present) with electronic phones or modems, rather than conventional phones. There are RF-filters you can add to a line, or sometimes just a ferrite donut that the linecord makes several loops through before entering the modem. Of course, if you are sure this is not creating a problem for you, then just ignore it. puma@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 19:38:17 -0500 From: gooddent@pa.net (Tom Goodden) Subject: Re: More About the Netizen's Association Pat, Mike, I believe the Netizen Association has great merit and would like to be involved. For the sake of debate, I would like to reiterate here a proposal I made at Telecom 95 in Geneva during one of the debates on the Internet. From inception, the ITU has functioned well as the first global body for telecommunications standards, interoperability and information exchange. In more recent times, they have opened their doors to the carriers and OEM houses, mindful of their new role in the increasingly privatized infrastructure. Why not create a class of individual ITU membership? I would look forward to paying the ITU monthly dues set 15-20% above that for bare Internet access if I knew that my contribution would bring me ITU news and views on-line and would also create a global fund for the extension of the Internet to new developing nations. Imagine the wealth of knowledge, cooperation and good will that would stem from the pooling of the resources millions of users in order to broaden global communications. It would be the realization of the aims of the Maitland Study and other similar ITU contributions of the past twenty years. Dr. R. Tom Goodden goodden@patriot.net ------------------------------ From: mayhew@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 19:53:22 CST Subject: More About the Mysterious Collect Calls From Jail In two further articles, the Bowling Green, Ky {Daily News} continues reporting collect calls from the county jail, billed to local citizens who say they didn't accept them. One couple disputed a $38 charge and say they received a letter from Invision denying there was any problem with the billing. Maybe Invision has changed it's mind. It's an out-of-town company that has a share-the-proceeds contract with the county to put a phone in each jail cell. An inmate can call for 15 minutes at a time, with each call being handled as a local collect call at a flat rate (apparently $1.75/15 min). Today's {Daily News} shows a picture of a local citizen holding up six pages of her latest telephone bill, filled with charges for 264 (!) collect calls to her phone from the jail. When she protested the $500 bill, she reports Invision said the charges were accurate and suggested that her children, or a baby sitter, or someone breaking into her house could be accepting the charges! I admire any intruder who accepts 264 collect calls, almost as much as I admire the effrontery of the suggestion. :-) The light seems to have dawned on someone (or maybe it was the spotlight of media scrutiny). The $500 in charges will be cancelled. BellSouth security and Invision are said to be investigating and not commenting further. Regards, Larry Mayhew mayhew@wkuvx1.wku.edu ------------------------------ From: rick@bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:55:05 -0500 Reply-To: rick@bcm.tmc.edu Subject: Re: "Important" Notice From Sears > 19. PHONES CALLS: Sears may call me by telephone regarding this account. > I agree that Sears may place such phone calls using an automatic > dialing-announcing device. Sears' managers may listen to and record > phone conversations between Sears' associates and me for training > purposes or to evaluate the quality of Sears' service. > As I have no objection to them calling me, or recording what goes on > during that call, I *assume* they will have no objection if I use an > "automatic answering-announcing caller-id'ing device" and choose not > to answer the phone. I suspect the real purpose of this announcement is to give Sears permission to call you using an automatice device rather than the requirement that calls must be initiated by a real person. > But seriously, has someone complained so vigorously about getting a > "machanized" call from Sears that they thought they actually had to > write this thing in to the credit card agreement? Like Pat I > generally hang up when I get the calls that say, "We have and > important call for you, please hold the line". Yeah, so important > that you can't have someone there when I say hello. As I said, I believe the new law on telephone solicitation does not allow mechanised calls except by permission. ------------------------------ From: puma@netcom.com (Gary Breuckman) Subject: Re: "Important" Notice From Sears Organization: organized?? me? Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:04:27 GMT In article , Chris J. Cartwright wrote: > 19. PHONES CALLS: Sears may call me by telephone regarding this account. > I agree that Sears may place such phone calls using an automatic > dialing-announcing device. Sears' managers may listen to and record > phone conversations between Sears' associates and me for training > purposes or to evaluate the quality of Sears' service. > As I have no objection to them calling me, or recording what goes on > during that call, I *assume* they will have no objection if I use an > "automatic answering-announcing caller-id'ing device" and choose not > to answer the phone. > But seriously, has someone complained so vigorously about getting a > "machanized" call from Sears that they thought they actually had to > write this thing in to the credit card agreement? Like Pat I In many states, it's a violation of the Consumer Protection laws to make automated calls (totally by machine, delivering an announcement and allowing you options at the end). There are often exceptions for 'prior business relationships' -- which is why they are including the notice. Other companies use a live operator who comes on at the start of the call (after an autodialer makes the call and determines someone is there) who says that she has an important message for you, and then starts the recording and then goes on to the next call. Equally nasty, I think, but legal because of the live body. puma@netcom.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When I am called and then told to hold on for an important announcement -- or even if they say 'I have a message for you' and then start playing a recording I immediatly just hang up. I don't even give them the courtesy of a goodbye. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lr@access2.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: The Right to Television Signals Date: 10 Apr 1996 22:33:04 GMT Organization: Intentionally Left Blank Debbie MCDowell (dmac@laser.net) wrote: > The notice we recieved refers to Satellite Home Viewer Act as the > explaiation for the move. Even with an antenna, we still get > unviewable reception. I am hoping someone can advise me how to stop > this. Does a local station have the right to a monopoly, based on the > location? Does the law allow that competition has the right to govern > a paid service? If the local company is not able to furnish a > product, how can it object to another company who can and is providing > the service? Has anyone out there had this experience? Or heard of > it? Certainly they do. It's in their agreement with the networks. We had the same problem in Northern VA which caused us to lose all the Baltimore affiliates off our local cable. However, if you have no reception, it is incumbant on the local network affiliate to prove that you can receive them. Chantilly (or wherever you live) has got to be on the fringe of the Washington market anyhow. Enlist the help of Primestar and the company that sells the network services there (I won't bother pointing out that as a Primestar customer this is the least of your problems). All this is regularly discussed on alt.dss. Ron ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: Telephone Numbering Conference Date: 10 Apr 1996 18:12:51 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) CCMI's 3rd National Telephone Numbering Conference. May 6 - 7, 1996 -- Arlington, VA Speaking on toll-free and related issues: Interactive CallBrand's V. Pamela Davis, Esq. Other topics include NPA Relief, Uniform National Dialing, and Portability. Speakers include Kathleen Levitz, Deputy Bureau Chief, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC, and key representatives from the Illinois Commerce Commission, Maryland Public Service Commission, MCI, 411 Newsletter, AT&T and the Industry Numbering Committee. To register, call CCMI at 1 800 929-4824 extension 684. Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: Intelligent Networks Date: 10 Apr 1996 19:17:33 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Srikantha Nadarajah wrote: > Can someone tell me "The true definition of Intelligent Network in > Telecommunications" and what are he currently used or popular networks > in that catagory? (any PSTN anywhere is OK.) At what level are you asking for an answer? At a very non-technical level, I'd say an Intelligent Network (IN) is one where call processing requires access to a database somewhat more complex than the data stored within the standard switching elements. In most cases the switching elements would have to obtain that information before being able to complete the call. Placing an 800 call and being routed to a destination depending on where you are calling from and the time of day could be a simple intelligent netowrk service. At a somewhat more technical level, I'd refer you to the ITU Q.12XX series and say an IN provides at least a major subset of Calling Services -1 (CS-1) capabilities, using a Service Circuit Function and Service Data Function, contained within one or more physical Service Circuit and/or Service Data Points. (Note: In not too much longer -- the next year or two or three -- I'd expect the definition of services to expand to include all CS-1 and many CS-2 services; these require signalling and switching capabilities not generally offered today.) Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Apr 96 09:38 EST From: Ram Chamarthy <0006600194@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Intelligent Networks sn03@uow.edu.au (Srikantha Nadarajah) wrote: > Can someone tell me "The true definition of Intelligent Network in > Telecommunications" and what are he currently used or popular networks > in that catagory? (any PSTN anywhere is OK.) "Intelligent Network" does not refer to any SPECIFIC network (PSTN or otherwise). It's an architectural concept. Intelligent Network allows for a SERVICE INDEPENDENT and SERVICE CONTROL network architecture and rapid creation/deployment/customization of telecommunications services. Although with some differences, "Intelligent Network" is also known as "Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN)" in USA (as proposed by BellCore for Local Exchange Carriers). Some of the services that you could implement using Intelligent Network are: 800 Toll-Free Service (USA) or FreePhone, Calling Card Service (Domestic and International), PrePaid Card Service, Selective Call Acceptance/Rejection (in the cellular area) etc. etc. The major network elements/systems in an Intelligent Network are (we can get into more details later on): (1) Service Switching Point (SSP), (2) Signaling Transfer Point (STP), (3) Service Control Point (SCP), (4) Service Data Point (SDP), (5) Intelligent Peripheral (IP), and (5) Service Management System (SMS). In this competitive world where time-to-market/flexibility considerations are very important to capture market share, no seriously interested telecommunications services provider can ignore the concept of "Intelligent Network". Almost everyone is either in the process of implementing Intelligent Network architecture or thinking about it. Ramakrishna E-mail: ram_chamarthy@mcimail.com Intelligent Network Planning MCI Telecommunications, Richardson-TX ------------------------------ From: rhaynes1@microdigit.com Subject: TelIt to Release Free Internet Phones Date: Tue, 09 Apr 1996 15:07:11 -0700 Organization: telIT Communications Corp. telIT Communications plans to release as freeware, its Windows 95/NT Internet phones in the very near future. The phones are free and fully-functional. They will be available for download from our Web site, which is fully interactive and multimedia-rich, making extensive use of Java. The site will also contain an extensive telecommunications library and link pages. ------------------------------ From: kamlet@infinet.com (Art Kamlet) Subject: Re: 201, 908 Splits in NJ Date: 10 Apr 1996 19:30:31 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Reply-To: kamlet@infinet.com In article , Mark Fletcher wrote: > Look at the number of *wasted* numbers sitting there as "roll-over" or > hunt numbers at small to medium sized companies. For example, your > main number is 201-555-2000, you have 29 additional POTS lines that > complement your "hunt group" of 30 lines with 2000 as the pilot > number. These 29 numbers, 555-1485, 555-2947, etc. are *wasted* > 201-555-XXXX numbers! Why not convert the "rollover" lines to the new > NPA overlay? No one EVER dials these numbers, except maybe for > testing. Wow! That's a very expensive and wasteful way to assign POTS numbers to EINs within a hunt group. If you expect people to call 201-555-2200 and want 30 line appearances in a hunt group, then just purchase a single pots and assign 30 EINs as a hunt group. There's no reason, if these are all incoming lines, to have more than a single POTS number (a TN - Telephone Number if you are doing the assignment). Just about every switch allows one TN to map to a bunch of EINs, so why waste TNs? (Note: This assumes you are not using these EINs as outgoing lines.) Don't take my word for it -- look at whatever system you use to do the line assignment, and see how it assigns TN(s) to EIN(s). Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kamlet@infinet.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:25:23 -0400 From: f_save@SNET.Net (Stuart J. Zimmerman) Subject: RE: AT&T Still Has "We Are the Phone Company" Attitude In TELECOM Digest #164 Jaleel Ihsan wrote: > AT&T increased my international residential tariff (from 1.33 to 1.50) > without giving me "an adequate prior notice". I had already made > $400+ worth of calls at the new rate by the time I could do any thing > about it. Unfortunately, this is the standard practice. MCI and Sprint do not give any better notice. You will probably find that they changed their International tariffs to the same place shortly thereafter. While you can file a complaint with the FCC, and AT&T might do something for you not to have to deal with it, the FCC would probably not find that they did anything wrong. That is the system. The FCC is conducting a rulemaking on tariff filing for long distance rates. You may want to contact them to make a comment. (See their web site at http://www.fcc.gov) It could make it easir for them to change rates without notification. Given your volume of usage, you should probably be on an international calling plan. If you are not, call the carriers and find out about them, or check our website at http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver. Fone Saver, LLC Phone: 1-800-31-FONE-1 Web: http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver E-Mail: f-save@snet.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 10:54:42 -0800 From: mwengler@qualcomm.com (Michael J. Wengler) Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Dan Ryan wrote: > I immediately called MCI who had contacted me with a rather > attractive offer a few days ago and switched to them. A change of > carrier around here takes over a week, so Sprint has left me with not > even their residential service for that time. Everyone should be aware that *you* can get your long distance carrier changed in less than 24 hours (typical, I believe). If *you* call the local business office of your local phone company and request a different long distance carrier, it will be changed, in my experience, in less than 24 hours (I think I recall "effective after 5 PM today" coming from the rep). If you order service, however, from MCI or any other carrier, it takes days for them to change your PIC. Most of that time, presumably, is handshaking and verifying on their end, since its fast when you call yourself. And you won't be charged twice for changing to MCI once: ie, if you order the change and MCI proceeds to order the change, it will be changed once and you'll be charged once. **** Everyone should also be aware that you can sign up for MCI or whomever, and make calls on that company even before you are PIC'd by dialing 10333 1 AreaCode Number where 10333 is the access code for, I think, MCI, and all the other companies have access codes too. Michael J. Wengler mwengler@qualcomm.com A-290K7 at QualComm, Inc. Voice: (619) 658-5476 6455 Lusk Blvd Fax: (619) 658-1033 San Diego, CA 92121-2779 Beep: (619) 605-3580 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think 10333 is Sprint and 10222 is for MCI. I know that 10288 is AT&T. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #173 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu Apr 11 20:41:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA09898; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:41:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 20:41:18 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604120041.UAA09898@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #174 TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Apr 96 20:41:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 174 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson USWest Rate Increase in Washington State Denied! (Charles Cooper) Sprint Free Fridays and East Coast (Sri Gopalakrishna) Sprint Blocks International "Fridays Free" Calls (Van Heffner) Sprint Changes Terms of Free Fridays (Joel M. Hoffman) Interdiction vs. Set Top Boxes (B. Ray Bouknight Jr.) Nortel Meridian ACD "At Home Agent" (Larry E. Holmen) UK Cellular Fights Against Fraud (george@newcastle.ac.uk) "WordNumbers" on Telephones (bruce@omega.co.nz) Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle (Michael W. Jenkins) RTS Won't Stay On! (lfv@gate.net) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charles Cooper Subject: USWest Rate Increase in Washington State Denied! Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:46:47 -0700 Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Here is a press release from the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission ... State regulators reject US West's request to double residential telephone rates OLYMPIA, WA. -- In a strongly worded ruling handed down today (April 11), state regulators rejected US West Communications, Inc.'s request to double residential telephone rates and ordered the phone company to set a flat fee of $10.50 a month for basic local service in Washington. The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission (WUTC) also told the utility to improve its service quality, cut revenues and reduce charges for business and long-distance customers. The changes will go into effect May 1. "Our order does not give US West all it wants," the commissioners said. "Instead, it gives the company what it needs: fair rates based on the company's actual costs, greatly increased flexibility to lower prices to meet market requirements, and meaningful incentives to improve service quality." US West, the state's largest telephone company, has 10 calendar days to file for reconsideration of the case with the commission, or the utility could appeal the ruling to any Superior Court within its 28-county service territory in Washington. The three-member commission, which has the authority to regulate the telephone rates and services provided by US West in the state, denied the phone company's claim that residential telephone rates are being subsidized by other services. "There simply is no local service subsidy," the order states. "The $10.50 rate covers the cost of local residential service and provides a substantial contribution to shared and common costs." The commission's decision would result in lower overall monthly phone bills for most of US West's 1.5 million residential customers in Washington. Some homeowners living in smaller communities would see a slight increase in their local telephone bills each month. (See attached table for rates in different cities.) The commission is giving US West the ability to adapt to a more competitive telecommunications environment. The company may file different price lists for all services and reduce them with only 10 days advance notice to the WUTC and its customers. This is exactly the same timeframe the utility's rivals are allowed. US West will be free to charge any amount that is not below the minimum cost of providing a service, however, the commission will continue to set a cap on US West's rates. "While higher local rates simply are not supported by the record in this proceeding, the commission agrees the company needs pricing flexibility to respond to competition when it appears," said the commissioners in their ruling. "This flexibility gives the company the ability to drop prices where competition requires, while restraining its ability to raise the rates of captive customers." US West, which originally filed its proposed rate plan in February 1995, had sought to raise most rates for basic residential service in urban areas to almost $22 a month from roughly $11.50, over a four-year period. Residents living in rural communities would have realized a larger increase, currently averaging about $10.50 a month to more than $26 over the next four years. This was the first rate increase the company had requested in 13 years. The commission denied the company's claim that residents living in less populated areas of the state should pay higher telephone rates than the larger urban communities. "The company's own data show little cost difference between its rural and urban service territories," the WUTC said. The commission also told US West to reduce its current revenues by $91.5 million annually rather than grant the company's request to phase-in over four years an additional $205 million-a-year increase. In 1994, the phone company earned nearly $1 billion in gross revenue in Washington. State regulators also lowered the company's annual rate of return on investment to 9.37 percent, from 10.53 percent. US West suggested the proposed rate of return be set at the higher 10.04 percent. The company has argued that it cannot invest in Washington because of a low rate of return. Between 1992 and 1994, US West has increased its depreciation recovery by $75 million. During the same period the company's investment in the state fell by $86 million. "Instead of re-investing its earnings in Washington State, the company is generating funds by disinvesting in the state and failing to provide minimum levels of service to the harm of its citizens and economy," said the commissioners in their decision. Over the last two years, the commission has received a record number of complaints from US West customers who have experienced extensive delays in getting their telephones installed. The WUTC received 1,245 complaints last year -- which is more than triple the 412 registered in 1994. Through March of this year, the commission has logged 379 complaints from customers unable to obtain phone service. (See attached table for complaint data.) In its decision, the commission informed US West that its service quality has deteriorated so dramatically that new steps were needed to encourage the company to improve its performance. After a customer has waited 30 days for a new phone line, the WUTC is requiring the utility to provide individuals with a cellular phone, including a credit of about $140 a month until service is installed. In addition, the commission disallowed US West's ability to recover $10 million from ratepayers in salary bonuses for its management due to service problems. The WUTC also is requiring the company to submit more detailed status reports containing specific information about the areas where customers are complaining of long delays in installing new phone service. The commission also reduced US West's authorized profit level by $7.5 million because of poor customer service. "When the company can demonstrate that it is providing adequate service, it may petition to lift any or all of these requirements," said the commissioners. "The commission finds that the company is providing service that is substantially worse than that which the company provided only a few years earlier," the order states. "We find major problems with the company's ability to install service when needed and its ability to provide repair service when needed, caused in part by lack of facilities and in part by restructuring and downsizing. The company's inability to meet its basic service obligations hurts individual ratepayers and it hurts the state economy as a whole." Under the commission's decision, 83 percent of the 437,000 US West business customers will realize a substantial decrease in telephone rates. The current statewide average monthly telephone bill for each business line is about $30 and that will drop to $25. Larger businesses that have five or more phone lines will see a rate decrease of about $13 a month per line with smaller business customers experiencing a $1 to $2 reduction. Businesses now pay between $18.40 and $40.80 a month for each phone line. Businesses that subscribe to a service called hunting will pay 5 cents a line each month, down from the current $2 and much lower than the $4 charge the company was requesting. Hunting is a common small business service that allows an incoming call to be automatically forwarded to a second line if the other phone line is busy. The WUTC ordered the company to reduce the cost of short-haul, in-state long-distance rates by $32.6 million a year. For example, a 10-minute daytime phone call between Olympia and Seattle, Yakima and Ellensburg or Pasco and Walla Walla currently costs $2.88. Under the commission's newly outlined toll-rate plan, the cost would drop to $1.50 for the same call. US West provides short-haul, in-state long-distance service for 21 local telephone companies' customers in Washington. The commission also directed US West to reduce access fees by $22 million a year. Access fees are charges paid to local phone companies by long-distance carriers for completion of local phone customers' calls. The WUTC expects the long-distance providers, such as AT&T Corp., MCI Telecommunications Inc., and Sprint Corp., to pass the savings onto customers in the form of lower toll rates. A host of other miscellaneous items affecting US West's telephone customers were addressed by the WUTC in this order. US West had proposed decreasing the number of free directory- assistance calls from four to one per month and raising the cost for each additional call to 60 cents from the current 25 cents. The commission rejected the company's proposal and will allow customers two free calls a month with a 35-cent charge for each additional directory-assistance call. The company had requested an increase for customers desiring unlisted and nonpublished telephone numbers. For unlisted numbers, a service that allows a customer's name and phone number to be obtained from an operator but not appear in a printed telephone directory, the company was seeking to raise the sign-up fee a dollar ($5 to $6), and boost the monthly charge a quarter, from the present 50-cent charge to 75 cents. For nonpublished numbers, customers can elect to have their names and numbers deleted from both directory assistance and phone directories lists, US West was asking for the same $1 sign-up increase and raise the monthly fee from 75 cents to $1. The WUTC said these services were priced correctly now and refused to grant the higher rates. US West also recommended the company's shareholders keep all the profits from the sale of Yellow Pages advertisements in its telephone books. The commission rejected the company's suggestion and will continue to require the nearly $80 million the company collects in excess revenues for yellow pages to be shared with all customers to keep phone rates affordable. The company had sought permission to tack on a late-payment charge of 1.2 percent each month on customers who didn't pay their bills on time. Presently, US West does not collect a late fee. The commission told the company to develop procedures that allow customers to set up different payment plans. Before a late fee can be implemented, the WUTC is requiring US West to file another proposal that includes information showing the actual costs incurred by unpaid phone bills. US West, headquartered in Englewood, Colo., is the largest telephone company in Washington serving almost 2.2 million residential and business phone lines. US West is one of the seven regional Bell operating companies created by the breakup of AT&T in 1982. The company serves 25 million customers in 14 Midwest and Western states. ------------------- As a separate note, not part of the press release I will mention that the commission has an excellent home page at: http://www.washington.edu:1180/wutc/ ------------------------------ From: Sri Gopalakrishna Subject: Sprint Free Fridays ... and East Coast Organization: University of Virginia Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 00:03:53 GMT Hi, I and a number of my friends on the east coast have not received any such letter from Sprint - asking for Tax ID ... I was wondering if there are people reading this who are still with Sprint Free Friday plan and using residential lines. It appears that a lot of people are still with them and have not been contacted. Any ideas on this? Sri [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: From news reaching me today, it appears Sprint has simply reneged on the whole thing and has discontinued the program. You might want to take special care -- especially with Friday now upon us (in a few hours at least from this time zone) -- and make certain what you are doing before placing any calls via Sprint. The news is they have started violating those contracts on a wholesale basis; in essence just giving the finger to everyone who inquires or makes any demands. The {Wall Street Journal} has reported on this a couple times this week and {USA Today} has something on it also, as reported in the next article in this issue. I cannot stress strongly enough at this point that if you are a Sprint customer you would be very wise to *completely withhold all payments* the company alleges are due them until this mess gets straightened out. If they are violating customer's contracts to this extent in this promotion, they may soon start doing it to other customers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:45:22 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Sprint Blocks International "Fridays Free" Calls From {USA Today Moneyline} Sprint in flap over marketing promotion KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A marketing program by Sprint Corp. allowing small businesses to make free long-distance calls on Fridays spun out of control when the company was startled by the number of overseas calls. Sprint now has barred free calls overseas for new customers, and has banned calls from existing customers to nine countries: China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Ecuador, Bolivia, Thailand, Iran and Myanmar, The {Wall Street Journal} reported Thursday. Many business customers were angry that Sprint signed them with the promise of an offer that has now been withdrawn. Van Hefner -Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is the typical bait and switch type thing; Sprint is fully aware that most little businesses are not going to be in a position to sue to enforce the contract. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 08:56 EDT From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Sprint Changes Terms of Free Fridays According to the {Wall Street Journal} (4/11/96}: SPRINT BACKS OFF `FRIDAYS FREE' AS CALLS CLIMB [...] Startled by the high volume of free calls placed by its business customers in the [Free Friday] promotion, Sprint has barred any free calls to overseas destination for customers who newly sign up for the service. Moreover, for current customers, Sprint has effectively banned freebie Friday traffic to nine countries that became especially popular targets -- China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Ecuador, Bolivia, Thailand, Iran and Myanmar. [...] As I write this I'm on "hold" with Sprint. I plan first on asking how they "effectively ban" such traffic, and second, on telling them that we have a contract, worth up to $12,000 to me. So far, a low-level operator has told me that Sprint has the right the change the terms of the promotion at any time. I specifically asked the agent from whom I ordered the service if Sprint engaged in a one-year contract, and the answer was yes. Details will follow after I wade through Sprint's phone menus ... (Does anyone have readership statistics on this group? I'd like to be able to tell the representative how many people will be reading about his/her reply.) (continued writing this a few hours later) Since writing the above paragraphs about Sprint no longer offering free Fridays to selected countries, I have received a "Western Union Mailgram" (letter) from Sprint, advising me that Sprint has unilaterally changed their program, and that instead of free calls on Friday, I will now get a 25% discount on calls every day of the week. The change is effective April 18. The letter is signed by Robin Loyed. I tried to contact Mr. Robin Loyed, at 214/405-5404, but he was "on the phone" this morning, and this afternoon "still in a meeting, which will last until 5:00p." My main business is Hebrew typesetting, and, obviously, the ability to call (and fax) Israel once a week is why I signed up for the program. The 25% discount "every day of the week" does me almost no good at all. (Though, to be fair, free calls within the US on Fridays is fun.) I urge as many people as possible to call Mr. Loyed's office and complain in the strongest possible terms. It's a toll call, but his receptionist answers immediately, so it's less than a minute. (Unless you get through.) Joel (joel@exc.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Hey, imagine that! Send everyone with whom you have a contractual relationship a letter saying as of a certain time you are changing the terms. Period. End of discussion. Defy them to do anything about it. Actually Joel, there are about five thousand names on the mailing list for the Digest. That does not count the comp.dcom.telecom readers over which I have no authoritative figures nor does it include the readers of the Telecom Forum at Compuserve or the readers on independently maintained mailing lists which I feed (to a master list name only) from here. I do agree that it is important people affected by or potentially affected by the reports of Sprint simply walking out on its contracts contact the company immediatly and find out what is going on. And it would be a very good idea at this point to put a freeze on all payments to Sprint. Don't send them any money at all, and if you are paying by credit card notify your card issuer to decline further payments. You may want to require they produce evidence of their incorporation, and their licenses, etc required to do business in your state, along with a copy of their current Dun and Bradstreet report. Upon review of that, you'll detirmine if you are able to authorize release of payments they allege are due them. Obviously, everything with them has to be in writing from now on; their oral promises over the phone cannot be accepted. If they threaten to continue attempts at collection, or say they will place you with an agency, make them aware that doing so *while they are aware of pending disputes* will place them in violation of Federal Trade Commission rules. If Robin Loyed has not responded in the next few days (or someone in authority to speak for the Corporation) then I'll teach you how to take it a step higher, and be a bit more demanding. In the meantime, anyone able to establish contact with this person should attempt to do so by calling 214/405-5404. After hours at least, this number puts you in Robin Loyed's voicemail. Please report your results here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: B. Ray Bouknight Jr. Subject: Interdiction vs. Set Top Boxes Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:22:15 -0700 Organization: California State University, Chico Interdiction (w/ Network Interface Modules) and Addressable CATV Control Systems (w/ Set Top Boxes) are processes that control the provisioning of CATV services. I'm interested in features and direction of each technology. Does anyone know where I can find this information? B. Ray Bouknight Jr. raybouk@ecst.csuchico.edu http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~raybouk/ ------------------------------ From: Larry.E.Holmen@cdc.com (larry.e.holmen) Subject: Nortel Meridian ACD "At Home Agent" Date: 11 Apr 1996 19:11:36 GMT Organization: Control Data Systems, Inc. Does anyone out there have any expertise or knowledge of a Northern Telecom Meridian ACD product called "At Home Agent" I've trying to understand what it is/how it works/how an agent would use it, but every time I talk to my peddler about it I get a different story. Any assistance would be welcomed. Thanks, larry holmen leh1@cdc.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:17:38 BST From: George Subject: UK Cellular Fights Against Fraud Jonathan Cohen wrote about the Vodafone "authentication" scheme for stopping fraud on the Vodafone's analogue network by encryting ESNs. This has been so sucecssful that their competitor, Cellnet, has decided to start using the same technology. Cellnet had previously claimed that they could stop fraud successfully enough by having their computer watch for un-usual call patterns; I think the cloners have proved very well to cellnet by now that they *can't* do that ;) I imagine that Cellnet are forced to adopt authentication to stop all the cloners moving onto Cellnet anyway as it becomes harder to clone Vodafones. And as the proportion of analogue phones which can't be cloned rises, there is presumably more pressure on those remaining, with a greater proportion of the insecure phones being cloned every month. The UK government has decided anyway that the two analogue TACS networks must be closed by 2005, their frequencies to be re-allocated to the two GSM networks (both also run by Cellnet and Vodaclone -- err, fone). At the moment in the UK, there are actually *six* cellular networks -- Vodafone and Cellnet each run analogue (TACS) and digitial (GSM) networks, making four. There are also two companies -- Orange and Mercury One-to-One -- running PCN networks. These two are the newcomers, with less coverage and more expensive handsets. Oh, and Orange is about to start service in Northern Ireland -- their slogan is "The Future's Bright, the Future's Orange". I'm *sure* that's going to go down well ... George ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 22:27:22 GMT From: Bruce@cherrybomb.omega.co.nz (Bruce) Subject: "WordNumbers" on the Phone Organization: Cherrybomb! Is there any reasonably well-accepted standard for the letters on a telephone? Can someone tell me what is the most common layout, (presumably, the one used in the USA) who decided on it and why. Also, what other standards exist. The reason I ask is that our local NZ phone company has introduced "WordNumbers", using 2=ABC, 3=DEF 4=GHI 5=JKL 6=MNO 7=PQRS 8=TUV 9=WXYZ. I've searched and searched, and I just cannot find a phone (or any other keypad with letters) anywhere that uses that layout ... they ALL have Q and Z on the 1 key. bruce@omega.co.nz Fax: +64 7 847-5513 Voice: NISTIM0L0C PGP key available at: pgp-public-keys@keys.pgp.net OO: 2001/009734B1 or 1024/842510D9 ------------------------------ From: mjenkins@cdmnet.com (Michael W. Jenkins) Subject: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:44:49 GMT Pat, When I was growing up in Illinois, back in the 50-60's I had learned that is was against the law for citizens to wear headphones while operating a vehicle. This law was from the 30's-40's when one needed a headset to receive radio broadcasts (2-way radio only). Evidently, the law enforcement folks thought it was dangerous to do two things at once. I wonder if (a) the law is still legal, and if so, when will some bright person apply that law to the cellular phone industry? Would it then be a felony or a misdemeanor to operate a cellular phone while operating a moving vehicle? But then, I believe that all of those inconsiderate folk who want the world to hear their "super speakers" and strange music, should have headphones surgically attached to their head and ears ... Also, a big thank you for explaining the quirks of the wonderful world of telecommunications. I have learned a lot. Have a good day! Mike Jenkins ------------------------------ From: lfv@gate.net Subject: RTS Won't Stay On! Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 05:11:08 GMT Organization: CyberGate, Inc. I am in desperate need of a patch to correct a DOS based program that lowers the RTS line low. I am using several Compaq 5528 (Desktops) with internal modems. I have tried using the "AT\Q0&K0" command as suggested in the modem manual, however the modem is still looking at RTS. 1) Maybe the book is wrong? (would not suprise me, Compaq can't even support the modem they put it!) I could use the correct command ... 2) A patch (TSR) to keep RTS High would be an alternative. Please let me know if you have any ideas. Thanks very much, Lu email : lfv@gate.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #174 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Apr 12 12:37:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA02258; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:37:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:37:07 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604121637.MAA02258@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #175 TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Apr 96 12:37:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 175 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Different Countries - Different Results (Erik Evrard) AOL Sues Spammer! (Van Heffner) POCSAG Decoder (L0phT POCSAG Project) Teenager's Web Site on Unabomber Booms (Tad Cook) Re: Help Pass California "Cut Junk Call" Legislation (Seth L. Theriault) Re: Ameritech 800 Number Problems (Tom Watson) Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? (tvfsink@peak.org) Re: Who Retains The 809 Area Code? (Robert Wolf) Re: Long Distance Solitations (Dan Prener) Re: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong (Joseph Singer) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Erik Evrard Subject: Different Countries - Different Results Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 16:58:09 +0200 Organization: EUnet Communications Services bv Reply-To: erik@EU.net I've encountered the most strange problem: I work for EUnet (a European ISP), and I tried to dial the number of our EUnetTraveller POP (pan-European Internet access) in Innsbruck, Austria from Amsterdam. Instead of getting the modem, I got the answering machine of some company (I couldn't understand which company). Strangely enough, collegues from Belgium dialed the same number, and they got the modem! From within Austria, you also get the modem. I also tried it from a GSM cellular phone in Amsterdam, and I got the answering machine of that company again (so it's got nothing to do with our PBX). The number is just a plain ordinary phone number (not a freephone or premium number). The modem used to be reachable from the Netherlands before 10 April 1996, but not anymore since. Incidently, 10 April is the day on which the Dutch PTT Telecom switched to a universal 10-digit dialing scheme for national calls. (In fact this scheme was introduced 6 months ago, but the old numbers stayed accessible until 10 April). But of course Austria is an international call from Amsterdam, and shouldn't be affected by this new scheme. I called the Dutch PTT help line, but they treated me as if I were from Mars. And just the mere thought this could be related to the new national numbering scheme was laughed at, although they did express concern that the Austrian number seems unusually long. The number of our POP in Innsbruck is listed on our web page http://traveller.EU.net/html/pops.html and the number is indeed longer than the other Austrian numbers. But at least from Belgium and Austria it works at this very moment. I haven't tried calling from other locations. How can it be possible that you get a different party on the line, depending on the country from which you're calling? It almost seems like a software error at the Dutch PTT, which is truncating the number. Erik Evrard erik@eu.net EUnet Communications Services, Amsterdam ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 01:49:51 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: AOL Sues Spammer! AOL SUES SPAMMER! by NATIONAL FRAUD INFORMATION CENTER America OnLine has sued the Philadelphia based CyberPromotions Inc. over misleading spams. CyberPromotions is accused of sending large numbers of unsolicited e-mail to AOL subscribers. The messages, according to AOL, used bogus return address and were written in such a way as to give the impression that the messages were in some way linked with AOL. AOL has asked for a temporary restraining order to stop CyberPromotions from using the AOL name and trademarks. AOL's action was taken after numerous complaints from subscribers who found their mailboxes flooded with ads supposedly from AOL. CyberPromotions had previously been a subscriber of AOL but was kicked off the service for violating user agreements by sending out spams to other subscribers. Other service providers also have similar termination policies. Spams are a serious violation of Netiquette. It is very common for recipients of a spam to e-mail bomb the spammer (i.e. to send so many messages at once that the spammer's mailbox is overloaded and shuts down). CyberPromotions has filed suit against AOL for just such an occurrence. In that suit, CyberPromotions is suing AOL for allowing such a volume of responses that the access servers of their new service providers crashed. If you or your company are thinking of using unsolicited e-mail as a form of advertising don't do it. Another company may try to sell you the service, saying that this is the best way to reach Internet users. Don't believe them. Spamming doesn't generate business. It generates enemies and legal bills. Spam is never welcome in a mailbox. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 326 'I' Street, Suite 148 Eureka, California 95501 USA 1-707-444-6686 PHONE 1-707-445-4123 FAX ------------------------------ From: pocsag@l0pht.com (L0phT POCSAG Project) Subject: POCSAG Decoder Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 23:22:06 -0400 Organization: L0phT Heavy Industries Pager data stream monitoring unit L0pht Heavy Industries is proud to announce the release of our POCSAG monitoring unit. Used in conjunction with a radio scanner or receiver, it allows off-the-air decoding of POCSAG paging signals at 512, 1200, or 2400bps. Both numeric and alphanumeric messages will be decoded, as well as a hex dump of raw POCSAG codewords. This system is useful for the testing of paging systems and transmitters. With the included software, one may reject or log to disk specific pager capcodes, making it easier to track only the necessary signals. The device is powered off a PC-compatible serial port and is extremely small -- handy for portable use. The unit is available in both kit ($59.95 + s/h) and fully-assembled ($89.95 + s/h) versions. All components, schematics, software and documentation are included. Fully-assembled units are tested before shipment. General soldering and electronics knowledge is required to construct the unit from kit form, so please be aware when ordering. LHI is not responsible for any results, good or bad, produced by the user during use or construction of the product, so consider the assembled-unit if you are not confident in your assembly skills. Name: _________________________________________________ E-mail Address: ________________________________________ Mailing Address: _______________________________________ ________________________________________________________ City, State: ___________________________________________ Country, Postal code: __________________________________ Number of units: _______ Circle one: KIT ASSEMBLED Amount Enclosed: __________ To: POCSAG Project Division c/o L0pht Heavy Industries P.O. Box 990857 Boston, MA USA 02199-0857 Please include $59.95 for kit-form or $89.95 for fully-assembled unit plus $5.05 for shipping and handling in United States currency for each unit ordered. We will ship all orders via First Class United States mail to anywhere in the World. Cash, Check or Money Order accepted, sorry no Credit Card orders. Please make all checks payable to L0pht Heavy Industries. Massachusetts residents please add 5% sales tax. Please allow four to six weeks for delivery. L0pht Heavy Industries (L.H.I.) assumes no liability for lost or misdirected mail. LHI reserves the right to refuse sale of this unit to any person, organization or entity. All sales are final. Any questions can be directed to pocsag@l0pht.com An HTML version of this document can be found at: http://www.l0pht.com/~kingpin/pocsag.html ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Teenager's Web Site on Unabomber Booms Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 11:10:13 PDT Teenager's Web site on Unabomber booms By Tracy Seipel Mercury News Staff Writer Joseph Keeler plays a mean trumpet, runs a cool 5-minute, 15-second mile, and takes honors courses at St. Francis High School. But lately it's the Sunnyvale 15-year-old's Unabomber page on the Internet's World Wide Web that's drawing all the attention. Last Thursday alone, the day after Unabomb suspect Theodore John Kaczynski was detained by FBI agents in Montana, Joseph's "Unabom Information Center" on the World Wide Web was called up more than 3,000 times by computer junkies panting to know more. Since launching the site last summer, he's drawn more than 6,000 hits -- plus anonymous tips of Unabomber sightings and threats. Although a number of Unabomber Web sites exist, he says he may be the only teen-ager to have launched one. He's been mentioned in the {New York Times} and on television news -- and politely menaced by the Associated Press, which asked him to stop running its stories without authorization or face a possible copyright lawsuit. Joseph's taking it all rather calmly. "Most of the people I know don't know I have a Web site," the teen said. "I told about five of my friends. A couple of them didn't even know what the Web was," he said. "I told my parents after I had it going for a while. They just said, `Watch out. You might get bombed or something.' " Joseph's Web site is dedicated to the memory of Unabomb victims "Mr. Hugh Scrutton, Mr. Thomas Mosser, and Mr. Gilbert Murray, may they rest in peace." "It seemed appropriate, because they were the people who lost their lives to this guy," said Joseph, whose Web site also includes the complete Unabomb Manifesto; details of the Unabomber attacks he has researched; the FBI profile of the Unabomber and a sketch; and a heading called "Things written by the Unabomber," including letters to professors. Joseph hadn't paid much attention to the case until last June, when the Unabomber threatened to blow up a plane. He wanted to know how someone could elude authorities for so long. The teen searched the Internet, didn't find much, then headed off to the library to research the case that has remained unsolved for almost 18 years -- longer than he's been alive. When he was done -- about the same time Prodigy started offering Web sites on the Internet -- he started his own Web page seeking historical information on the Unabomber. Until last week, he said, response had been somewhat sporadic. "Some were encouraging, some were threats -- people saying, `I'm coming after you,' and `You'll be next,' " he recalled. "But most were encouraging. They said I'd done a good job." One Chicago woman told him FBI agents had questioned her as a possible suspect. When he received tips or clues, he asked the people to contact the FBI. More messages appeared after the Unabomber's 35,000-word manifesto was published last fall. "I got a lot of people who said they know people who write like that. People said, `My uncle writes like that, or my neighbor does,' " said Joseph, who only responded to "nice, polite messages and people who didn't claim they knew the Unabomber." He thought the Unabomber's manifesto "was pretty weird. It reminded me of the Communist Manifesto, except it was on technology instead of the Industrial Revolution," he said. "You could tell he wasn't an English major. He was rambling and bringing up irrelevant points here and there ... his attitude was sort of angry." Also not pleased was Dan Day, San Francisco bureau chief of the Associated Press, who got in touch with Joseph after hearing him say he had ignored copyright notices on stories he downloaded onto his Web page. "I told him about our copyright policies, and asked him to remove all the material," which Joseph did promptly, said Day, who admires Joseph's "creativity and imagination." Joseph said he's learned some important lessons about computer programming and copyright laws during his nine-month odyssey. Meantime, with the help of the Web site, he plans to dig for more information on Kaczynski, while reminding everyone of something else: "Even though the best Unabomber suspect ever has been captured, please keep in mind this is the United States, and he is innocent until proven guilty." IF YOU'RE INTERESTED Joseph Keeler's "Unabom Information Center" is at http://pages.prodigy.com/gvmm68e/home.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Indeed, in the United States the Consti- tution requires a presumption of innocence until guilt has been fully proven in a court of law. However the case of TK it appears most oppor- tunities for a fair trial at this point are gone, compliments of the FBI's constant stream of reports to the newspapers and magazines. I guess you all read the latest news: they managed to 'find' the aviator sun glasses and jacket with a hood. These were 'found' just yesterday, but the articles did not say if they were found under the bed or behind the typewriter or where ... with this latest addition to the evidence 'found' there in the little 10x12 foot hut after many days of searching, the profile is now nearly one hundred percent accurate; would you Good Citizens want it any other way? Your FBI has rescued you from the forces of evil and wrong-doing once again. You have not heard much about the one witness who claims she saw Unabomber. She is the one who gave them the mustache, aviator sun glasses and hood description. Remember more than a week ago she was on her way to Montana to positively identify this miscreant? Then all of a sudden we hear no more about her. It seems they took her there and had her view Ted from behind a one way looking-glass, much the way one would view an insect under a glass slide. Her response was, "that's not him" ... ... maybe the sun glasses and hood just recently located will help refresh her memory. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sltheria@artsci.wustl.edu (Seth L Theriault) Subject: Re: Help Pass California "Cut Junk Call" Legislation Date: 11 Apr 1996 21:13:37 GMT Organization: Washington University -- St Louis, Missouri, USA In article , wrote: > The bill would let you put your telephone number on a "do-not-call" > list that telephone sales solicitors would be prohibited from calling > (whether calling from in-state or out-of-state). It would allow > Californians, whose number is on that list, to sue a telemarketer for > $500 for calling. This reminds me a bit of my stay in France last year. In France, they have two "lists" that you can ask to be put on to prevent your phone number from being available through directory assistance, the printed directory, or on the infamous Minitel; in addition, your personal information can not be sold by France Telecom to telemarketers, etc if you appear on one of these lists. The first, Liste Orange (the Orange List), is a freebie (a very mild non-listed number equivalent). The other, Liste Rouge (the Red List), is a full-blown non-published number that is unavailable from most sources -- it costs money (around 10FF/month I think). Seth ------------------------------ From: tsw@3do.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: Ameritech 800 Number Problems Date: Mon, 08 Apr 1996 14:44:54 -0800 Organization: The 3DO Corporation In article , johnd@mail.ic.net (John N. Dreystadt) wrote: <<>> > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you saying that your company has > two 800 numbers, one each issued by MCI and Ameritech? If your 800 > number is only from MCI, then there was no real reason to get > Ameritech involved in it; just tell MCI to change where it points > to. As you point out, they got it done eventually. I had a time once > when I wanted to change an 800 number of mine to point to a new > number. It is an 800 number I got from Call Home America, which is > a division of Allnet/Frontier. When I called, the rep did it as > we were chatting. Within a couple minutes after I finished speaking > to her, the changeover had been completed correctly. PAT] The difference is that the local operating company (Ameritech) does the "In-LATA" routing, and the long distance company (MCI) does the "out-LATA" routing. Both should be about 30 minutes away from a keyboard "fix". Tom Watson tsw@3do.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) ------------------------------ From: tvfsink@PEAK.ORG Subject: Re: Is Concurrent Call Forwarding Possible? Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:52:17 -0700 Organization: CS Outreach Services--PEAK, Corvallis, Oregon, USA Peter, I've been using a single line Voice Mail board to Call forward calls, using three way calling and Call transfer, people can have thier own call forwarding extions on a system and pass out thier extention allowing other to contact them and still keep thier number private, also the system could put thru maybe 3-4 calls per minute. The only limit is the phone companies lines. It also saves people long distance in an A-B-C town cituation. Ken TeleVoice & Fax ------------------------------ From: Robert Wolf Subject: Re: Who Retains The 809 Area Code? Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:51:18 -0700 Organization: Millennium Telecom Wil Dixon wrote: > Puerto Rico > According to Bellcore Letter IL - 95/12-005 dated 12-11-95: The government of Puerto Rico, represented by the Puerto Rico Telephone Company and in concurrance with other contral office code users in Puerto Rico, has requested that a new geographic area code be assigned for Puerto Rico. As a result, NANPA has assigned the 787 NPA for this purpose. With this action Puerto Rico will depart from the 809 NPA. (snip) ... the beginning of a permissive dialing period will take place at 12:01 Atlantic Time on Friday, March 1, 1996. The permissive dialing period will end at 11:59 PM Atlantic time on Friday, January 31, 1997. Robert Wolf member: Society of Telecommunications Consultants Millennium Telecom http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium 818-790-7339 Fax 818-790-7309 Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications ------------------------------ From: prener@watson.ibm.com (Dan Prener) Subject: Re: Long Distance Solitations Date: 11 Apr 1996 01:19:28 -0400 Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown, New York In article hvoldtof@franklin. fairfield.com(Henning Voldtofte) writes: [story of AT&T paying someone already using them to switch to them] >> So ... what are the ethical problems (if any) with this? > There are no ethical problems. It is not your fault that they can't > manage to exclude their *own* customers from the lists of people to > call. They didn't ask you who you currently used for long distance, > and I don't see why you should have to volunteer it. Take the money > and the discount and be happy. I have been an AT&T customer for a long time. Recently, when they called to ask me to switch to AT&T, I explained this. They said that they would still like to pay me to switch. I asked them whether I would have to re-establish my discount plan. They assured me I would not. So I agreed. Could this phenomenon be the result of some company being hired by AT&T to get people to switch, and being given a not-completely-accurate list? Dan Prener (prener@watson.ibm.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You know, I think I will give them a call today myself, and ask them if they will pay me to stay as a customer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 06:16:16 -0700 From: jsinger@scn.org (Joseph Singer) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong Reply-To: jsinger@scn.org dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) wrote: > In Monty Solomon COM> writes: >> The NYNEX "Time" number (+1 617 637 1234) is reporting the incorrect >> time. It is fast by about 20 seconds. How do the phone companies set >> this time? Is this the same time used by the billing computers? > Ah, you see, the phone companies use TWO clocks. the first one, which > is properly synchronized with UTC and the US Naval Observatory, et al, > marks down the _start_ of the phone call. The second one, which you > accessed (no doubt due to telco error), is used for timing the _end_ > of the call. Well, here in US West land for telco voice messaging the time is almost five minutes different than official time from WWV or the National Bureau in Washington, D.C. I wonder _whose_ time telco uses when determining the time a call is made for billing purposes such as for toll calls. Does this mean to be sure of getting a particular rate that I have to err a few minutes on either side of the hour to make sure I get the rate that I'm intending to get? JOSEPH SINGER SEATTLE, WASHINGTON USA jsinger@scn.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The time which gets sent on Caller-ID here is also out of synch by two or three minutes. Furthermore, when we started daylight savings time this past week, the Caller-ID boxes continued to show the old time all day Sunday. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #175 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Apr 12 14:16:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA09009; Fri, 12 Apr 1996 14:16:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 14:16:32 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604121816.OAA09009@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #176 TELECOM Digest Fri, 12 Apr 96 14:16:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 176 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint Blocks International "Fridays Free" Calls (John Cropper) Sprint Fraud? Bait & Switch? Class Action? (Imran Anwar) Telecommunications Resources Directory (rreader@laker.net) Credit Given Where Credit Due (re Ameritech) (Steven R. Kleinedler) Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone (Ian Angus) Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone (Michael Covington) Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle (Ed Kleinhample) Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle (Arthur Shapiro) Re: Free EMail Address For Your FAX Machine (Eric Friedebach) Re: More About the Mysterious Collect Calls From Jail (Clay Ritter) Re: Who Retains the 809 Area Code? (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Who Retains The 809 Area Code? (Luis A. Rodriguez) Re: Who Retains The 809 Area Code? (Linc Madison) Re: Right to Television Signals (Ed Kleinhample) Disconnecting Phone Service via Webpage (Dave Leibold) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Sprint Blocks International "Fridays Free" Calls Date: 12 Apr 1996 01:43:51 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA > From {USA Today Moneyline} > Sprint in flap over marketing promotion > Many business customers were angry that Sprint signed them with the > promise of an offer that has now been withdrawn. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is the typical bait and switch type > thing; Sprint is fully aware that most little businesses are not going > to be in a position to sue to enforce the contract. PAT] Do you or Van know of any pending class-action suit and/or investigation by the FCC against Sprint? John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The next message in this issue tells one place where that discussion is going on right now. And I again stress it would be wise for all Sprint customers affected by this to immediatly begin withholding all payments to the company until this dispute has been resolved and you have from them *in writing* exactly what they will and won't do, etc. If they try to bully you into paying, don't be afraid of them. Tell them they will get paid when this has all been straightened out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Imran Anwar Subject: Sprint Fraud? Bait & Switch? Class Action? Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:46:26 -0500 Organization: IMRAN INTERNETional / Imran Anwar Inc. Reply-To: imran@panix.com There seem to be enough people screwed by Sprint's latest bait and switch fraud. http://www.imran.com/Consumers/Sprint/ was set up to try to coordinate a response, legal and social, against Sprint. Please send electronic mailto:imran@panix.com if you want to be included in this effort or have ideas and suggestions. Imran Anwar http://www.imran.com imran@panix.com Serving a World Wide Web : Bit By Bit, Byte By Byte (tm/sm) ------------------------------ From: rreader@laker.net Subject: Telecommunications Resources Directory Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:00:47 -0400 Organization: BridgenetLC - 305.374.3031 - 100 S. Biscayne Blvd, Miami A Global Teleresources Directory. Interactive library of current telecommunication, telemarketing, computer telephony and internet information. Also products and services, legislation, job postings, trade questions, world events, web site design, download software, search engines, advertising, submit lists, internet tips, lunch room, search engines, submit lists, survey and more. Excellent navigation, fast download time, minimal graphic size, Java animation, frames and more. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's very nice, but could you tell us how to order it and how much it costs, etc? Should readers contact you for copies? PAT] ------------------------------ From: srkleine@midway.uchicago.edu (steven r kleinedler) Subject: Credit Given Where Credit Due (re Ameritech) Organization: The University of Chicago Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:20:57 GMT Well, I feel duty-bound to report the good with the bad. You may remember I'd mentioned that I had the stutter-tone even when my voice-mailbox was empty, so I had to keep checking my voice-mail (a five cent call) to see if I had voice mail or not. Well, an Ameritech employee saw my post, called me, and has had me on the line with a service person out east. Both seemed very incensed that I'd actually placed a call twice and nothing had been accomplished in two weeks (apparently there was no indication that any type of troubleshooting had been set in motion.) It's not fixed yet, but it's being worked on, and I appreciate these workers' efforts very much. I hope that Ameritech realizes that they do have some employees who do care and who are making up for the slackers they have in other areas. Steve Kleinedler ------------------------------ From: Ian Angus Subject: Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:45:26 -0700 Organization: Angus TeleManagement Group Bruce wrote: > Is there any reasonably well-accepted standard for the letters on a > telephone? > The reason I ask is that our local NZ phone company has introduced > "WordNumbers", using 2=ABC, 3=DEF 4=GHI 5=JKL 6=MNO 7=PQRS 8=TUV > 9=WXYZ. That's pretty close to the North American letter placement, except that Q and Z do not appear at all on "standard" buttons here. The need for those letters in "dial by name" and similar features has led some manufacturers to add them -- most commonly, Q and Z are added to the 0. IAN ANGUS Tel: 905-686-5050 ext 222 Angus TeleManagement Group Fax: 905-686-2655 8 Old Kingston Road e-mail: ianangus@angustel.ca Ajax Ontario Canada L1T 2Z7 http://www.angustel.ca ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone Date: 12 Apr 1996 08:59:53 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) > The reason I ask is that our local NZ phone company has introduced > "WordNumbers", using 2=ABC, 3=DEF 4=GHI 5=JKL 6=MNO 7=PQRS 8=TUV > 9=WXYZ. This is the new ITU standard for phone pads, patterned after the U.S. phone pad, with the addition of the Q on 7 and Z on 9. Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) Subject: Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone Date: 12 Apr 1996 14:05:41 GMT Organization: University of Georgia, Athens Bruce (Bruce@cherrybomb.omega.co.nz) wrote: > Is there any reasonably well-accepted standard for the letters on a > telephone? > Can someone tell me what is the most common layout, (presumably, the > one used in the USA) who decided on it and why. Also, what other > standards exist. > The reason I ask is that our local NZ phone company has introduced > "WordNumbers", using 2=ABC, 3=DEF 4=GHI 5=JKL 6=MNO 7=PQRS 8=TUV > 9=WXYZ. I've searched and searched, and I just cannot find a phone (or > any other keypad with letters) anywhere that uses that layout ... they > ALL have Q and Z on the 1 key. The US layout leaves out Q and Z altogether. Apparently you're looking at a straightforward extension of it. Michael A. Covington http://www.ai.uga.edu/faculty/covington/ Artificial Intelligence Center The University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-7415 U.S.A. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Real, real old telephones in the USA dating back to about the 1930's sometimes had 'Z' on the final hole used for the operator. I only saw one phone like that. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ekleinha@sprynet.com Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 06:24:33 -0700 Subject: Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle in Vol 16, #174, mjenkins@cdmnet.com (Michael W. Jenkins) states: > When I was growing up in Illinois, back in the 50-60's I had learned > that is was against the law for citizens to wear headphones while > operating a vehicle. A friend's daughter was stopped for speeding about a month ago, and the Florida Highway Patrol officer placed an additional fine on the ticket for wearing a headset (for a portable CD player) while driving. My friend called the state Department of Motor Vehicles to ask about the charge, and was informed that Florida has had a law on the books since the early 70's that bans wearing a headset while operating a motor vehicle on a public highway (motorcycles are exempt). Judging by the number of drivers that I observe daily that are wearing headsets of some kind, this law is not consistantly enforced. Ed Kleinhample - Consultant Land O' Lakes, FL. ------------------------------ From: ARTHUR%MPA15C@MPA15AB.mv.Unisys.COM Date: 12 APR 96 09:22 Subject: Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle Mike Jenkins inquired about the legality of driving while using headphones. While this varies, no doubt, from state to state, in California it is illegal to drive -- or to ride a bicycle -- with both ears covered. One may have one ear covered. (Is that a "headphone" in singular?). Obviously, the police rarely enforce the statute and it thus serves as a convenient vehicle for harrassment. Arthur L. Shapiro Arthur@mpa15c.mv.unisys.com ------------------------------ From: aerostar@ccia.com Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 05:51:07 EDT Subject: Re: Free EMail Address For Your FAX Machine Information Service writes: > This service will allow you, your friends, your clients worldwide to > send emails directly to your fax machine. You get the immediate > attention without turning on your computer and the sender will receive > the email confirmation whether the transmission succeeds or fails. I just can't see the advantage here, unless you use an online service that charges for incoming email. What are the costs after the three month trial period? Even if it's dirt cheap, a few issues of TELECOM DIGEST would run you out of fax paper soon, not to mention other email. If a piece of correspondence is important enough to demand immediate attention, why not fax it in the first place? Think about it: you have a computer, you have email, you probably have a fax modem in your computer too. > Please note that your fax's email address is your privacy and CALLFAX > should not reveal it to anybody. "Should not?" How about something more trustful like _will never _? A few years back I used to receive junk faxes from a company that offered me a free coffeemaker if I would fax back a list of 100 other fax numbers to them. I can't help but wonder if CALLFAX is along the same line since: 1) The original post was addressed "Dear Netter,"; 2) No phone number, other than a fax; 3) No company snail address; 4) No contact name. Eric Friedebach aerostar@ccia.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 19:19:32 +0000 From: clay_ritter@nt.com Subject: Re: More About the Mysterious Collect Calls From Jail Organization: Public Carrier Networks, Nortel mayhew@WKUVX1.WKU.EDU wrote: > In two further articles, the Bowling Green, Ky {Daily News} continues > reporting collect calls from the county jail, billed to local citizens > who say they didn't accept them. One couple disputed a $38 charge and > say they received a letter from Invision denying there was any problem > with the billing. Reminds me of a collect call scam I saw while installing a network in a major university in the south. In NJ, the prison phone system has a device that presents a recording at the beginning of each collect call (the only type allowed) that states the call is originating from the NJ State Prison. A prisoner had somehow managed to cause the recording to be "garbled", so that all the answering party heard is "garble-garble - please press one". The called party would press one (most times) and the prisoner would pass himself off as a "telephone repairman". He would ask them to transfer his call to "00", getting the AT&T operator, then have them connect him to his destination - while the university got billed for the whole call! This guy was good -- he somehow figured out what type of phone they had (probably asked them), and when the called party did not know how to transfer the call (new phone system and all) he would step them through the process! It took a month to track him down, mainly because AT&T was difficult to get to be responsive. Seems to trace a call you have to pay a fee and they only will monitor calls on two phone numbers for 24 hours! this guy was calling numbers all pver the campus randomly. Clay Ritter ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:51:11 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: Who Retains the 809 Area Code? Wil Dixon mentions "specifically, Puerto Rico" and then goes on to list the NXX codes assigned in Puerto Rico. I would have thought that Puerto Rico would have been the Caribbean island country retaining 809. However, effective 1 March 1996, Puerto Rico went into "permissive dialing" with its *OWN NEW* NPA, 787. And during the permissive dialing period, there any *new* central office NXX codes assigned to Puerto Rico will be assigned such that they are *only* available via the 787 NPA, and *not* via 809. If someone tries to dial a *new* Puerto Rican central office NXX code as 809-NXX-xxxx, they will either route to a vacant code recording *or* to even a *wrong number* elsewhere in the Caribbean! It is assumed that the Dominican Republic will continue to have the 809 NPA, as they have *NOT* expressed a desire to withdraw from 809 into a new NPA of their own. Most every other NANP Caribbean location has either been assigned a code, or expressed a desire to be assigned an area code of their own. In the old AT&T Long Lines assigned 809-NNX codes prior to divestiture, the central office codes were assigned in "blocks" to particular locations. It used to be the rule: 29X Bermuda 3NX Bahamas 4NX various small British islands (Br.Virgin Is, Grenada, Barbados, etc) 5NX Dominican Republic 6NX Trinidad & Tobago (except 68X or 69X) 68X or 69X more Dominican Republic 7NX/8NX Puerto Rico (except 77X) 77X U.S. Virgin Is. 9NX Jamaica (except most 94X; I think that there was one 94X in Jamaica) 946 Turks & Caicos Is. 947-8-9 Cayman Is. Within the 4NX block, the various small British Caribbean islands, from British Virgin Islands all the way down to Grenada/Carricou (please note I specify these islands as "small British" locations, as some French and Dutch islands with their own country codes interrupt this linear-like strip along the map), particular islands had been assigned *consecutive* blocks of 4NX codes, and the assignment scheme tried to keep all of the codes for a particular carrier assigned within the same "4N". Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, and the Bahamas have traditionally had the largest block of NNX (or now NXX) central office codes in the +1-809 Caribbean. Recently, Barbados, Grenada and Bermuda (and probably the U.S. Virgin Islands) have had a modest increase in the number of Central Office codes assigned (of course, due to cellular, pagers, faxes, modems, additional voice lines, etc). But the two *largest* consumers of Central Office Codes in the Caribbean have been Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. Bellcore NANPA took over the Central Office Code assignments for NPA 809 after the divestiture of AT&T. When 809 was moving into a "jeopardy" situation, and then the trend of *each* Caribbean entity getting their own NPA began, both Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic were asked if they wanted to get a new NPA and to have it actually implemented early in the remainder of the network. The Dominican Republic seemed *not* to want to change- Puerto Rico "blinked" and thus we are now in a permissive dialing period since 1 March 1996 with Puerto Rico using 787 as their new NPA. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:50:38 -0400 From: lrodrgz@lubricant.free.org (Luis A. Rodriguez) Subject: Re: Who Retains The 809 Area Code? In TELECOM Digest V16 #171, Will says: > Puerto Rico > Specifically ... > PR Puerto Rico > 809 Adjuntas-A 829L > Aguada-A 252L 868L Seems Will has not read the previous articles regarding NPA changes where it states that PR has changed it's NPA to 787. PR is in permissive dialing, so you can use 809 or 787. The only Carribbean country not requesting an NPA change is the Dominican Republic, therefore seems they will keep the 809 NPA. Luis A. Rodriguez lrodrgz@free.org lrodrgz@slip.net ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Who Retains The 809 Area Code? Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 13:13:18 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , wildixon@uiuc.edu wrote: > Puerto Rico Well, actually, no. Puerto Rico is already six weeks into permissive dialing with its new area code, 787. The new area code becomes mandatory for all calls to Puerto Rico 1/31/97. The new area code will also be mandatory immediately for new prefixes added in Puerto Rico between 3/1/96 and 1/31/97. > VI Virgin Islands > 809 Charlotte Amalie-A 690L 691C 692L 693C 712L 713L 714L 715L 770L > 771L 774L 775L 776L 777L 779L > Christiansted-A 773L > Frederiksted-A 772L > Kingshill-A 778L The U.S. Virgin Islands haven't announced a split yet, but many of us expect that they will soon. [I tried to e-mail this to Wil at wildixon@uiuc.edu, but there is an error in his .forward file on ux1.cso.uiuc.edu] Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: ekleinha@sprynet.com Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 05:08:07 -0700 Subject: Re: Right to Television Signals Debbie, Read your posting in the TELECOM Digest concerning NBC and your Primestar service. I have an RCA DSS satellite system with service through DirecTV. As I live in an outlying area approximately 45 miles north of Tampa, FL, I opted to receive feeds from all of the broadcast networks via the satellite. Shortly after enabling this service, I received a letters from the Tampa ABC (WFTS-28) and FOX (WTVT-13) affiliates stating their right to be the exclusive source of their respective networks in my area, and that they had requested that DirecTV discontinue the salellite feeds of their networks. I immediately called DirecTV's Customer Service number, and was told that I had the right to contest this statement and demand that each station come to my home and perform a signal strength and quality test. If the signal was not of acceptable strength and quality given the antenna currently installed, then I am within my rights to continue the satellite feeds. The people at DirecTV immediately sent a letter (CC'ed to me) to each of these stations stating that their claim was being disputed (and that my satellite feed would continue until the dispute was resolved). About two weeks later, I received a letter from DirecTV stating that the stations had declined to perform the signal tests and had withdrawn their demand that the satellite feeds be discontinued. I would suggest that you contact PrimeStar and have them make a similar demand of the local NBC station. If the signal fades in and out due to circumstances beyond your control, then I think you have a case. Good Luck. K-Systems Software and Consulting, Land O' Lakes, FL. Ed Kleinhample - ekleinha@sprynet.com ------------------------------ From: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 12 Apr 96 00:37:12 -0500 Subject: Disconnecting Phone Service via Webpage Some of the recent entries on the Bell Canada homepage (http://www.bell.ca/) are aimed at student markets. One of these items is a new web-based facility for disconnecting phone service, as terms are ending on many college and university campuses. There's also a "reconnect" page for students wishing to resume phone service in the fall. The disconnecting and reconnecting web pages have form material prompting for things like name, address, phone and account numbers, last (or first) date of service, and other personal items. One gets to this page by getting to the Bell website, selecting a language, then proceeding to "What's new". The disconnect/reconnect web feature was listed on 4th April 1996. Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:259/730@fidonet.org Internet: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #176 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 15 12:27:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA25782; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:27:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:27:20 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604151627.MAA25782@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #177 TELECOM Digest Mon, 15 Apr 96 12:27:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 177 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ameritech Announces NPA 440 (John Cropper) Luddite Convention (Chicago Tribune via Tad Cook) Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement (Wall St. Journal via Tad Cook) NMT Coverage in Spain (David Husband) mixfft03.zip - Arbitrary N FFT C-source (Jens Joergen Nielsen) USR Career Opportunities (Dave Padgitt) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Ameritech Announces NPA 440 Date: 14 Apr 1996 15:32:31 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA AMERITECH RELEASE: Thursday, April 4, 1996 Northeast Ohio's Next New Area Code Is 440 The Northeast Ohio Telecommunications Industry Planning Group today unveiled its plan to introduce this area's second new area code in as many years. The new area code will carry the number 440 and will apply to all or part of 11 Northeast Ohio counties to the East, West and South of Cleveland, beginning next summer. The City of Cleveland and several adjacent communities within Cuyahoga County will retain the area code designation 216. The industry plan follows the recommendation of an eight-member advisory panel comprised of Metropolitan Cleveland area representatives from business, government and academia. The panel, chaired by David C. Sweet, Dean of the Maxine Goodman Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University, evaluated more than a dozen detailed proposals for the boundaries of the new area code over the last five months before making its final recommendation to the industry group. "Everyone on our panel knew from the outset this would be a challenging project and that it would not be possible to please everyone with the end result," Sweet said. "But we also knew we had a unique opportunity to help determine the best possible boundary configuration to serve this area for years to come. We think we've achieved that goal." Implementation of the plan will not change the cost of placing or receiving calls. It will, however, mean people will have to dial more digits more often. Placing a call from one area code to another requires dialing "1" plus the area code and the seven-digit number, even when the call is rated for billing purposes as a local call. New area codes like 440 are needed when the supply of telephone numbers within a geographic area is about to run out. In Ohio, a healthy local economy and the rapidly increasing use of cellular phones, fax machines, pagers, computer modems and telephones of all types have triggered introduction of new area codes. Each new area code introduction makes available almost 8 million additional phone numbers Introduction of the 440 area code marks the second phase of an industry plan announced in September, 1995 to deal with a shortage of telephone numbers in Ohio's Northeast quadrant. Phase I of the plan created area code 330, which has been in use on an optional basis since March 9. The 330 area code is being used to designate an area to the south that contains all or part of 12 counties and includes Medina, Akron, Canton and Youngstown. Use of the 330 area code to call that area becomes mandatory beginning June 29, 1996. The new 440 area code will be available for optional use in June 1997. Use of the 440 area code will become mandatory, beginning January, 1998. In determining geographic boundaries for the new area code, the advisory panel and the industry group considered several, often conflicting priorities. The plan as adopted will: * accommodate continued demand for new numbers for as long as possible, putting off the need for further changes for approximately 10 years, * enable all seven-digit phone numbers to stay the same, require each telephone number in this area to change area codes no more than once, * ensure that the cost of making calls will not change as a result of the plan, even when dialing patterns must, and * minimize expensive and disruptive rebuilding of local telephone networks, the costs of which would have to be passed on to customers. The advisory panel's consensus recommendation for the 440 area code received the unanimous support of the company representatives in the Telecommunications Industry Group. The plan has also been endorsed by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the Ohio Office of the Consumers' Counsel and Bellcore, the industry consortium that administers the assignment of area codes throughout North America. Telecommunications companies with the Northeast Ohio Industry Planning Group are designing communications programs to inform their customers about implementation procedures and to help customers make necessary changes at the appropriate times. The Industry Group consists of the following telecommunications companies: Airtouch Paging, ALLTEL, Ameritech, Ameritech Cellular and Paging, AT&T, Cellular One, Century Telephone, Conneaut Telephone, Doylestown Telephone, GTE Mobilnet, GTE North, MCI, MFS, Nextel, Orwell Telephone, Pagenet, Pattersonville Telephone, Sprint Cellular, Sprint/United Telephone, USA Mobile and Youngstown Cellular. ----------------------------------------------- Ameritech, one of the world's largest communications companies, helps more than 13 million customers keep in touch. The company provides a wide array of local phone, data and video services in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. Ameritech is creating dozens of new information, entertainment and interactive services for homes, businesses and governments around the world. One of the world's leading cellular companies, Ameritech serves more than 1.9 million cellular and 750,000 paging customers, and holds cellular interests in China, Norway and Poland. Ameritech owns interests in telephone companies in New Zealand and Hungary and in business directories in Germany and other countries. Nearly 1 million investors hold Ameritech (NYSE: AIT) shares. ------------------------------------------------- John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Luddite Convention Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 22:54:50 PDT Luddites to boycott TV, computers BY RON GROSSMAN Chicago Tribune BARNESVILLE, Ohio -- Each marching to a different drummer, 350 delegates to the Second Luddite Congress have come to this countryside hamlet to write a declaration of independence from the modern world. For two days, they have been drafting a manifesto calling for a boycott of TV, cars and computers. They are united (an adjective only rarely usable at an anarchists' convention) in the conviction that technology is an enemy. As a first order of business, the group decided to bring its practices more in line with members' ideals. "Aren't we being hypocritical, decrying this and decrying that," asked a delegate at Saturday's opening session, "but sitting here and using electricity?" Scott Savage, publisher of Plain Magazine and the convention's organizer, flipped off the light switches. That produced a round of applause but no appreciable drop in the illumination level of a hall borrowed for the congress. The stately Stillwater Friends Meetinghouse was provided with soaring clear-glass windows when it was built, 120 years ago, by the Quakers, nonconformists who fled England for religious autonomy. Also present were a lot more journalists than usually cover the sectarian-political beat: reporters from 7 major American newspapers, plus the Financial Times of London and a German newsmagazine. Perhaps their editors noticed a similarity between the Luddites' anti-technology philosophy and that of the Unabomber. Historian Kirkpatrick Sale, who has written about the Luddites and gave the keynote address, referred to Unabomber suspect Theodore Kaczynski as "a certain pathetic creature now in custody." Latter-day Luddites, Sale noted, don't need the Unabomber to teach them the futility of violence as a political weapon: They have the example of their own namesakes. The original Luddites were radical workers of the 19th century who thought the solution to the miserable working conditions in England's first factories was to smash the machinery. When they went on to kill a factory owner, public opinion turned against them. They were denounced to the police and hung by the dozens. It is said that on the way to the gallows, they called upon others to take up their cause -- whence this Second Luddite Congress, albeit 184 years late. Like their predecessors, neo-Luddites think the only way to restore freedom is to repeal the industrial revolution. Thus, use of tape recorders was barred during the weekend sessions. Speakers had to do without a microphone. Instead of a photographer, a sketch artist recorded the proceedings. A TV crew from Wheeling, W.Va., about 25 miles east, was politely escorted off the premises. Yet recognizing that some compromise must be made with the enemy, the Luddites debated where to draw the line between permitted- and tabu-technology. "I'd like to believe that nobody in this hall regrets the invention of toilet paper," one delegate rose to say. No doubt, a lot more than 350 Americans hate what TV and cars have done to their country. Many of the gray-haired Luddites, though, are veteran foot soldiers of long-odds crusades. If there were service ribbons for lost causes, this place would look like officers' mess at the Pentagon. Jim Plato lives with his delegate-wife, Katrina, and their three sons on a Catholic Worker commune in rural Washington state. His father was a Navy man, his three brothers are Marines. Jim did time in jail for sitting in at a military instillation, protesting "U.S. militarism and Latin American dictatorships." Theodore Odell spent 23 years running a natural-grain bakery, using wheat grown on the remaining 14 acres of a homestead established by his forebearers near Brodhead, Wis. En route to the congress, Odell stopped at Tippecanoe, Ind., where American troops badly defeated the Shawnee Indians in 1811. "My people were pioneers in Indiana before moving on to Wisconsin," Odell said. "So I've got to take personal responsibility for a part of that massacre, too." Michael Rosenberg, a former computer programmer from Toronto, has spent ten years standing on street corners handing out anti-computer leaflets. "We've got maybe ten years before computers make us robots of a totalitarian society," Rosenberg said. "For a long time I was all alone. Now I've got a couple of people helping to get the word out." After each session, ideas are collected for possible inclusion in the Luddite manifesto. A leading candidate is the concept of the need to get back in touch with the soil, from which true sustenance comes, as an antidote for the electronic distractions of high-tech society. Yet most people can't afford a farm, noted Stephanie Mills, an environmentalist author. "So maybe the slogan should be, `Get a little land, even if it's a flower box."' she said. It is still unclear whether that suggestion will make it to the final draft, which is to be established at Monday's closing session. An anarchist convention doesn't operate like others do. There are no subcommittees or "breakout" sessions, no lobbying or cloakroom politicking. On Sunday, the Luddites gathered in the Meetinghouse for a Quaker-style meditative session. There was no agenda. Delegates just sat silently, alone in their thoughts, until prompted to rise and share them. Savage, whose magazine is a bible for those seeking a simpler life and who issued the call to the convention, acknowledged from the beginning that, operating without rules has both its up- and down sides. "We don't know if we're doing this thing right, or doing it wrong," Savage said, in opening the congress. "But one thing I will promise you. When it's time to go home, we won't make you fill out those darn evaluation forms." ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:02:25 PDT Technology: Digital Age Spawns `Neo-Luddite' Movement Via AP By G. PASCAL ZACHARY The Wall Street Journal Let others groan under the weight of their electronic mail and jabber into their cellular phones. A small but ardent segment of the populace is having none of it. Scott Savage and his family have chosen to abandon most of the trappings of modern technology. Three years ago, when they got rid of their radio, "there was this tremendous silence at first, and we didn't know what to do," says Mr. Savage, a 36-year-old grant writer who lives in eastern Ohio. "Then we started bringing home songbooks from the library and singing in the kitchen." The lack of recorded music "makes us all less self-conscious and willing to sing a lot more." While most Americans strain to keep pace with electronic innovations, the radio-free Savages also live without a telephone, television, computer and even electricity. They say their decision has strengthened their family ties and made them more self-reliant and appreciative of nature. "This is a religious journey for us," says Mr. Savage, who with his wife converted six years ago to an austere brand of the Quaker faith from mainstream Protestantism. Nobody tracks their numbers, but a backlash appears to be gaining strength among those overwhelmed by the pace of change and unwilling to discard old, cherished ways. Some extremists reject technology. Unabomber suspect Theodore J. Kaczynski lived without electricity or running water until his arrest last week in Montana. But plenty of solid citizens also refuse to join the march of progress. Their movement is in no way monolithic; it embraces a panoply of views and partisans of many stripes: radical environmentalists, Internet debunkers, opponents of genetic engineering and biotechnology, the Amish and other spiritual traditionalists and right-to-death activists who reject life-extending technologies for the terminally ill. The one common thread may be an unwillingness to treat technology as an abstraction, says Carroll W. Pursell Jr., an historian of technology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. "After all," he says, "there are different machines and tools. You can accept one and reject another." For all their variety, most opponents of technology acknowledge common historical roots, harking back to the early 19th-century English weavers who broke textile machinery, apparently at the urging of their leader, Ned Lud. "The original Luddites made bad choices in resorting to violence, but they were trying to protect their way of life, and so are we," says Mr. Savage, who this weekend is convening a "Luddite Congress" in Barnsville, Ohio, a rural part of the state where many Amish live. The gathering is expected to draw a few hundred "new" Luddites, who are being encouraged to travel there by train. Photographs and tape-recordings of the proceedings won't be permitted, but a stenographer will record the discussions, which will be held in a century-old, brick meeting house. "Even as the rush of technology is gaining speed, there is more questioning of it," says Jerry Mander, program director of the Deep Ecology Foundation, a San Francisco philanthropic group. Ten years ago, the personal computer and videocassette recorder were household novelties. Today, few homes offer refuge from digital intruders: pagers, fax machines, call-waiting signals and cell phones. In some quarters, that's led to a growing willingness "to poke fun at technology, to point out the gap between its promise and the reality," says Clifford Stoll, an Oakland computer-security sleuth who contends the Internet leads to social isolation and a breakdown of community. Others simply cling doggedly to low-tech tools. Book editor Bill Henderson, of Wainscott, N.Y., has formed the Lead Pencil Club, and has published a compendium of advice from members on how to live "contraption-free in a computer-crazed world." Steven Leveen, who publishes the Levenger mail-order catalog, sets great store by the fountain pen. Delighting in what he calls the "ritual" of refilling it from a bottle of ink, Mr. Leveen began hand-writing most of his business correspondence a year ago. He apparently has plenty of company: He has watched in amazement as Levenger's sales of fountain pens tripled to $5 million in 1995. Aversion to technology can be part of a spiritual quest for a simpler, more fulfilling life. Others -- often social critics who hold forth in academia and in the media -- don't necessarily feel compelled to forgo modern conveniences in order to question the implications of technological change. "Some of us are focused more on the critique of technology, while others are more focused on living," says Chellis Glendinning, a psychologist in New Mexico who gave the movement a boost five years ago when she wrote a "neo-Luddite" manifesto that appeared in the Utne Reader. But many neo-Luddites share an attraction to an austere, back-to-the- land life. "There's a profound antiurbanism in a lot of self-styled Luddism, a deep pastoralism at work," says Iain Boal, a geography professor at the University of California at Berkeley who has studied the movement. "The Amish are in some sense an ideal, because they combine a rejection of technology with a spiritual attachment to the land that I think is essential," says Kirkpatrick Sale, an environmentalist and historian of the Luddite movement who lives in Manhattan. Mr. Sale's own brand of Luddism is symbolically aligned with that of the original Luddites. Last week, before delivering a lecture at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, he smashed a personal computer with a sledgehammer. Even those who share Mr. Sale's views don't always approve of his theatrics, arguing that they simply reinforce the negative image of Luddites as foolish tilters at windmills. He retorts that such tactics are a "swift and symbolic way" of conveying that "the control of technology is at this moment absolutely undemocratic," in that it rests with corporations, rather than individuals and communities. The sense that people are serving machines, and not the other way around, is what most irks Luddite sympathizers. To describe what, in her view, are technology's ravages on both mind and body, Ms. Glendinning has coined the term "technoaddiction." And with a nod to 12-step programs, she exhorts the stricken to "recover from Western civilization." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can tell you the way I see some very unthinking people dealing with modern technology has almost convinced me to become a Luddite on a few occassions. What I have against modern technology in general, and computers in particular, is that they have afforded so many people the opportunity to quit thinking for themsevles entirely. For example many math skills are going by the wayside; people do not know how to do calculations in their mind. They have no need to do so since the computer will do it much faster. And did you note the item in the papers recently talking about how few children these days are learning good penmanship. Children as young as six or seven years old are very good typists at keyboards, but do very poorly when asked to write with a pen or pencil. The computer has by and large replaced the need to have brains and intelligence in large quarters of American society. I think many people are Luddites or neo-Luddites out of frust- ration for these reasons. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Apr 1996 22:34:37 +0100 From: David Husband Subject: NMT Coverage in Spain Organization: Scanmaster Products Limited Hello, Could anybody tell me what is the extent of the old NMT450 and NMT900 cellphone coverage in Spain? I would also like to know of any English-speaking NMT web sites. Can anybody help ?? Thank you in advance. David Husband, Scanmaster Products Ltd, +44 1305 826900 +44 973 625969 Portland, Dorset, UK fax 1305 860086 ------------------------------ From: jjn@login.dknet.dk (Jens Joergen Nielsen) Subject: mixfft03.zip - Arbitrary N FFT C-source Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:46:39 +0100 Organization: Customer at DKnet Reply-To: jnielsen@internet.dk I have released mixfft03.zip, comprising the C-source for a very fast arbitrary N FFT routine as well as a benchmark program demonstrating the numerical capabilities of the routine. mixfft03.zip (38701 bytes) is available at: ftp://dspsun.eas.asu.edu/pub/comp.speech/analysis/mixfft03.zip ftp://ftp.pacificorp.com/.0/msdos/c/mixfft03.zip ftp://ftp.hk.super.net/.1/simtel/msdos/c/mixfft03.zip ftp://ftp.uoknor.edu/mirrors/SimTel/msdos/c/mixfft03.zip ftp://ftp.hzeeland.nl/pub/simtel-msdos/c/mixfft03.zip ftp://ftp.uni-heidelberg.de/pub/simtel/c/mixfft03.zip ftp://ftp.doc.ic.ac.uk/computing/systems/ibmpc/simtel/msdos/c/mixfft03.zip ftp://ftp.duth.gr/pub/dos/SimTel/c/mixfft03.zip ftp://ftp.nus.sg/pub/zj/msdos/c/mixfft03.zip ftp://ftp.technion.ac.il/pub/unsupported/simtel/msdos/c/mixfft03.zip ftp://ftp.wustl.edu/.archive02/systems/ibmpc/simtel/msdos/c/mixfft03.zip ftp://oak.oakland.edu/simtel/msdos/c/mixfft03.zip ftp://ftp.cs.cuhk.hk/pub3/simtel/msdos/c/mixfft03.zip MIXFFT v0.3 contains the C source for a mixed-radix FFT routine. It performs a fast discrete Fourier transform (FFT) of a complex sequence, x, of an arbitrary length, n. The output, y, is also a complex sequence of length n. The routine is accompanied by a demo program, fftbench.c, that demonstrates the numerical capabilities. It measures the execution time as well. If you wish to test the capabilities of another FFT routine, the fftbench.c is easy to modify. The C-source is ShareWare. Please read the text file included in the package before using the FFT routine commercially. Please send comments, suggestions and questions to the address below. Jens J. Nielsen jnielsen@internet.dk ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 09:46:14 CST From: Dave Padgitt Subject: USR Career Opportunities U.S. ROBOTICS is a high-tech, fast paced full service communication system leader with over 60% annual growth! As our tremendous success continues, our team of professionals is busy putting the future in perspective! currently, we're seeking dedicated professionals with a BSEE, BSCE or BSCS Degree and a minimum of five year industry experience at the R&D or systems level to join our dynamic team! COMPUTER TELEPHONY ENGINEER Requires a BSEE, BSCE, or BSCS with current experience in computer telephony integration (CTI), and at least five years of industry experience at the R&D or systems-level. You will be responsible for a variety of CTI and related hardware and software technologies, (including benchmarking, compatibility testing, component cost analysis, alternate technology evaluations, proof-of-concept development, etc.) HOME AUTOMATION ENGINEER Requires a BSEE, BSCE, or BSCS with current experience in home automation including powerline modulation, security systems, and telecommunications, and at least five years of industry experience at the R&D or systems-level. You will be responsible for a variety of home automation technologies, (including benchmarking, compatibility testing, component cost analysis, alternate technology evaluations, proof-of-concept development, etc.) Come experience our view of future technology! As a "top 20 hot Growth Company"-Business Week, we can offer an excellent compensation package including 401[k], vision insurance and employee stock purchase plan. Please forward resume with salary requirement to: HR/DGPTD, U.S. Robotics, Personal Communications Division, 7770 N. Frontage Road, Skokie, IL 60077-2690. E-Mail rnykazza@usr.com (eoe m/f/d/v) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #177 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 15 13:15:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA28539; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:15:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:15:20 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604151715.NAA28539@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #178 TELECOM Digest Mon, 15 Apr 96 13:15:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 178 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Virtual Magistrate on the Internet (San Jose Mercury News via Tad Cook) 911 From a Cellular Phone (Mark J. Cuccia) Sprint - More Confusion With Fridays Free (Shankar Prasad) Greene Says Justice Department Can Keep Sensitive Papers (Van Heffner) Long Distance Networks in the US (Jim Jacobs) DCS/PCS-1900 (GSM) to IS-41 Gateway (Stu Jeffery) More Information on the 412 Split/Overlay Proposals (Jeffrey Carpenter) FCC Hearings on Telecommunications '96 Act? (Ronda Hauben) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: Virtual Magistrate on the Internet Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:04:10 PDT Let there be order on the Net By Elizabeth Wasserman Mercury News Staff Writer The Net now has its own People's Court. For $10 per filing, anyone with a beef about a wrongful posting in cyberspace can navigate to an Internet site called the Virtual Magistrate, click in a formal complaint and have the dispute resolved within three days by a trained arbitrator. "It's the Internet version of alternative dispute resolution," said David Post, a Georgetown University law professor and co-director of the Cyberspace Law Institute, one of the sponsors of the experimental project. The month-old Virtual Magistrate is an on-line non-binding arbitration and fact-finding system designed to settle disputes involving Internet users, individuals or groups who claim to be harmed by messages and system operators caught in the middle of these disputes. The Internet address is http://vmag.law.vill.edu:8080 . The rise in use of the Internet has raised a host of legal questions about such issues as libel, copyright infringement and rightful claim to domain names. Many of the cases are winding up in traditional U.S. and international courts. Some legal experts and Internet proponents say courts are sometimes ill-prepared to resolve these disputes because the process is slow and costly, many jurists aren't familiar with the technology and most laws were written before anyone conceived of the Internet becoming widely used. "You can wait weeks or months or years to get a (court) decision," said G. Gervaise Davis III, a Monterey attorney who is one of a handful of trained magistrates. "But the truth of the matter is, after a week, anything out on the Internet is all over the world. It doesn't make a difference unless a decision can be reached and a posting can be taken down quickly." Proponents' hopes Proponents of a voluntary Internet court system -- they range from scholars to on-line service providers to Internet free-speech advocates -- hope the Virtual Magistrate paves the way for more on-line disputes to be resolved outside traditional courtrooms. "This is a tiny step," Post said. "But it is a step toward developing a common law for the Net, made by people who know what the Net is about, as opposed to courts imposing rules that have largely been designed for different circumstances or contexts. It's better to have the Net community making these determinations." Right now, if people have a complaint about a posting on the Internet, they often contact their on-line or Internet service provider and ask that it be taken down. In a handful of decisions, U.S. courts have put these service providers under scrutiny. Last May, a judge in Mineola, N.Y. sided with an investment banker who filed a $200 million libel suit against the on-line service provider Prodigy and ruled that the company is liable for the electronic comments made by subscribers. In November, a federal judge in San Jose ruled that another provider, Netcom On-Line Communication Services Inc., may be liable for "contributory" copyright infringement if it knew a computer bulletin board subscriber was infringing on the copyrights of the Church of Scientology and took no action. `A quick source' "There has been a lot of pressure on the question of whether a system operator who provides the connection between the two could be held liable for the wrongdoing," said David Johnson, director of Counsel Connect, an on-line service for attorneys in Washington, D.C. "This is a way for them to get a quick source of neutral evaluation of the merits of a complaint and determine the question of what is reasonable to do in a circumstance -- whether to take the posting down or leave it up." The Virtual Magistrate, which was put on-line by the Villanova University law school and financed by the National Center for Automated Information Research, will be reviewed at a conference May 22 in Washington, D.C. Although no one has yet filed a formal complaint, a copyright infringement dispute was literally "settled on the virtual courthouse steps," said Virtual Magistrate program Executive Director Bob Gellman. Not a panacea "No one views this as a panacea," Gellman said. "It's not going to resolve all problems. It's not going to resolve all disputes. We may not be able to keep all cases out of court by any means." But to those who want to maintain the freedom of speech that flows on the Internet, any way to keep the government out of Net affairs is welcome. "Any kind of dispute resolution stuff that doesn't involve the full force of the U.S. legal system is probably a good idea. At the very least, it will save everyone money, not just in legal costs but in the taxes it takes to run the courts," said Stanton McCandlish, an Internet activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "Most other fields have arbitration measures in place. So do clubs and lodges. Universities have internal courts. It just seems natural that this model would migrate to the Internet." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:15:58 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: 911 From a Cellular Phone I've had a BellSouth Mobility Cellular phone for just over a year now. I had my first opportunity to call 911 from the cellphone this past Saturday afternoon. I'm *not* bragging that I called 911 nor am I taking any joy in it, but only sharing some info on it. I was waiting for a bus at a neighborhood intersection, reading some printouts of email, not looking up. I heard a loud 'pop' or 'boom' (no horns) and looked up, seeing a van skidding around on the street. I thought that the van had a tire blowout, but when I saw a bumper, glass and twisted metal on the street and a sports car spinning around in the intersection with its front end folded up like an accordian, I knew that it wasn't simple a tire blowing out. It didn't seem anyone was hurt in either vehicle, as people got out of each, somewhat shaken up. I took out my cellphone, powered it up, entered 911-send, and was connected to a voice "Emergency Dispatch Operator". I asked if he was "Orleans" or "Jefferson". Each Parish (we don't call them Counties here in Louisiana) provides their own 911 services. The MTSO switch is actually located in Jefferson Parish, as well as the central office switch (504-83X/84X/828) that the MTSO trunks out on. The 911 operator stated that they were in Orleans Parish, where *I* was also calling from. I reported the accident, ended, and powered off. My bus came along within a few minutes, so I boarded my bus and rode off, although the bus had to pull around somewhat at the intersection due to the accident. I don't know how long it took NOPD, tow-trucks or any City Health Dept. ambulances to respond, though. I had been told that both BellSouth Mobility (B-band) and Radiofone (A-band) both trunked to Jefferson Parish's 911 Center, no matter *where* the caller in the New Orleans Metro Cellular area was located. When I got an Orleans Parish 911 operator, I wasn't sure if BellSouth changed to route all 911 calls to Orleans (although the MTSO and serving local switch are in Jefferson), or if they could route to the proper Parish's 911 based on calling cellsite. This morning, I called BellSouth Mobility customer service to inqire from "Tech Support". (On Saturday evening, the Tech Support Department at BSM was closed although regular customer service was open.) BSM changed their MTSO a few months ago to a "new and improved" switch, as well as changing the regular local central office switch it routed out through (it was 504-45X/88X/44X, it is now 504-83X/84X/828). With BSM's "new and improved MTSO, they can determine "cellsite" and try to more efficiently route to the proper 911 center. It isn't always going to be perfect, of course, since radiowaves don't follow along political jurisdictional or even telco network operational boundaries, and a cellular user *could* be moving while they are talking! While I have *never* looked forward to calling 911 from *any* type of telephone equipment or system, I'm always curious as to different cellular systems have handled it. In the past, I have had to dial 911 from telco and private (COCOT) payphones as well as from home, but not until this past Saturday have I needed to call 911 from a cellular phone. And 911 *can* provide a *necessary* safety, health and emergency response convenience! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regretably, 911 still is not operational using cellphones here in northern Illinois. I believe Gary, Indiana is the only place in this immediate area where 911 functions as it should. Everywhere else -- whether Ameritech or Cellular One -- calling 911 reaches an intercept saying that call cannot be completed as dialed; if emergency dial the operator to report same or if on one of the expressways dial *999. This latter code reaches the Illinois State Police, who are responsible for the expressways; even those within the City of Chicago itself. PAT] ------------------------------ From: sprasad@unity.sj.unisys.com (Shankar Prasad x4703) Subject: SPRINT - More Confusion on Fridays Free Date: 15 Apr 1996 16:28:36 GMT Organization: Unisys Corporation, San Jose, CA, USA An update on Sprint's Fridays Free promotion. I have been enrolled in Sprint's Fridays Free promotion. About two weeks back, I was informed by Sprint's customer service representative that, as a residence, I cannot use Fridays Free, and they said they would switch me over to Sprint Sense. Must have been the couple of hundred dollars worth of calls I made to India 8-( It appears that, even though I told them I was a residence when I signed up, and mentioned I was a residence a couple of times to a rep., and was explicitly told, "yes, as a residence, you CAN enrol in Business Sense and get Fridays Free" more than once -- in spite of all this, somehow, Sprint suddenly realizes that I cannot take Fridays Free -- after looking at two invoices of about $200 each in free calls, I guess. Yesterday (11-Apr), I received a Western Union Mailgram from Sprint informing about a modification to Fridays Free. It says: - begin quote - We want to advise you of a modification in our Fridays Free offer. Beginning April 18, 1996, calls to the following nine countries will be available at a 25-percent discount off your flat Business Sense (R) rates for every day of the week: Bolivia, China, Ecuador, India, Iran, Israel, Myanmar (formerly Burma), Pakistan and Thailand. This discount will replace free long-distance service to these countries on Fridays, and will be applied automatically to your account beginning April 18, 1996 for 12 full months ... - end quote - It goes on to provide a 800 number (800-890-9710) to call for any questions about this plan. Now when I received this letter, I thought that Sprint had changed its mind about totally denying service to customers who had been promised Fridays Free, and was offering an apology of sorts by giving a discount. So, when I called the 800 number, Sprint told me that yes, I have free Fridays till 18-Apr (excl. 18th itself), and from 18th, the 25 % discount applies. So, has Sprint stopped claiming residences are ineligible? It appeared so to me -- but to cross-check, I called Sprint Customer Service at 800-877-4020, and now Sprint tells me that No, I cannot take Fridays Free, I am being switched to Sprint Sense immediately. Ever get the idea that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing? Initially, I was going to just forget about this whole fiasco, and dump Sprint. But, with this letter, I am getting quite a bit annoyed -- on one hand, they tell me that I can use Fridays Free, and mail me a letter saying that -- on the other hand, they tell me I am not eligible. What if I had gone ahead and used Sprint, on the basis of the letter they had sent me, without cross-checking with different Customer Service Reps? Any similar experiences, anyone? Does it make sense to consider filing a complaint with the FCC on this? Regards, Shankar Prasad V sprasad@sj.unisys.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is the making of a class action in the works at the present time on this I understand. Also, people are attempting to reach Robin Loyed of Sprint, who sent out all those mailgrams with the contradictory and conflicting information. Robin Loyed's phone number was printed here last week in the hopes that a complete an authoritative answer about Sprint's intentions could be published, but so far as I know, no one has been able to get Robin Loyed on the telephone. This may have to be escalated to contacts with Sprint's legal department and their general counsel. In the meantime I strongly urge Sprint customers affected by Business Nonsense and the company's apparent decision to walk out on their contracts to withhold all payments Sprint alleges are due until the matter is resolved. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:34:23 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Greene Says Justice Department Can Keep Sensitive Papers WASHINGTON (AP) -- A heap of documents detailing business plans and other information about the nation's local Bell telephone companies can be kept by the Justice Department, a federal court has ruled. U.S. District Judge Harold Greene's order on Thursday denied a request by four Bell companies for the Justice Department to return the documents, which were filed in the years following the 1984 breakup of the Bell System. The breakup left AT&T Corp. as a long distance company and seven regional Bell companies to provide local service. The protesting companies -- BellSouth, Bell Atlantic, Nynex and SBC Communications -- wanted the documents returned to ensure that they would not fall into the hands of competitors. The three million documents could be a gold mine of information, they said. Spokesman Bill McCloskey said BellSouth was pleased that the court issued a protective order in an attempt to ensure the continued confidentiality of the documents, but disappointed because "that does not provide as great a degree of protection as return of the documents would." In his order, Greene said there are not legal provisions that would bar the Justice Department from sharing the documents with the Federal Communications Commission, which will decide Bell company requests to provide long-distance service to their own customers. The dispute over the documents arose as Greene was carrying out the requirements of a new telecommunications law, which terminates the consent decree that broke up the Bell System. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am certainly glad to see Greene out of the action on this, aren't you? The telecom reforms enacted this year in Congress have sometimes been aliased, 'The Judge Harold Greene Retirement Act', and for the first time in over a decade, perhaps sanity will now prevail. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:37:05 -0400 From: jjacobs@worldfax.com (Jim Jacobs) Subject: Long Distance Networks in the US On Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:03:26 EST, Paul Robinson wrote: > Who says it will pay a LD carrier for access to its network (or at > least, pay by the minute)? It may simply do what the smaller LD > companies do: lease circuits in areas it does not cover from one of > the big five (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Cable & Wireless, and LCI/Wiltel) at > bulk rates. Or it may go into cooperative arrangements with other > Local companies for access to their lines, similar to the way Bell > Atlantic and NYNEX decided to merge their cellular operations. I just want to clear up a misconception that some people have. Currently, there are FOUR national telephone networks in the United States. They belong to AT&T, MCI, SPRINT, and LDDS/WorldCom (soon to be known as WorldCom). The WorldCom network, which has much of its' fiber-optic cable contained in abandoned oil and gas pipelines, formerly belonged to WilTel which was purchased by WorldCom in early 1995. While Cable & Wireless, is a major player in many parts of of the world, they are a switched reseller in the US. LCI and Frontier are also switched resellers. Switched resellers own their own switches and billing platforms, but are dependent upon carriers who have network facilities to move traffic between places. Many of the numerous smaller carriers are switchless resellers. That means that they act as a retailer and get one of the larger carriers to handle their switching, call transport, and call termination for them. The carrier doing the switching also provides billing information (usually on magnettic tape) for the reseller. The reseller then produces bills from that information. JIM JACOBS jjacobs@worldfax.com Tampa, Florida, USA +1 813 330 2500 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:55:21 -0800 From: stu@best.com (Stu Jeffery) Subject: DCS/PCS-1900 (GSM) to IS-41 Gateway Synacom Receives Nokia Contract for RoamFree Gateway San Jose, California (April 12, 1996) - Synacom Technology, Inc. announced today that it has signed a contract to supply RoamFree Gateway systems to Nokia Telecommunications. Under this agreement, Synacom will provide its RoamFree=99 Gateway systems to Nokia for commercial service in the fourth quarter of 1996. The RoamFree Gateway is designed to enable seamless roaming between DCS/PCS-1900 (the North American version of the GSM standard) networks and IS-41 networks. PCS operators in North America can use this product to broaden their roaming coverage with a dual-mode PCS phone. "Synacom's strategy is to provide wireless protocol products for the introduction of new services," said Ming J. Lee, president and CEO of Synacom. "As one of the premiere network equipment vendors in the wireless industry, Nokia adds major value to our position in the market place." Synacom Technology, Inc., headquartered in San Jose, California, is a leading developer of wireless network protocol products, including IS-41, IS-124, GSM and CDPD. Synacom's business is developing and marketing interworking products for wireless and wireline networks. Nokia Telecommunications is a world leader in providing wireless handsets and infrastructure products. Nokia's wireless products and systems have been sold worldwide to enable carriers to compete and win in today's wireless service marketplace. Trademarks: RoamFree is a trademark of Synacom Technology, Inc. For More Information, contact: Stu Jeffery, Synacom Technology Phone: 1-408-296-0303 Fax: 1-408-296-0982 Email: stu@synacom.com Stu Jeffery Internet: stu@best.com 1072 Seena Ave. voice: 415-966-8199 Los Altos, CA. 94024 fax: 415-966-8456 ------------------------------ From: Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter Reply-To: jjc@pobox.com Subject: More Information on the 412 Split/Overlay Proposals Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:09:46 -0400 As was announced a few weeks ago on this list, the 412 area code is expected to exhaust in July, 1996. Industry participants met earlier this year to come up with a relief plan. They reduced the number of alternatives to three, but were unable to reach a consensus on a single plan. The matter is now befor the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The three alternatives are an overlay and two types of splits. The first split will move Pittsburgh, Carnegie and Coraopolis exchanges to a new area code. The second split will keep Pittsburgh exchanges in 412, and move all other areas to a new area code. Note that in both splits, Allegheny county will be split and the suburbs will be in a different area code from the city. I have a copy of the filing and maps at the web page: http://www.pgh.net/~jjc/412-relief Note that this page also has my commentary supporting an overlay. I have been told by some folks at Bell Atlantic that regardless of the plan adopted, they will likely change to 10 digit dialing next year for all customers. It is also my understanding that Alternative #3B appears to be favoured at this time. In order to have sufficient time to prepare, the PUC has been asked to rule by July 1, 1996. jeff jjc@pobox.com ------------------------------ From: ronda@panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Subject: FCC hHarings on Telecommunications '96 Act? Date: 15 Apr 1996 01:26:26 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC I wondered if anyone knows when and how the FCC will be taking public comments to determine the universal service language in the Telecommunications '96 Act? The Act says the FCC is charged with determining issues like this, but I wondered how one can make input into this process. Also, is there an email address of someone at the FCC who can provide such information? Or are there any newsgroups or mailing lists that officials from the FCC participate in where such discussion is ongoing, or where at least announcements are made of how to make input into the process and the deadlines for such input? Since the online community would be an important resource to involve in such a process, it would be good to see some kind of effort by the FCC to have some means of there being public discussion of these issues. Thanks for any help on this. Ronda rh120@columbia.edu ronda@panix.com ---------------------- Amateur Computerist vol. 7 no. 1 "Netizens and Online Access" Winter/Spring 1995/96 articles include "Will Access to the Net be a Privilege or a Right?" "Canadian Community Networking" "Access for All FAQ" from Germany for free email copy or subscription write: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #178 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 15 14:07:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA02094; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:07:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:07:11 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604151807.OAA02094@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #179 TELECOM Digest Mon, 15 Apr 96 14:07:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 179 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Special Report: Tracking Internet Infrastructure (Gordon Cook via gaj) Internet Users Gather to Plan Sprint Class Action (Imran Anwar) Re: Sprint Blocks International "Fridays Free" Calls (Joel M. Hoffman) Sprint Free Fridays - New Exceptions (Jason Valis) Call Display in Thailand? (Steve Ng) Help Wanted Installing Visi Fax on Unix Server (wayneld@aol.com) Area Code 268 Doesn't Work From Pac Bell (Linc Madison) Executone Sold to Tone Holdings Inc. (Joseph Elichaa) Millennium Telecom Newsletters Available (Robert Wolf) GSM Hardware - Help! (Jason Crellin) GSM Roaming Accounts in Hong Kong and Singapore (transit@hk.super.net) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 21:40:00 -0400 From: Gordon Cook (via Gordon Jacobson) Subject: Special Report: Tracking Internet Infrastructure "Tracking Internet Infrastructure: A Handbook on Business, Technology & Structural Issues Reshaping the Landscape of the Commercial Internet" An Anthology of Recent Articles from The COOK Report The Internet has undergone huge changes in the year since the NSFnet backbone service was turned off. It has become a much larger, more stratified, and more expensive entity within which to operate. Because it is still an emerging and unregulated industry, changes in the relationships between the players can be best tracked by close observation of the principal architects of the network. If, as we have done for the past four years, one focuses on nothing else, one stands a good chance of keeping up with developments. Since last September we have published a series of articles examining these changes in depth. We have concluded that it will be useful to gather them together into an organized and indexed "Handbook on Internet Infrastructure Issues". "Tracking Internet Infrastructure" -- covers the following range of critical issues: * the search for viable Internet business models; * the hierarchical organization of ISPs through CIDR and routing pressures; * the viability of the NAPS; * renumbering and ownership of IP addresses; * strains on backbone routers and backbone network redesign with switched cores; * industry views on quality of service issues; settlements, and route charging; * issues of bandwidth availability in network design; and ATM as either technology savior or dinosaur. The reoganization of the articles into topical threads that unfold over time, and the addition of a detailed index makes it easier to track otherwise complex developments. The rest of this message contains: (1) Description of the Handbook's audience; (2) The Handbook table of contents; (3) Price and ordering information. 1. The Audience for the Handbook: Within the national Internet service provider community, "Tracking Internet Infrastructure" is intended to educate strategists with the complexities facing their engineering and operations staff. Among smaller ISPs it should serve as a tool to bring owner-operators, who are busy 18 hours a day ordering lines, installing them and servicing their customers, up to speed on the changes going on in the environment in which they must operate. LECs and other phone companies will find it useful. Finally familiarity with the issues discussed within the Handbook will provide corporate MIS people with a valuable knowledge base from which to negotiate with their present or future internet service providers. However, since these infrastructure issues are also critical to the continued growth and success of the industry, this "Handbook" is expected to be a tool for use by those in the banking and investment community. If those in the financial community understand the changing technical and power relationships in the industry, they will be able to improve the quality of their investment decision making. It should also be useful to corporate strategic planners who will be advising their companies' decision making in Internet applications for vertical industry markets. Note that the report also contains an interview with John Curran CTO of BBN on ATM and the Internet. John, whose views are very persuasive, is NOT an ATM supporter. The interview will be published as part of the May Cook Report in about two weeks. 2. Contents: Tracking Internet Infrastructure: Editor's Introduction A Summary of the Operational Environment p. 1 Part One: Internet Business Models Some Large Providers Seek Forum to Push for Internet Service Model Change (Sept. 95) p. 8 Interview with Vint Cerf: Discussion Needed of Benefits Derived from Backbone Resources (Sept.95) p. 12 PSI Satisfied with Cooperative Best Effort Internet Business Model Interview with Bill Schrader(Oct. 95) p. 17 Thoughts on Internet Business Models by Sean Doran (Oct. 95) p. 20 Zero Sum Internet Business Models Vie with Internet Cooperative Culture (Oct. 95) p. 24 Routing Arbiter & Charging for Routing Announcements: Potential Operational and Financial Impacts Assessed (Jan. 96) p. 33 Part Two: Internet Architecture Change & Network Stratification Evolution in CIDR Rules In 1995 Makes Most IP Numbers non Transportable (Sept. 95) p. 43 Constraints of Growth: Provider Based CIDR Likely to Impede Smaller Players Interview with Dave Crocker and Noel Chiappa (Nov. 95) p. 46 Pace of Internet Stratification Increases -- IETF Internet Draft Suggests That Customer Network Renumbering Be Accepted As "Best Current Practice" (Mar. 96) p. 54 Part Three: Backbone Routing Versus Switching Continued Exponential Growth Stresses Internet Backbone Routing Infrastructure (Dec. 95) p. 62 Part Four: Institutions - Sprint; IETF, ISOC, and the NAPs SprintLink Experiencing Employee Attrition - Executives Slow to Provide Staffing Resources Needed for Continued Major Growth (Sept. 95) p. 81 National Science Foundation Domain Name Charges Financial Implications for Network Solutions NSF Rationale Behind Actions Interview with Don Mitchell (Oct. 95) p. 85 Internet Society: Role of Charter Members a Contentious Issue (Nov. 95) p. 87 Transition Pains at the Internet Society (Feb. 96) p. 88 Interview with Paul Mockapetris Who Considers Future of IETF & Finds Software Patents a Growing Obstacle (Jan. 96) p. 89 Interview with Tony Rutkowski Who Finds Internet International Coordinating Group Desirable (Mar. 96) p. 93 No Room at Sprint's Pennsauken NAP (Jan. 96) p. 96 Part Five: Quality of Service Automotive Industry Will Seek Internet Service Provider Certification (Feb. 96) p. 102 Steve Wolff Sees Convergence Between Internet and Telephony (Feb. 96) p. 107 Part Six: ATM and the Technology of Bandwidth on Demand Can Bandwidth Supply Keep Pace With Demand? ATM to the Rescue? An Introduction to a Series of Articles on Role of ATM in the Internet (Mar. 96) p. 113 ATM: Grand Unifying Technology or Brain-Damaged Transport Product? (April 96) p. 116 Bandwidth & Resource Reservation as Factors in Ones Network Provisioning Philosophy -- Can Bandwidth Ever Be Too Cheap to Meter? (April 96) p. 119 Interview with Bellcore's Dave Sincoskie Who Discusses the Internet Future of ATM & Outlines Bellcore's Interest in Building Network of Interconnected ATM NAPs (March 96) p. 122 InternetMCI Bets its Future on ATM Data Services Marketing & Data Services Engineering Vice Presidents Explain MCI Strategy. Interview with Stephen von Rump and Steve Tabaska (April 96) p. 126 Interview with BBN's John Curran: Has the Internet Derailed ATM? (May 96) p. 133 Index p. 141 4. This handbook may be purchased in several ways: A. Single Copy GBC Bound, double sided xeroxed. $275.00 B. Site license: Set of single sided original 600 dpi laser written pages suitable for purchasing organization to reproduce as many copies as it wishes for its employees only. $750 C. A current subscriber without a site license may upgrade to a site license and pay an additional price of $275 to receive the report with full site license privileges. D. A current subscriber with a $650 site license or higher may purchase the report with full site license privileges for $275. To order contact Gordon Cook by phone (609) 882-2572 or email: cook@cookreport.com. Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscriptions: Individ-ascii $85 The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 Corporate $350 Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 http://pobox.com/cook/ for new COOK Report Glossary of Internet terms ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:42:45 -0500 From: Imran Anwar Reply-To: imran@panix.com Organization: IMRAN INTERNETional / Imran Anwar Inc. Subject: Internet Users Gather to Plan Sprint Class Action I set up a couple of pages to organize a protest, http://www.imran.com/Consumers/Sprint/ and would appreciate your sharing this information with your readers. Thank you. Your visit would also be appreciated, and comments and suggestions welcomed. Thanks and regards. Imran Anwar http://www.imran.com/Consumers/Sprint/ Stop Sprint's Bait & Switch Fraud & Discriminatory Policies Background Updates Email your suggestions BACKGROUND US Sprint, the obvious loser in the phone wars, recently announced a "promotion" apparently to get Business customers to its network. It was called the FRIDAYS FREE promotion and was supposedly for business customers. It was the worst planned promotion by a poorly managed company intended deliberately from Day 1 to be a Bait & Switch tactic to make people switch to Sprint even if they were residential customers. When people signed on Sprint made NO effort to check if they were valid customers, in the interest of getting people to switch somehow. Next, users of the system found that for the 24 hour free period they could not get calls through almost the entire 24 period to their favorite international countries, even at 3 am as I found. Next, having established that people had switched they THEN blocked everyone's calls unless they provided DOCUMENTARY proof that the phone user was a Business. My service was interrupted WITHOUT ANY NOTICE, without ANY phone message while I was away and my automatic scripts that pick up data for my clients failed to connect to long distance in this period causing me embarassment and loss. Since I have a legitimate business I was able to fax them documents BUT, in the meantime any non-business user who called was just told that they would be switched to SPRINT's regular long distance service. This appears to have been the plan all along, using good old fashioned bait and switch tactics to get people on to the Sprint network. And NOW, to add insult to injury, Sprint has shown it will also stoop to discrimination against NINE countries to which FREE calls on FRIDAY are NOT allowed. These are: Bolivia, Burma, China, Ecuador, India, Iran, Israel, & Thailand. This has all transpired in the last few weeks and it shows that this was a deliberate and planned bait and switch mission undertaken by Sprint. A possible class action lawsuit is being considered against US Sprint for these tactics, and if you are interested in taking action against Sprint for its obviously pre-planned bait and switch methods then please contact Imran Anwar at imran@panix.com. This is the Home Page at http://www.imran.com/Consumers/Sprint/ to coordinate such a response to Sprint that it will apologize to customers, switch people back who were fraudulently given this service, and include the countries that are targeted for blackout listed above, plus damages for loss of business etc. in that period. Note that this promotion was for Business but the bait and switch was KNOWLINGLY used on ordinary domestic customers too, and the blackout of certain countries is discriminatory and embarassing for those of us who are from those countries. Your help will be appreciated, and you can also call and let Sprint know what you think of their tactics at 800-890-9710. As other things, US Sprint's 800 response system also sucks, and you may have to hit ZERO a couple of times to get through to a "switching to an operator" message. Please feel free to inform me of any appropriate action that you have taken in this regard. Please feel free to distribute this message, but without making changes to its contents, to your friends and associates. Thank you, Imran Anwar IMRAN-Net Electronic mailto:imran@panix.com UPDATES Update: April 13 1996 : Responses are coming in from all over the US on how people have been burnt by this typical bait and witch practice of Sprint. Several people have documentary proof of this, and of Sprint's knowingly signing on residential customers. Several people suggest a lawsuit against Sprint as well as a move with the FCC for action against the company. Your suggestions are welcome at imran@panix.com. Please spread the word and feel free to forward this document by email to your friends and associates so that they are aware of this case. Update April 14, 1996: List of Attorneys General for you to contact and file a complaint. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 13:33:00 EDT From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Sprint Blocks International "Fridays Free" Calls >> Sprint in flap over marketing promotion >> Many business customers were angry that Sprint signed them with the >> promise of an offer that has now been withdrawn. > immediatly begin withholding all payments to the company until > this dispute has been resolved and you have from them *in writing* > exactly what they will and won't do, etc. If they try to bully you > into paying, don't be afraid of them. Tell them they will get paid > when this has all been straightened out. PAT] I have notified Sprint (which cut off my service completely today, demanding "proof" that I'm a business, which, as it happens, I am) that I will hold them responsible for any expenses I incur as a result of their actions, including LD charges from other carriers. I also informed them that I believe that my service was cut off because of my calling pattern (I called Israel three times today), and, if so, that I would pursue punative discrimination damages. I also offered to waive any claim to damages if, by Tuesday, I receive confirmation that they will honor every aspect of our original agreement. I'll let you know what happens. Joel (joel@exc.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Have you been able to get through to Robin Loyed, the person who sent out those mailgrams? The reason I suggest withholding payment from Sprint is because in the event legal action must be taken and the customers prevail, it is always better to have 'already collected' on the damages. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jav@ssn.ssnlink.net (Jason Valis) Subject: Sprint Free Fridays - New Exceptions Date: 15 Apr 1996 09:30:12 GMT Organization: Silicon Super Network Today, I received a Western Union mailing from Sprint notifying me that calls placed to various Middle Eastern countries, among others (nine or so countries in total) were no longer going to be part of the Free Fridays calling plan. Instead, they're going to be charging 25% under AT&T's normal rates seven days a week. Apparently they were losing so much money to these countries, that they decided to pull them out of the plan. Another offer that sounded too good to be true! JV [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But a company cannot just unilaterally decide to renege on contracts it has with its customers. Suppose it was the other way around: you signed on with them for a year under an arrangment where you would get a certain pricing on calls and at some point got literature from AT&T with a better deal, and you deciced, "I am losing so much money with Sprint I will pull out of this contract." Do you think YOU would get away with it? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steve Ng Subject: Call Display in Thailand? Date: 15 Apr 1996 04:16:55 GMT Organization: Valiant Auto Parts Co. Ltd. Hello Telecom gurus out there, Does anyone know if there is Call Display enhance service in Thailand? This feature allows the display of caller ID on properly equipped telephone handset. Is it offered by Thailand Telecom or other carriers in Thailand? Thank very in advance for any information! Steve ------------------------------ From: wayneld@aol.com (WayneLD) Subject: Help Needed Installing Visi Fax on Unix Server Date: 14 Apr 1996 21:44:58 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: wayneld@aol.com (WayneLD) I am hoping someone can help me with a final problem we are having with bringing Visi Fax on line on our unix fax server. We are using SCO unix as the operating system. We installed Visi Fax and everything is working fine except for one problem. We have a T1 multiplexed phone line, through which we are currently faxing using a windows based program. Works fine. When we tried to fax through the T using Visi Fax we could get out one pass of faxes (we are currently using 20 modems through a Digi board) and then the faxing would stop and the modems would go to idle. After tearing our hair out for some days (it's a hardware problem ... no, ****it, it's a software problem, etc.), we spoke with another firm which used Visi Fax and discovered they too were faxing with multiple modems, but were using regular one + phone lines and were not having a problem. We then tried a test faxing through two regular (non T1) phone lines and all faxes went through fine. We then tried faxing out through five regular phone lines, and things went fine for awhile, and then the system would shut down again, and the modems go to idle with a portion of the fax job undone. We tried more than one test using five regular phone lines and the system would shut down at different places. Our conclusion is that the Visi Fax system is sending waiting faxes to phone lines so fast on the heels of the fax which has just gone through on that line that the line sometimes don't have a chance to cycle back to a dial tone before a modem sends another fax to the line. (Our T takes just a hair longer to recycle that a one+ line, which would explain why the T can get out only one pass). We also have concluded, I hope correctly, that for reasons know only to the developers, when Visi Fax attempts to send another waiting fax through a modem which has just completed a fax, but "hears" only silence instead of a dial tone, the program shuts all modems down and halts faxing (perhaps to give an operator the opportunity to check out why the phone lines "aren't working"). My questions are: has anyone run into this before with Visi Fax? If so, and if our assumptions regarding our problem are correct, can we do one or both of the following: 1) program in an automatic wait for the program between the time a modem completes sending a fax and the time the program smashes another fax through the modem and into the phone line, thereby allowing the line time to cycle back to a dial tone; and/or, 2) instruct Visi Fax to retry any fax sent to a line which the program can't "hear" as having a dial tone at that instant. The best solution for us would be if we could do both 1 and 2, thereby giving us dual protection. Also, does anyone know if it is possible to have the program place a retry at the end of the line of faxes waiting to be sent rather than at the beginning? Any help you can give us would be much, much appreciated, and invoke the blessings of the fax gods on you and yours forever. We have a huge job to get out, and this has been driving us completely crazy. Yours for a better tomorrow, WayneLD P.S. We're also trying to buy a copy of WordPerfect 6 for Unix. Anyone got one for sale? Even WordPerfect is out!!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 02:02:56 -0800 From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Area Code 268 Doesn't Work From Pac Bell I've been reading reports about various telephone companies not being programmed yet for area code 268 (Antigua and Barbuda, permissive dialing began 4/1/96, goes mandatory 3/31/97), so I tried from here, in San Francisco 1, in the heart of Pacific Bell land. Dialing 1-268- (PIC'd to Sprint) results in immediate intercept by the Pacific Bell switch: "your call cannot be completed as dialed." Dialing 10288-1-268 or 10222-1-268 (AT&T and MCI, respectively) gives the same result. I called Pacific Bell repair at about noon on Thursday to file a trouble report. The rep finally said, "I get the feeling you know more about this than I do." I couldn't argue. She also said that she would have a tech call me that afternoon, which no one did, nor did anyone call me on Friday. I tried again just now, Sunday night, and I still get an intercept. Come on Pac*Bell, it's been two whole weeks now, it's about time you punched the new area code into your routing tables. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * LincMad@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: Joseph Elichaa Subject: Executone Sold to Tone Holdings Inc. Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 19:57:30 -0400 Organization: Internet Maine Inc. Does anybody have any idea on what the impact will be from the sale of Executone to the Tone Holdings Inc. joee@mainelink.net ------------------------------ From: Robert Wolf Subject: Millennium Telecom Newsletters Available Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 08:43:10 -0700 Organization: Millennium Telecom Back issues of the Millennium Telecom newsletter (New Millennium News) are now available at the Millennium Telecom web site: http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium The most recent issue of the newsletter features an article describing the pros and cons of telecommuting. Other issues feature articles on good and bad designs of voice mail and auto attendant systems, voice processing systems and their uses, update information on new area codes, and call center applications. Robert Wolf member: Society of Telecommunications Consultants Millennium Telecom http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium 818-790-7339 Fax 818-790-7309 Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications ------------------------------ From: Jason Crellin Subject: GSM Hardware - Help! Date: 15 Apr 1996 15:13:15 GMT Organization: The Post Office Can anyone tell me of any hardware in the marketplace that will provide SMS functionality without the mobile handset (ie like the Siemens M1), with a standards based interface to a PC/ PDA etc. Any help would be gratefully received. Many thanks, Jason ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 21:44:26 +0800 From: transit Subject: GSM Roaming Accounts in Hong Kong and Singapore I currently live in the Far East and will be returning to the US soon. I do plan on traveling to Hong Kong and Singapore on a regular basis and would like to obtain a GSM roaming account in Hong Kong and Singapore. Although I have a GSM phone, I wonder if there is any service provider in the U.S. that could provide me a roaming account in those places and could bill me in New York? Would appreciate any suggestions on this. Also, is there a resource somewhere on the Net which shows which countries have valid roaming agreements with which service providers? Appreciate the help! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #179 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 15 15:22:23 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA07013; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:22:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:22:23 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604151922.PAA07013@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #180 TELECOM Digest Mon, 15 Apr 96 15:22:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 180 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone (Dale Robinson) Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone (Shalom Septimus) Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone (Steve Bagdon) Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone (Sam Drake) Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle (Bruce A. Pennypacker) Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle (Andrew C. Green) Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle (Gary Sanders) Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle (cgordon@ibm.net) Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle (Mike Coen) Re: Different Countries - Different Results (Andreas Pavlik) Re: Different Countries - Different Results (Peter Ilieve) Re: Telecommunications Resources Directory (rreader@laker.net) Re: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong (Clarence Dold) Re: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong (Michael Covington) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dale.Robinson@DWNPLAZA.NCOM.nt.gov.au Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:28:15 +0930 Subject: Re: "WordNumbers" on the phone Bruce (Bruce@cherrybomb.omega.co.nz) in Telecom Digest V16 #174 wrote: > Can someone tell me what is the most common layout, (presumably, the > one used in the USA) who decided on it and why. Also, what other > standards exist. In Australia, the Telstra T200 phone (which is now generally the standard set for households) has QZ on the 1 key. 1=QZ 2=ABC 3=DEF 4=GHI 5=JKL 6=MNO 7=PRS 8=TUV 9=WXY Incidentally, my work phone (NEC DTERM 16D), has the same lettering scheme. I have seen it written "somewhere" that Optus offers a similar word-number service in Australia. Wasn't there a "C" program published in the Digest which did telephone numbers -> letter conversions? Cheers, Dale [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes there was. Would anyone like to see it again? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:33:48 GMT From: Shalom Septimus Subject: Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone Organization: UB > ALL have Q and Z on the 1 key. The US layout leaves out Q and Z altogether. Apparently you're looking at a straightforward extension of it. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Real, real old telephones in the USA > dating back to about the 1930's sometimes had 'Z' on the final > hole used for the operator. I only saw one phone like that. PAT] Gosh, I've got two of them ... One's a wall phone, the other's a desk phone, they both were made circa 1937, and the last hole looks something like: 0 operator Z These machines look like you could run over them with a tank and not damage them; they also lack coiled cords. Do you suppose they're worth anything? (The wall phone is an extension in the garage; the other one was removed from service several years ago because the receiver was too wide to fit in my cousin's acoustic modem...) J.Alan Septimus||You can't have everything...||septimus@acsu.buffalo.edu KA2GYP ||...where would you put it? ||NYS Pharmacy Intern # 071612 ===============||==========Stephen Wright====||NYC Locksmith License 824141 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:42:15 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone I've seen the "Z" on the "0 (Zero) Operator" in many older advertisements and old telephone directories prior to the mid-1960's. I always wondered about that. Maybe it had to do with the old "Zenith" toll-free numbers. If a customer actually tried to *DIAL* out "ZE" plus three to five numerical digits, dialing the initial "Z" would really be dialing 0 (zero) or Operator, as the Operator had to manually connect to or dial a "Zenith" number, and manually do a ticket for automatically accepted reverse billing. I've also been told that older telephone credit cards had a letter at the end. I'm not all that familiar with the old style manually verified telephone cards prior to the later 1970's, but I've been told they had a "check-digit" or "check-letter" which *could* even be a Q or Z. Some local operator systems could do a limited auto verification of telephone cards, and I think they dialed or keyed a "1" for "Q" and a "0" for "Z". There is a Bell System Technical Journal article on improved 800 service as well as automated calling cards and other "new" services. I think this was dated September 1982. In the article on customer keying of their calling card numbers, there is a picture of a standard Western Electric single-slot payphone with a special instruction card for customer keying of a card number. In the instructions, it told the customer to "enter '1' for 'Q' and '0' for 'Z' ". In various issues of the Bell System Technical Journal in the 1970's and early 1980's, there are articles on TSPS improvements. There was usually a sketch showing a layout of a TSPS board. On the dialing keypad, it shows a 'Q' on the '1' and a 'Z' on the '0'. In the Winter 1959/60 issue of Bell Telephone Magazine, there is an article on area codes, telephone numbering, exchange names and central office code assignments. It mentions that area codes were being used up rather fast, more so than was was predicted in October, 1947 when the area code scheme was finalized. It also mentions that Bell might be dropping exchange names and dialing letters altogather, so that 55X, 57X, 95X and 97X could be assigned as regular local exchanges. There aren't any vowels on the 5, 7 and 9 digits in North America, and thus it was difficult to create meaningful and pronounceable names of the non-vowel letters on those digits. Also mentioned was a possibility of simply using two letters for some new central office codes, and not even using a "name" from those first two letters, such as DB3 for 323, and thus letters not making up a name could be used for 55, 57, 95 and 97. Also, it talked about future N0X and N1X central office codes, but there were usually no letters on the '0'. The article also mentioned the possibility of changing *EVERY* subscriber's instrument in the US and Canada to add a 'Q' to the '1' and a 'Z' to the '0'. But that was considered *WAY* to cumbersome and cost prohibitive, so that option was abandoned! I've also been told that there were some areas which had limited automatic toll switching but only on a regional basis, dating back to the 1920's, well before "area codes" and the North American Numbering Plan. The operator would actually dial those numbers using special routing codes based on the town name. If a town's name began with a 'Q', the routing code began with a '1' and if it began with a 'Z', the routing code began with a '0'. This was only used here-and-there for regional automated toll switching, and was eventually replaced by the NANP area code format. And if a region had several towns beginning with the letter 'Q', there could be many code conflicts, since most every word or name beginning with 'Q' will also have 'U' as their second letter. I've seen some Private COCOT payphones and some PBX telephones which have 'QZ' on the '1', some which have 'QZ' on the '0', and some which have 'Q' on the '7' with 'PRS' and 'Z' on the '9' with 'WXY', as well as the more common *no* 'Q' or 'Z' at all. Also, some automated voicemail or information retreival systems have various instructions and menus as to how to handle the letters 'Q' and 'Z'. I've mentioned the old French dial which had both the letters 'O' and 'Q' on the '0' (zero), the old UK dial which had only the letter 'O' on the '0' (zero). Some pre-1960 era UK dials also had the word "Operator" on the zero. When '0' became the STD access prefix in the late 1950's, the British Postal Telephone Co. changed access to the local operator from '0' to '100'. Both the British and French dials had *only* the letters 'MN' on the '6' although the North American style was for NMO on the '6'. Old Danish dials had their own letter scheme on the dials. It used some Scandinavian alphabetical symbols, such as the 'o' with slash through it, and the letters 'a' and 'e' togather as one symbol. I think that the '1' had a single letter, the '0' had two letters, and the '2' thru '9' had three letters each. I'll have to double check some old dial layouts. It seemed to correspond somewhat but *not* exactly to the North American and British or French letters to digits layout. Old Russian dials had letters and symbols from the Russian alphabet. Old Australian dials had a *single* Roman alphabet character on each of those digits which did have letters. I have a chart somewhere showing the arrangement, but I'll have to double check it. Many other countries had their own letters/characters layout on their dials for local exchange name dialing or regional automated toll dialing. And then, there have been differences between the digit and the number of dial pulses generated! Sweden had the '0' before '1', running up to '9'. The '0' generated one dialpulse, the '1' generated two pulses, all the way up to the '8' generating nine pulses and the '9' generating ten pulses. New Zealand might have also had letters on their dials years ago, but the rotary dial was 'reversed'. '0' generated ten pulses, '1' generated nine pulses, '2' generated eight pulses, all the way to '8' generating two pulses and '9' generating '1' pulse. I think that this was also the dial used in Oslo NORWAY, although the remainder of Norway used the "standard" layout of ONE through NINE followed by zero at ten dial pulses! MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 17:41:05 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone Bruce@cherrybomb.omega.co.nz (Bruce) said: > Is there any reasonably well-accepted standard for the letters on a > telephone? > Can someone tell me what is the most common layout, (presumably, the > one used in the USA) who decided on it and why. Also, what other > standards exist. > The reason I ask is that our local NZ phone company has introduced > "WordNumbers", using 2=ABC, 3=DEF 4=GHI 5=JKL 6=MNO 7=PQRS 8=TUV > 9=WXYZ. I've searched and searched, and I just cannot find a phone (or > any other keypad with letters) anywhere that uses that layout ... they > ALL have Q and Z on the 1 key. In the USA, here's the list of the phones I have in my house right now. It's says something that I have more working cellulars in my house then landlines. AT&T 1545 (land-line w/digital answering machine) - 1='', 2='ABC', 3='DEF', 4='GHI', 5='JKL', 6='MNO', 7='PQRS', 8='TUV', 9='WXYZ', 0 ='OPER' General Electric (land-line, pulse only, no model#) - 1= '', 2 = 'ABC', 3='DEF', 4='GHI', 5='JKL', 6='MNO', 7='PRS', 8='TUV' 9='WXY', 0='OPER' Motorola MicroTAC Lite (cellular) - 1= '', 2 = 'ABC', 3='DEF', 4='GHI', 5='JKL', 6='MNO', 7='PRS', 8='TUV' 9='WXY', 0='OPR'. Mitsubishi DiamonTel 22X (cellular) - 1='QZ_', 2='ABC', 3='DEF', 4='GHI', 5='JKL', 6='MNO', 7='PRS'', 8='TUV', 9='WXY', 0='OPER', *='.,'', #='-!?'. Oki 900 (cellular phone) - 1='&QZ', 2='ABC', 3='DEF', 4='GHI', 5='JKL', 6='MNO', 7='PRS', 8='TUV', 9='WXY', 0='+() OPER', *='.?'', #='/-='. It should be noted that the 22X and 900 support name *and* symbol storage for memory locations. Certain computers that I know of (Charles Schwab brokerage, for instance) support DTMFs for locating names by character - for example, 'G'=4+1, 'H'=4+2 and 'I'=4+3. When using a phone with 'PQRS' or 'WXYZ', I will frequently forget *which* character doesn't belong there - for instance, I'll do 7+3 for 'R' on the AT&T 1545 (since it's the third character from the left on the button)s, but it is *really* 7+2, as it should be on the other phones. As to any standards -- your guess is as good as mine. The original manufacturers probably said 26/8=3mod2, so 'out goes the Q and Z'! Standards - we don't need no stinkin' standards! Steve B. bagdon@rust.net Katharine aNd Steve Bagdon (KNS) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The problem with /Q/ is that in all but a very small, limited number of exceptions, it is followed by /U/ meaning a limited number of numerical combinations would have been available. However, I don't see why when * and # were becoming common the Q and Z could not have been used on those positions; something like QZ* on the key to the left of the zero. PAT] ------------------------------ From: samdrake@netcom.com (Sam Drake) Subject: Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:25:17 GMT In article , Michael Covington wrote: > Bruce (Bruce@cherrybomb.omega.co.nz) wrote: >> Is there any reasonably well-accepted standard for the letters on a >> telephone? > The US layout leaves out Q and Z altogether. Apparently you're looking > at a straightforward extension of it. The AT&T Speakerphone 870s that my office uses all have Q on 7 and Z on 9, apparently in preparation for the new ISO standard referred to by another contributor. ------------------------------ From: Bruce A. Pennypacker Subject: Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle Date: 15 Apr 1996 08:34:47 GMT Organization: Stylus Products Group, Artisoft Inc. In article telecom16.174.9@massis.lcs.mit.edu, mjenkins@cdmnet.com (Michael W. Jenkins) said: > When I was growing up in Illinois, back in the 50-60's I had learned > that is was against the law for citizens to wear headphones while > operating a vehicle. This law was from the 30's-40's when one needed > a headset to receive radio broadcasts (2-way radio only). Evidently, > the law enforcement folks thought it was dangerous to do two things at > once. > I wonder if (a) the law is still legal, and if so, when will some > bright person apply that law to the cellular phone industry? Would it > then be a felony or a misdemeanor to operate a cellular phone while > operating a moving vehicle? I don't know if it's just a Massachusettes thing or not, but I thought some government official(s) somewhere wanted to make it illegal for the driver of a car to use a cellular phone while the car was in motion. The requirement would be for the driver to pull over, which I wouldn't mind at all. > But then, I believe that all of those inconsiderate folk who want the > world to hear their "super speakers" and strange music, should have > headphones surgically attached to their head and ears ... Oh great, as if pierced noses, green hair, and tattoos aren't enough ... Bruce Pennypacker | Stylus Innovation | Phone: +1 617 621-9545 Resident TAPI guru | Division of Artisoft | Fax: +1 617 621-7862 brucep@stylus.com | 201 Broadway | http://www.stylus.com | Cambridge, MA 02139 | sales: sales@stylus.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:01:19 -0500 From: Andrew C. Green Subject: Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle mjenkins@cdmnet.com (Michael W. Jenkins) writes: > I wonder if (a) the law is still legal, and if so, when will some > bright person apply that law to the cellular phone industry? Would it > then be a felony or a misdemeanor to operate a cellular phone while > operating a moving vehicle? I will venture a _guess_ here that the original law came about because the old-style headphones were usually designed to block outside noises, earmuff-style, which obviously could lead to problems when driving. I doubt it would be relevant to cellphone use since even use of the handset instead of the handsfree mode still leaves one ear free to hear outside noises, horns, sirens, etc. I think a bigger problem might be losing the use of one _hand_ when fiddling with dialing the phone, hanging it up, etc., plus the distractions from concentration on doing same instead of driving. To minimize those distractions, I store all my frequently-used numbers in the phone's memory, but still had to learn to dial the phone by feel for such tasks as playing back voicemail. I found it no harder than figuring out how to tune the radio the same way. However, my phone was bolted into the car, on a pedestal. A handheld phone is more of a handful and a distraction (in my experience when using my wife's portable while driving our other car), and IMHO it might be revealing to see how many accidents blamed on cellphone usage resulted from handheld portables versus those mounted in the car. Andrew C. Green (312) 266-4431 Datalogics, Inc. 441 W. Huron Internet: acg@frame.com Chicago, IL 60610-3498 FAX: (312) 266-4473 ------------------------------ From: gws@gwssun.cb.att.com (Gary Sanders) Subject: Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle Date: 15 Apr 1996 12:33:39 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio. Reply-To: gary.w.sanders@att.com Most states and some cities have similar bans. Usually you are permitted to wear single ear headsets but not dual ear headset. You should be able to use your operator headsets on your cell phone. I use my single ear set on my ham radio from time to time. Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR) gary.w.sanders@att.com AT&T Columbus,Ohio 614-860-5965 Okay, who put a "stop payment" on my reality check? ------------------------------ From: cgordon@ibm.net Subject: Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle Date: 15 Apr 1996 09:31:34 GMT Reply-To: cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us mjenkins@cdmnet.com (Michael W. Jenkins) writes: > When I was growing up in Illinois, back in the 50-60's I had learned > that is was against the law for citizens to wear headphones while > operating a vehicle. > I wonder if (a) the law is still legal, and if so, when will some > bright person apply that law to the cellular phone industry? I'm pretty sure the law is still on the books, and still enforced as well. But it only prohibits situations where _both ears_ are covered. Sorry. ------------------------------ From: mwcoen@hooked.net (Mike Coen) Subject: Re: Using Headphones While Driving Motor Vehicle Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:56:27 GMT Organization: Lunatic Fringe II It is illegal to have a headset covering both ears in California. And yet I still see people doing it. But the CHP is always vigilant. Mike mwcoen@hooked.net mwcoen@pbi.com http://www.hooked.net/users/mwcoen/ ------------------------------ From: Andreas Pavlik Subject: Re: Different Countries - Different Results Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:16:08 -0700 Organization: University of Vienna Erik Evrard wrote: > I've encountered the most strange problem: > I work for EUnet (a European ISP), and I tried to dial the number of > our EUnetTraveller POP (pan-European Internet access) in Innsbruck, > Austria from Amsterdam. > Instead of getting the modem, I got the answering machine of some > company (I couldn't understand which company). > Strangely enough, collegues from Belgium dialed the same number, and > they got the modem! From within Austria, you also get the modem. From the length of the phone number (city code + nine digits) it is obvious that the number is not a direct line ("Amtsleitung") but the number of a PBX plus a direct-dialable extension number (probably five or six digits phone number plus four or three digits extension). When the number is trunceted you may reach the PBX (the switchboard operator or a taped message, but not the modem). I dialed the complete number from Vienna and got the modem, then I truncated the number after seven digits and the phone was answered by the receptionist of an office building or business park in Innbruck, obviously the place where EUnet has rented space for their POP. Andreas Pavlik E-mail: pavlik@pap.univie.ac.at University of Vienna Phone: (0222) 313 67-3515 If you like to call me from abroad dial: +43-1-313 67-3515 to get predictable results ------------------------------ From: peter@memex.co.uk (Peter Ilieve) Subject: Re: Different Countries - Different Results Date: 15 Apr 1996 11:01:54 +0100 Organization: MR-Memex Ltd, East Kilbride, Scotland In article , Erik Evrard wrote: > I work for EUnet (a European ISP), and I tried to dial the number of > our EUnetTraveller POP (pan-European Internet access) in Innsbruck, > Austria from Amsterdam. > Instead of getting the modem, I got the answering machine of some > company (I couldn't understand which company). > Strangely enough, collegues from Belgium dialed the same number, and > they got the modem! From within Austria, you also get the modem. I > also tried it from a GSM cellular phone in Amsterdam, and I got the > answering machine of that company again (so it's got nothing to do > with our PBX). The number is just a plain ordinary phone number (not a > freephone or premium number). > [stuff about Dutch PTT Telecom numbering changes omitted] > The number of our POP in Innsbruck is listed on our web page > http://traveller.EU.net/html/pops.html > and the number is indeed longer than the other Austrian numbers. The number is +43 512 361 112 980. This is longer than the 12 digits currently specified as the maximum for an international number. It looks as though your guess that the Dutch PTT is truncating the number is correct. This length limit on international numbers is being increased from 12 to 15 digits as from 23:59 UTC on 31st December 1996 (Time-T). Until then there probably isn't much that you can do other than moan at the Austrian PTT for allocating a number that they know is too long. or asking the Dutch PTT if they can undo whatever they did on 10 April. I don't know what ITU recommendation covers this, I got this information from Oftel, the UK telecoms regulator. See http://www.open.gov.uk/oftel/oftelwww/time.htm Peter Ilieve peter@aldie.co.uk ------------------------------ From: rreader@laker.net Subject: Re: Telecommunications Resources Directory Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:07:07 -0400 Organization: BridgenetLC - 305.374.3031 - 100 S. Biscayne Blvd, Miami rreader@laker.net wrote: > A Global Teleresources Directory. > Interactive library of current telecommunication, telemarketing, > computer telephony and internet information. Also products and > services, legislation, job postings, trade questions, world events, > web site design, download software, search engines, advertising, > submit lists, internet tips, lunch room, search engines, submit lists, > survey and more. Excellent navigation, fast download time, minimal > graphic size, Java animation, frames and more. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: That's very nice, but could you > tell us how to order it and how much it costs, etc? Should > readers contact you for copies? PAT] Pat, The URL is: http://www.teleplaza.com It's an online directory so it costs nothing for readers to look up information. Thanks, Ray ------------------------------ From: Clarence Dold Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong Date: 15 Apr 1996 15:24:20 GMT Organization: a2i network Monty Solomon writes: > The NYNEX "Time" number (+1 617 637 1234) is reporting the incorrect > time. It is fast by about 20 seconds. How do the phone companies set > this time? Is this the same time used by the billing computers? On my switch, the time and date are set by hand, or used to be. It used to be as simple as calling the local time number, which was assumed to be correct, and keying in commands at the console. Once the time was set, the internal clocking was slaved to a particular T1 clock signal that was thought to be extremely accurate. What seemed to happen is that the inital time set could be off by any amount the technician desired, including a fat-finger of the "hour" once ;-(. But, any time later, if the time was checked, it was still off by _exactly_ the same amount. Now, I am driving this console port from a UNIX box that is slaved to WWV. The times on my switch are not off by more than a second. As a side note, on the two switches that we use (Stromberg DCO and DEX600), if the time is adjusted, the recorded start times for any call in progress is adjusted by the same amount, so that durations come out right. Clarence A Dold - dold@rahul.net - Pope Valley & Napa CA. ------------------------------ From: mcovingt@ai.uga.edu (Michael Covington) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong Date: 15 Apr 1996 01:25:34 GMT Organization: University of Georgia, Athens > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The time which gets sent on Caller-ID > here is also out of synch by two or three minutes. Furthermore, when > we started daylight savings time this past week, the Caller-ID boxes > continued to show the old time all day Sunday. PAT] Recently it came to my attention that we have a generation of people who think computers are *always* right, at least as regards the time of day. I asked what was going on when a store manager started to close a large department store about seven minutes ahead of schedule. The answer: "The computer says it's 9 p.m. The computer *has* to be right, doesn't it?" Michael A. Covington http://www.ai.uga.edu/faculty/covington/ Artificial Intelligence Center The University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-7415 U.S.A. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And yet we wonder why some people choose to be Luddites. We wonder why some people want nothing to do with computers. I find it very annoying these days to call business places -- and telcos in particular -- only to find that if you say something which is not in complete agreement with how the computer says it, then you are treated as some sort of ignorant crank caller. I'd never go to the extremes Unabomber went to; nor would most people, but isn't it quite easy to see *why* many people react with the disgust they do to modern technology? Unabomber made a comment that 'the technologists are taking us on a wild and reckless ride into the future without knowing what will happen'. A better way of phrasing that might be that technology is growing and increasing at a rate much faster than our ethics are able to keep up with it. So many things which are genuinely troublesome in our society today would have been equally troublesome twenty years ago except they were moot points back then. There was no really convenient and easy way for large numbers of the public to violate the privacy and invade the space of others. It did not occur to us we would have to deal with the problem. As our codes of ethics and morals continue to lag far behind technology, our problems merely worsen. Just as Unabomber would blame the technologists, perhaps others would say the theologians and philosophers and ethical thinkers of our times are the ones lagging behind in the 'ride'. Either way, our world is getting out of synch, and where it will end is anyone's guess. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #180 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 15 23:20:49 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA03486; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:20:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:20:49 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604160320.XAA03486@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #181 TELECOM Digest Mon, 15 Apr 96 23:20:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 181 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Livingston Caves in to Censorship (David Richards) PacTel and NPAs 916/415 Relief (John Cropper) Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone (C. Wheeler) Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone (Patrick Wolfe) CDPD Coverage in the United States (Blair Shellenberg) Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone (Andy Behrens) Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone (Robert C. Taylor) T1 Not a Substitute for Business POTS (Robert Deward) MCI Outage on Monday? (Stan Schwartz) Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement (Tom Horsley) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 11:09 CDT From: dr@rci.ripco.com (David Richards) Subject: Livingston Caves in to Censorship Followup-To: comp.dcom.servers,alt.censorship My personal opinion is that "ChoiceNet" is not inherently bad, however I am disappointed that Livingston has chosen to position this 'feature', as a response to the Communications Decency Act specifically. ========================================================================== The press release below is quoted from Livington's web site, http://www.livingston.com/Marketing/Press/choicenet_press.html ========================================================================== Company contact: Bruce Byrd Livingston Enterprises 510-426-0770 byrd@livingston.com Agency contacts: William Orrange Janis Ulevich Ulevich & Orrange, Inc. 415-329-1590 uando@radiomail.net FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Networld+Interop -- Booth #5089 LIVINGSTON'S SERVER-BASED "CHOICENET" TECHNOLOGY OFFERS CUSTOMIZABLE CONTROL OVER INTERNET ACCESS PLEASANTON, Calif., April 2, 1996 -- A new network filtering technology that offers customized control over Internet access -- providing an alternative to government-imposed censorship by implementing Internet content-selection mechanisms for children or corporate employees -- has been introduced by Livingston Enterprises. Livingston's ChoiceNet(TM) is the first technology to take a centralized, server-based approach to Internet access control, enabling access to a user's authorized "site lists" from a single point, rather than requiring filtering software and site lists to be installed and updated at every PC. ChoiceNet is also unique in permitting fully customized access for every user, so that a parent, employer or Internet service provider (ISP) can select preferred site lists -- and can even choose different allowable lists for different members of a family, staff, organization or subscriber base. And because it uses a "permit access" approach to accessible sites, ChoiceNet is inherently safer than existing Internet content-control products whose "deny access" technology allows access to anything not specifically designated as off- limits. Invisible to the End User ChoiceNet is a client-server application platform that functions invisibly to the end user on Livingston PortMaster dial-up Communications Servers, PortMaster Office Routers and IRX Firewall Routers. ChoiceNet is designed to be offered as a value-added service by ISPs, which will allow the more than 1,500 ISPs currently deploying Livingston products to offer the technology immediately to their more than 3,000,000 users. For dial-in users, ChoiceNet extends the dial-in authorization capability of Livingston's RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service) security and accounting protocol by implementing downloadable user-specific filters from a central server, rather than utilizing shared filters residing on the dial-in device. This enables an organization to customize filter lists for individual users, and to easily manage and update those lists at a single central site. For users on local-area networks (LANs) connected to the Internet with Livingston IRX or Office Routers, content-control lists can be applied for the entire LAN or customized for each LAN-connected PC. Costs for businesses or schools using ChoiceNet are significantly lower than those associated with existing Internet content-control solutions, which require constant updates and changes by an on-site Internet administrator. ChoiceNet content control is implemented in an existing piece of required Internet equipment -- the router -- which further reduces the need for a business or school to purchase additional products. Application Platform for Content Control, Special-Purpose Networks, ISP Value-Added Services ChoiceNet can be used to enforce Internet content control in a variety of environments. At home, it can keep children from seeing sexually explicit material on Internet web sites. At work, it can boost employee productivity by limiting access to game or stock-quote sites from company computers, or reduce potential employer liability by blocking access to pornography sites. But, ChoiceNet's utility is not limited to content control. ChoiceNet can give ISPs a competitive edge by letting them use their existing network infrastructure to offer value-added services such as a multi-player game server or a fee-based content server. Previously this would have required installation of a separate infrastructure to keep users from roaming at will among Internet sites once access had been established; now it can be done simply by setting up different accounts for different services and using ChoiceNet to control access to those services. ISPs can also use ChoiceNet to lease out network usage for specific purposes. For example, a corporation can offer prospective customers access to its on-line marketing materials -- but not to the rest of the Internet -- using the ISP's existing dial-in points of presence (POPs). The ISP can track access and bill the corporation using Livingston's RADIUS accounting services. Server-Based Technology More Scalable, Manageable Than PC Applications Bruce Byrd, Livingston director of marketing, said, "As a general-purpose access-control technology, ChoiceNet can serve as the enabling platform for many new applications as the Internet broadens in size and scope. Many early users, however, will focus on Internet content control for children and corporate employees. The chief failing of existing content-control products, such as Surfwatch and Cybersitter, is that they are PC applications: the filtering software and all site lists must reside on every PC. And whenever there's a site update, an ever-larger list file must be downloaded over the Internet to each PC, taking several minutes and consuming hard-disk space. In addition, these programs may themselves need to be updated to work with newer versions of web browsers or PC operating systems. "With ChoiceNet, neither the filtering application nor the authorized (or unauthorized) sites reside on the PC. When a user tries to access a given site, the local dial-in communications server or router goes to the ChoiceNet server to check that user's site list. This is infinitely scalable and much easier to manage." ChoiceNet addresses three additional drawbacks of PC-based products. First, these products offer fixed sets of vendor-selected lists which cannot be customized for a particular user (e.g., to permit access to safe-sex instruction but block all other sex-oriented material). Second, they use a "deny access" approach where any undesirable material must specifically be disallowed; thus newly added -- and potentially undesirable -- Internet sites are automatically accessible until the next time the vendor updates its software. ChoiceNet avoids this problem by offering a "permit access" approach that assumes nothing is allowed unless specifically indicated ("deny access" can be used, however, if the user prefers). Finally, PC-resident software is inherently insecure, subject to deactivation by a computer-knowledgeable adult or a precocious child "hacker." How ChoiceNet Works The four components of ChoiceNet are the ChoiceNet server, which resides on a UNIX workstation and holds downloadable user-specific filters and site lists that can contain thousands of host names or addresses; the ChoiceNet client, included with the ComOS system software on all Livingston routers and communications servers; the Livingston RADIUS server, which contains user profiles and performs user authentication and accounting; and an optional PC notification application that tells users when access to a site has been denied. When a user logs into a network and is authenticated, the specific filter name specified in his RADIUS user profile is downloaded to the local PortMaster communications server from the RADIUS server. If the user's filter is not resident on the PortMaster, it is downloaded from the ChoiceNet server. When the user tries to access a particular Internet site, the filter is queried to see whether such access is permitted for that user. The PortMaster requests a lookup of the site list stored on the ChoiceNet server and, based on the result, either permits the access or denies it and sends the user a message Availability -- But No Pricing (It's Free!) ChoiceNet is a standard feature included free with all Livingston communications servers and routers shipped beginning in May. Users of already installed Livingston equipment can obtain the ChoiceNet server via the Internet from Livingston's web site, http://www.livingston.com/. The ChoiceNet server operates on most UNIX platforms, including SunOS, Solaris, Solaris x86, SGI Irix, AIX, HP/UX, Alpha OSF/1, Linux, and BSDI. Livingston's ChoiceNet Philosophy: Livingston's ChoiceNet and The Communications Decency Act (CDA): Questions and Answers: Livingston Enterprises, Inc., founded in 1986, specializes in dial-up access and LAN-to-LAN interconnectivity. Best known for its Internet connectivity products, Livingston supplies its PortMaster Communications Server and FireWall IRX Router technology to more than 1,500 Internet Service Providers worldwide. Livingston products come with free software updates and lifetime technical support. The privately-held company is located in Pleasanton, Calif. ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: PacTel and NPAs 916/415 Relief Date: 15 Apr 1996 20:36:52 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA From PacTel: FOR MORE INFORMATION: Dave Miller (916) 972-2811 Telecommunications Industry Seeks Assistance from California Public Utilities Commission on Introducing New Area Codes for 916 and 415 SAN FRANCISCO -- The state's telecommunications industry has reached an impasse on introducing new area codes in the Northern California regions now served by the 916 and 415 area codes and is asking the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for direction in resolving the issue by May 31. In the 916 region, a new area code is needed by early 1998 to avoid running out of phone numbers, while in the 415 region a new area code is needed by late 1997. Currently, 916 serves an 18-county portion of Northern California from Sacramento north to the Oregon border, except the North Coast, while 415 currently serves Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties and the northern portion of Santa Clara County. A team of industry representatives met in December and February to look at a variety of area code relief options in the two regions. They have been unable to reach consensus on any one relief alternative or on the process for state-required public meetings, said Bruce Bennett, California area code relief coordinator who serves as administrator of the state's numbering plan. The industry team includes representatives from local and long-distance phone companies, cellular, paging and cable television companies, and other competitive local access companies. Under industry guidelines, the largest local telephone company serves as the numbering plan code administrator and the area code relief coordinator. In California, that's Pacific Bell. However, Pacific Bell doesn't act alone. A team of industry representatives holds meetings to formulate and discuss several options for area code relief within a particular region. The public is then given an opportunity to comment through a series of public meetings. The CPUC makes the final decision on area code relief. Public meetings are planned on the area code relief proposals before the end of June. For more information on the 415 and 916 area code introductions along with the public meeting dates once they are determined, Please call 1-800-544-0355. (JC'S NOTE: Toll-free number is a regional one, and only accessible from PacTel territory.) ----------------- John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: C. Wheeler Subject: Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone Date: 15 Apr 1996 18:38:37 GMT Organization: CCnet Communications - Walnut Creek, CA Mark J Cuccia wrote: [snipped] > It isn't always going to be perfect, of course, since radiowaves > don't follow along political jurisdictional or even telco network > operational boundaries, and a cellular user *could* be moving while > they are talking! Once the call is up, handoffs won't change who your are talking to. > While I have *never* looked forward to calling 911 from *any* type of > telephone equipment or system, I'm always curious as to different > cellular systems have handled it. In the past, I have had to dial 911 > from telco and private (COCOT) payphones as well as from home, but not > until this past Saturday have I needed to call 911 from a cellular > phone. And 911 *can* provide a *necessary* safety, health and > emergency response convenience! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regretably, 911 still is not operational > using cellphones here in northern Illinois. I believe Gary, Indiana is > the only place in this immediate area where 911 functions as it should. > Everywhere else -- whether Ameritech or Cellular One -- calling 911 > reaches an intercept saying that call cannot be completed as dialed; > if emergency dial the operator to report same or if on one of the > expressways dial *999. This latter code reaches the Illinois State > Police, who are responsible for the expressways; even those within the > City of Chicago itself. PAT] In California all 911 calls from cell phones go to the CHP. They have large call centers in the state that cover large areas. The center in Valljo, CA covers about nine counties if I am not mistaken. Exactly was number you are sent to depend on the cell site your call originates on. If you are reporting a local emergency the CHP will transfer your call to the appropriate agency. Another note in California: When you call 911 the CHP historically answers with "Mobile 911" or "Mobile Emergency" and not "Highway Patrol". I was told by an CHP operator in Stockton that answering as "Highway Patrol" in their mobile 911 system was against their procedures. They didn't want to risk callers hanging up because they instantly assumed the CHP could not help them with their "local" emergency. ------------------------------ From: Patrick Wolfe Subject: Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:31:48 -0500 Organization: Ameritech Cellular > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regretably, 911 still is not > operational using cellphones here in northern Illinois. I believe > Gary, Indiana is the only place in this immediate area where 911 > functions as it should. Whenever I enter Kane County (far western suburbs of Chicago) I see a sign that says "Cellular Telephones use 911 for emergency calls". I have no idea how this works. Patrick Wolfe (pwolfe@mcs.com) ------------------------------ From: blair@instep.bc.ca Subject: CDPD Coverage in the United States Reply-To: blair@instep.bc.ca Organization: InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:15:42 GMT To whom it may concern, I am interested in finding out the areas in the United States which have CDPD coverage. Further, I would like to know the CDPD carriers for each area. Initially, I will be looking at Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. The carriers in this area are comprised of Ameritech, AirTouch/CCI, GTE Mobilnet, and Bell South. Any contacts with these CDPD carriers would be appreciated. Please e-mail me at blair@instep.bc.ca or post your response to the newsgroup. Sincerely, Blair Shellenberg ------------------------------ From: andyb@coat.com (Andy Behrens) Subject: Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 23:55:05 GMT Organization: Burlington Coat Factory Bruce (Bruce@cherrybomb.omega.co.nz) wrote: > Is there any reasonably well-accepted standard for the letters on a > telephone? Here is a compilation of information that was posted the last time this question came up. Thanks are due to Jani Poij{rvi and Bo Holst-Christensen , who collected most of the data. (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) AMERICAN: --- --- ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO PRS TUV WXY Used in: USA, Canada Manufacturers: Everyone in the US/CA market INTERNATIONAL: OQZ --- ABC DEF GHI JKL M-N PRS TUV WXY Used in: Rest of the world Manufacturers: Samsung, Alcatel EUROPEAN: --- ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO PQR STU VWX Y-Z Used in: Parts of Europe (cellular phones only?) Manufacturers: Siemens, Ericsson SCANDINAVIAN: (unprintable) ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO PQR S-T UVW XYZ Used in: Scandinavia (cellular phones only?) Manufacturers: Ascom Notes: The unprintables are A-umlaut, O-umlaut, A-ring, respectively. SCANDINAVIAN2: --- ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO PQR STU VWX Y-Z Used in: Scandinavia Manufacturers: Philips Notes: Same as European, but with various accented vowels allocated to "*" and "#". How is this possible? FORMER DANISH: --- -C- ABD EFG HIK LMN OPR STU VXY nonprint Used in: Denmark Notes: Formerly used in large cities, but apparently no longer in use. Unprintable are AE & OE, respectively. FORMER BRITISH: O-Q --- ABC DEF GHI JKL M-N PRS TUV WXY Used in: Great Britain Notes: Same as International, but without "Z". ---------------------- Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. (Anne Herbert) Andy Behrens Burlington Coat Factory, Schoolhouse Lane, Etna, New Hampshire 03750 USA ------------------------------ From: rctaylor@netcom.com (Robert C. Taylor) Subject: Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 19:28:23 GMT > Is there any reasonably well-accepted standard for the letters on a > telephone? > Can someone tell me what is the most common layout, (presumably, the > one used in the USA) who decided on it and why. Also, what other > standards exist. > The reason I ask is that our local NZ phone company has introduced > "WordNumbers", using 2=ABC, 3=DEF 4=GHI 5=JKL 6=MNO 7=PQRS 8=TUV > 9=WXYZ. I've searched and searched, and I just cannot find a phone (or > any other keypad with letters) anywhere that uses that layout ... they > ALL have Q and Z on the 1 key. We have a NorTel analog phone at home that uses ... 7=PQRS ... 9=WXYZ for saving numbers to its speed dial directory. Best regards, Robert C. Taylor Senior Systems Engineer DSC Communications Corporation ATM Products Division rtaylor@atm.dsccc.com (214)519-7271 ------------------------------ From: bobd@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Deward) Subject: T1 Not a Substitute for Business POTS Date: 15 Apr 1996 22:06:43 GMT Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA I'm writing in response to a query from Robert McMillin, 'The World Upside Down: Digital Costs More Than POTS.' He asked if his company, which has a lot of calls and phone lines, might save money by using T1 service to serve POTS lines. He reasoned that with economies of software defined service and only one 'pipe' T1 ought to be a way to offer cheaper multiple POTS lines. The answer from that T1 is not a means of offering cheaper multiple business (1MB) lines. Rather, Pacific BellUs SuperTrunk T1 service provides Rindustrial strengthS circuits with capabilities far beyond POTS. Functionalities of Pacific Bell SuperTrunk T1 include Calling Restriction, Two Way Direct Inward Dialing (DID), and Alternate Routing for Disasters, answer supervision on outbound calls, Call Transfer (with #5 ESS), dial plans allowing interoperability between multiple PBXs and between PBXs and Centrex, account codes allowing call tracking and cost control, software defined trunk groups, and end-to-end digital service for increased reliability and performance. These capabilities are why SuperTrunk circuits cost more than POTS. Check the Pacific Bell Home Page on the World Wide Web for more product and service information. Its URL is http://www.pacbell.com. Bob Deward, Pacific Bell External Affairs, S.F. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:08:03 EDT From: Stan.Schwartz Subject: MCI Outage on Monday? There seems to be an outage on calls I've made to toll free numbers carried by MCI this afternoon (since at least 3:30pm EDT). One crucial number that seems to be affected is 1-800-SKY-PAGE. I'm either reaching dead air or a re-order. These are all on calls made from Charlotte, NC. Has anyone else had this problem today? Stan ------------------------------ From: tom@ssd.hcsc.com (Tom Horsley) Subject: Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement Date: 15 Apr 1996 20:13:01 GMT Organization: Harris Computer Systems Corporation Reply-To: Tom.Horsley@mail.hcsc.com > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can tell you the way I see some very > unthinking people dealing with modern technology has almost convinced > me to become a Luddite on a few occassions. What I have against modern > technology in general, and computers in particular, is that they have > afforded so many people the opportunity to quit thinking for themsevles > entirely. For example many math skills are going by the wayside; people > do not know how to do calculations in their mind. They have no need to > do so since the computer will do it much faster. And did you note the > item in the papers recently talking about how few children these days > are learning good penmanship. Children as young as six or seven years > old are very good typists at keyboards, but do very poorly when asked > to write with a pen or pencil. The computer has by and large replaced > the need to have brains and intelligence in large quarters of American > society. I think many people are Luddites or neo-Luddites out of frust- > ration for these reasons. PAT] You're absolutely right, there is just and endless list of skills the modern education establishment is just letting atrophy completely. Do you realize there isn't a single public school in this country that has a required course in flint blade making? An absolutely necessary survival skill for 10000 years, and they don't bother to teach it anymore. Spinning fibers into yarn and weaving yarn into cloth -- absolutely neglected subjects, yet essential skills -- no longer being taught due to the short-sighted liberal vermin infesting our educational system. Why they don't even teach the elements of blacksmithing. I tell you things are just going straight to hell ... Tom.Horsley@mail.hcsc.com Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309 The 2 most important political web sites: http://www.vote-smart.org (Project Vote Smart), and http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/TomHorsley (Me!) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'll try to keep a straight face while responding to what I hope was a facitious reply by yourself. I'll grant you that most or all of the subjects on your list are no longer needed in general purpose education. I am not sure at what point a 'skill which was required in the past' no longer returns a big enough bang to the 'educational dollar' to warrant being part of modern classrooms. I suppose when some skill has been rarely used for a hundred years or more the continued teaching of that skill *on a regularly scheduled basis* is not warranted. If there is a limit to the resources available to educators -- and that would usually be money -- then there have to be choices made. I feel however we are cutting things a wee bit close by declaring that math skills, penmanship and courses in logic have outlived thier usefulness at this time. At the present time, and since the beginning of computers, the dumbest of us have been more intelligent than the smartest computer. Everything the computer 'knows' about mathematics for example, came from human programmers. Everything the computer 'knows' about logical decision making came from humans who made all those decisions early on which the computer now just simply parrots on demand. So what happens when new occassions teach new duties and time makes ancient good uncouth ... and the computers need to be reprogrammed for new tasks? Under your scenario, there would be no one left to do it; after all once the computer started teaching children the answer to one plus one is two, there no longer was any reason to teach the children ** why *** one plus one equals two. Under your scenario, the fact the computer says that to be the case should be sufficient. Let's keep the computer as our slave, and not the other way around. Doesn't it bother you at all that a large percentage of Americans are functionally illiterate? They cannot balance a checkbook, they cannot fill out a simple form without assistance; they have trouble reading and understanding stories in newspapers. Ask anyone who works in a customer service position handling a heavy volume of contact with the public by phone and mail how *really dumb* a lot of people are. Do you really think the computer is going to solve all that, with all the web sites, newsgroups, archives and other resources? Maybe it is totally wrong to have computers of any sort in schools. Maybe we need to teach children the basic skills *relevant to our present times* and only when they have fully mastered these skills *then and only then* introduce them to the great labor saving device called the computer. I hope you will rethink your message. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #181 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 16 02:48:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA14781; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:48:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 02:48:32 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604160648.CAA14781@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #182 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Apr 96 02:48:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 182 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Different Countries - Different Results (Linc Madison) Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Dan Ryan) Re: Internet Users Gather to Plan Sprint Class Action (David Sternlight) Sprint: Robin Loyed's Phone Number (srb@transposon.lrnl.gov) More Fun With Sprint (Steven Miale) Re: More Information on the 412 Split/Overlay Proposals (John Cropper) Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone (John Cropper) Re: More About the Mysterious Collect Calls From Jail (Steve Forrette) Re: Luddite Convention (Linc Madison) Question About Underground Service Run (Steve Conklin) Re: Can Cellular Phones Access Fonorola? (Ralph Doncaster) Problem Solved, Thank You! (Steven R. Kleinedler) Re: Teenager's Web Site on Unabomber Booms (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Last Laugh! "How Many FBI Agents Does it Take ..." (johnmb@nando.net) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Different Countries - Different Results Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:39:35 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , Andreas Pavlik wrote: > Erik Evrard wrote: >> [dialed number in Innsbruck, Austria, from the Netherlands] >> Instead of getting the modem, I got the answering machine of some >> company (I couldn't understand which company). > From the length of the phone number (city code + nine digits) it is > obvious that the number is not a direct line ("Amtsleitung") but the > number of a PBX plus a direct-dialable extension number (probably five > or six digits phone number plus four or three digits extension). When > the number is trunceted you may reach the PBX (the switchboard > operator or a taped message, but not the modem). I dialed the complete > number from Vienna and got the modem, then I truncated the number > after seven digits and the phone was answered by the receptionist of an > office building or business park in Innbruck, obviously the place > where EUnet has rented space for their POP. My understanding of such arrangements, from seeing them in Germany and Italy, is that you have a "decimal tree" arrangement of sorts. Thus, you might have: 12345 -- invalid: incomplete number 123450 -- main switchboard 12345123 -- extension 123 12345987 -- extension 987 but never: 123456 -- main switchboard 12345678 -- extension 678, or extension 78 It appears from the experiences of users in Austria, the Netherlands, and the U.S., that the truncated number is a valid number for the switchboard. Is this just something like, in my first example above, 123451 being routed to the main number if the additional numbers aren't dialed? Or is it in fact an ambiguous numbering scheme? In any case, the other obvious question is why a country the size of Austria needs three- and four-digit city codes, especially for cities the size of Innsbruck or Vienna. (Vienna has a 1-digit city code of 1 when dialed from abroad, but a 3-digit city code of 222 within Austria. It appears that Innsbruck was moved from 5222 to 512.) I tried the number from the U.S., and it reaches an answering machine. A possible clue is provided by the fact that the number begins ringing before I finish dialing the last one or two digits. The number is +43 512 361.112.980, but it appears that 361.1129 is a valid local number. That means that 361.112.980 cannot be a valid number, so it looks like your listing on the web page is incorrect. Are you sure that the people dialing from Belgium and Austria were dialing that exact same number? There also seems to be some confusion in the sources I checked about the city code for Innsbruck: 512, 522, or 5222. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 21:40:00 PDT From: Dan Ryan Subject: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Dan Ryan wrote: > I immediately called MCI who had contacted me with a rather > attractive offer a few days ago and switched to them. A change of > carrier around here takes over a week, so Sprint has left me with not > even their residential service for that time. Everyone should also be aware that you can sign up for MCI or whomever, and make calls on that company even before you are PIC'd by dialing 10333 1 AreaCode Number where 10333 is the access code for, I think, MCI, and all the other companies have access codes too. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think 10333 is Sprint and 10222 is for MCI. I know that 10288 is AT&T. PAT] Actually, I was aware of this and have been using 10222 to access MCI since being disconnected by Sprint (but thanks to you and another email correspondent for pointing it out). What bore more elaboration in my previous post was Sprint's irresponsibility in terminating long distance service to customers, 99% of whom are not as au fait with PICs as you and I are. {The Wall Street Journal}'s recent article referred to one gentleman who was unable to make a call in a family emergency, and it is not hard to imagine that there were many other such stories. A great many people rely on long-distance service for all manner of urgent needs, and most of those would not know how to access a competing carrier. Why Sprint did not simply alert people when making calls that they were now on residential service pending verification, I don't know. It might have avoided the flight back to MCI and the other carriers to whom we were previously subscribed if Sprint had continued to provide a service, even at a different tariff. But given a choice between waiting on hold for hours to talk with a customer rep, and taking a few minutes to talk to the friendly MCI folks with their $40 checks, it was hardly likely that Sprint was going to retain any of their disaffected customers. dan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sprint has been famous, or perhaps infamous over the years in arbitrarily deciding to cut off calling card access, one plus access and other services at the drop of a hat. I am reminded of a case which made the newwspapers several years ago about a mother who gets a Sprint Calling Card for her adventurous teenage son who is making his first trip away from home alone. This, she was assured by Sprint, would be a good way for her son to call home and report his whereabouts to his mother each day, etc. No coins needed, just use it at any phone anywhere by dialing the Sprint access number, his home number and the PIN. Well the kid arrives in New York City and gets off the Greyhound Bus at the Port Authority Bus Terminal ... I won't comment on how bright he was (not) or how naive he was; suffice to say he did not get out of the terminal quite intact. His luggage stolen and his pocket relieved of his wallet, none the less he had that Sprint card and heads for the nearest phone to call mother so she can wire him a bus ticket to get back home along with a little money for food to eat on the way, etc. Guess what? Oh, you already guessed? None of the payphones there would accept the calling card and PIN. The kid of course does not know why this is, but he does know he wants to keep his dignity intact a little and not have to call his parents collect. None of the phones for a few blocks around the area would accept the card and PIN. Finally he goes to a worker at Traveler's Aid in the bus station who has heard this story thousands of times already and tells it to him one more time. The TA social worker gives him a Greyhound 'Get Home Free' ticket (used mainly for kids who run away, the bus line will transport them home for free) and enough money to eat for a couple days on the bus, along with a phone call to his parents. Mother is understandably peeved with Sprint. "Oh," says the Sprint rep, "we don't allow any calls on our card from around there due to the high rate of fraud." This despite earlier assurances the card was good anywhere, anytime. No exceptions, no special provisions. A lot of folks have found Sprint to be less than honest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: david@sternlight.com (David Sternlight) Subject: Re: Internet Users Gather to Plan Sprint Class Action Organization: DSI/USCRPAC Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:53:40 GMT > Update: April 13 1996 : Responses are coming in from all over the US > on how people have been burnt by this typical bait and witch practice > of Sprint. Several people have documentary proof of this, and of > Sprint's knowingly signing on residential customers. Several people > suggest a lawsuit against Sprint as well as a move with the FCC for > action against the company. Your suggestions are welcome at > imran@panix.com. The notion of a class action suit might be cut and dried if some had not posted messages here earlier suggesting that some Sprint sign-up people didn't know it was a business program and were signing up residential customers. In those messages it was stated that other sign-up people had pointed out that it was a business program only. The messages I refer to were all but strong encouragements to people on the net who were residential customers to try to sign up for the program and take advantage of Sprint's poor internal communication. It raises the question of clean hands. Better if only those who are bona fide business customers in this program participate in any class action suit. How do you tell if you're a bona fide business customer? Simple -- you're paying metered business rates for local phone service on the number you signed up with Sprint for Fridays are Free. David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:15:47 -0600 From: srb@transposon.LANL.GOV (srb) Subject: Sprint: Robin Loyed's Phone Number Hi, For those of you who are interested in contacting Robin Loyed, his phone number is (214) 405-5404. Sam [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I keep hoping that Robin Loyed or someone authorized to speak for Sprint will respond to the many messages which have appeared here in the past week, but so far no response has been forthcoming. It may have to go legal. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Steven Miale Subject: More Fun With Sprint Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:22:28 EST Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University Sprint owns our local telco (Centel). After calling today to get my service changed, I found out that they will no longer be allowing any long distance company other than Sprint to include their bill with the regular telephone bill. This and the Free Friday fiasco has certainly discouraged me from using Sprint at all. But my question is: can Spring/Centel legally do this, or does it violate anti-trust? Thanks, Steven Miale, Kesmai Corp. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They are not required to bill for anyone other than themselves or their own subsidiaries, etc. If they do choose to bill for another carrier, then they must offer their services to all carriers. PAT] ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: More Information on the 412 Split/Overlay Proposals Date: 15 Apr 1996 20:00:28 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On Apr 14, 1996 19.09.46 in article , 'Jeffrey James Bryan Carpenter ' wrote: > I have been told by some folks at Bell Atlantic that regardless of the > plan adopted, they will likely change to 10 digit dialing next year > for all customers. It is also my understanding that Alternative #3B > appears to be favoured at this time. The "folks" speaking to you are only speculating, since the higher-ups I spoke with "out east" have made no moves to consider implementing such a change anytime soon. If it were 15 years ago, and there was still just one phone company, it would be a simple matter of mandating 10-digit dialing. As it stands right now, if one company were to try such a thing, someone somewhere would take the matter to either the courts or the state. John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone Date: 15 Apr 1996 20:08:21 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On Apr 15, 1996 11.15.58 in article <911 From a Cellular Phone>, 'Mark J Cuccia ' wrote: > While I have *never* looked forward to calling 911 from *any* type of > telephone equipment or system, I'm always curious as to different > cellular systems have handled it. In the past, I have had to dial 911 > from telco and private (COCOT) payphones as well as from home, but not > until this past Saturday have I needed to call 911 from a cellular > phone. And 911 *can* provide a *necessary* safety, health and > emergency response convenience! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regretably, 911 still is not operational > using cellphones here in northern Illinois. I believe Gary, Indiana is > the only place in this immediate area where 911 functions as it should. > Everywhere else -- whether Ameritech or Cellular One -- calling 911 > reaches an intercept saying that call cannot be completed as dialed; > if emergency dial the operator to report same or if on one of the > expressways dial *999. This latter code reaches the Illinois State > Police, who are responsible for the expressways; even those within the > City of Chicago itself. PAT] I've noted no standard from carrier to carrier, and state to state as of yet. Cellular One and Sprint have a service with the PA State Police for the PA Turnpike (*11), and other metro areas (*12 in some areas), but usually you must landline for a reliable response. (Which makes it harder for the accident victim ...) John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here you can dial the seven digit number for the police if you know the number. On the couple of occassions I wanted to report something to the Skokie Police when I was out walking around with my cell phone, I just dialed them on 847-982-5900. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: More About the Mysterious Collect Calls From Jail Date: 15 Apr 1996 00:41:23 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , clay_ritter@nt.com says: > In NJ, the prison phone system has a device that presents a recording > at the beginning of each collect call (the only type allowed) that > states the call is originating from the NJ State Prison. A prisoner > had somehow managed to cause the recording to be "garbled", so that > all the answering party heard is "garble-garble - please press one". > The called party would press one (most times) and the prisoner would > pass himself off as a "telephone repairman". He would ask them to > transfer his call to "00", getting the AT&T operator, then have them > connect him to his destination - while the university got billed for > the whole call! One trick that I know is going on now is with an AT&T collect call system where the caller gets to pick English or Spanish prompts. The prisoner then calls a business collect, and deliberately picks Spanish prompts, and records his name as "Press 1 for English." So, the unsuspecting employee behind their company's PBX answers the phone and hears "blah blah blah blah" in Spanish (which is really saying "You have a collect call from a prisoner at the NJ State Prison"), which they recognize only as something in Spanish, followed by "Press 1 for English," which is the calling party's "name." Almost everyone at this point will press 1. Quite clever, I think, but then again, they have nothing but time on their hands to think these things up. A common tactic is to asked to be transferred to "extension 9001." People are likely to transfer the call, not realizing that 9 is usually the outside line access code, 00 is the long distance operator, and 1 is discarded as an extra digit. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Luddite Convention Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:19:35 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , Tad Cook wrote: > BARNESVILLE, Ohio -- Each marching to a different drummer, 350 > delegates to the Second Luddite Congress have come to this countryside > hamlet to write a declaration of independence from the modern world. Very sloppy reporting on the part of the {Chicago Tribune} and the {Wall Street Journal} -- neither paper listed the group's web page address! ;-P The domain name "luddite.org" does not appear to be spoken for ... Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: Steve Conklin Subject: Question About Underground Service Run Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 08:56:21 -0700 Organization: Intergraph Computer Systems I have been lurking here for a long time and learning a lot, and have a question to ask of the collected wisdom of this group. I will be building a new house soon, and the electrical service will come in as a 600 foot underground run at 12 KV, to a transformer pad and then on another 90 feet to the house. Our current telephone line is connected at the same pole where the underground run will originate. The electric service will be a 400 Amp service. I called the outside manager for my area, and he said that they could furnish a 5 pair line which I could bury in the same trench as the power service, and to keep the phone line shallow (less than a foot), to reduce interference and (more importantly) to make it easy to dig up without danger of striking the 12 KV line. Near the transformer pad, the phone cable would be routed to the trench which carries the 240V single phase power to the house, so that the demarc could be placed near the service entrance and earth ground. I will be running the five pair line (supplied by the phone company) myself. The question: How much do I have to worry about interference from the AC line coupling into the phone service? I understand the mechanics behind coupling, and the dependency on current, but don't know how much protection is really afforded by burial. It seems at first glance that I should worry more about the 90 feet running parallel to 400 amps than I should about the 600 feet running parallel to 4 amps. I will keep the line well away from the transformer. I have pretty good line quality now, and would hate to ruin it for myself in the run to the new house. Email replies are welcomed. Thanks, Steve Conklin spconkli@ingr.com Intergraph Computer Systems Advanced 3D Graphics Postscript: Having read this group for so long and knowing the jargon really made it easy for me to contact the correct person (the outside manager) and communicate the situation to him. I could tell the instant I left the "average joe" handlers in customer service and was afforded access to people who could solve my problem. When I made it clear that I knew just enough to be dangerous, he was very helpful and explained some finer points that I didn't understand. ------------------------------ From: Ralph Doncaster Subject: Re: Can Cellular Phones Access Fonorola? Organization: Bell Sygma Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:48:48 GMT Patrick Coghlan wrote: > Do the cellular networks generally not signal calling line ID or > whatever a company like Fonorola needs to validate the caller prior to > allowing its network to be used? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Generally the cellular carriers are not > under the same 'equal access' restraints as the land line carriers, at > least here in the USA. They are not required to allow customers to use > the long distance carrier of their choice. Some may choose to do so, > but it appears the cellular company in your instance does not. I > suggest your friend as Fonorola if they can give her a dialup number > and a PIN to be used with her cellular phone. PAT] I have the same situation. With Cantel (and I believe also Bell Cellular) you can't choose your LD carrier. Also 10xxx carrier selection does not work. To make matters worse, Cantel charges a 15% surcharge on the LD. My cell phone transmits 613-000-5555 for its ANI. Fonorola was using ANI for their local access number without a PIN, so it won't work from the cell phone. What I do is for short (three minutes or less) calls I'll dial direct on the cellular, and for longer calls I'll use Fonorola's calling card (calling cards do work on the cell phone). Cantel was offering (and maybe still is) service for $30/month, free evenings after 6pm, free weekend calling, AND up to $30 of long distance calling in Canada for the first 12 months. This included a free Motorola DPC550 when you sign up for 18 months. This was being offered in Atlantic Canada (NB, NS), but I never saw it offered in Ontario or Quebec. If I had known I would have signed up in Nova Scotia instead of Ontario. What I'd like to do is get some sort of device that will allow me to link my two phone lines at home; I could make a free local call on the cell to my line 1, link to line 2 and dial out on the second line which is PIC'd to Fonorola. Ralph ------------------------------ From: srkleine@midway.uchicago.edu (steven r kleinedler) Subject: Problem Solved, Thank You! Organization: The University of Chicago Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 20:27:10 GMT Well, my problem of stuttering dial tone has been solved. I'm reporting here to thank the people involved and to explain what had happened so that other people can avoid similar situations. Why the dial tone began stuttering is a mystery, but why it *stayed* stuck can be explained as follows: With Ameritech's voice-mail, if you turn on or off the boop-boop-booping command that lets you know you've got voice mail *while* you have unheard mail in the voice mail queue, the command will "stick". Why the problem began, I don't know, but a couple weeks ago, a not-so-helpful technician exacerbated the problem by surfing through the voice mail options, willy-nilly pressing various buttons, including turning off the boop-boop-boop command while there were still messages in the queue, thereby apparently causing the boop-boop-boop to remain stuck further. Further, this technician said he'd look into the problem, that was two weeks ago, nothing happened until someone who'd seen my post stepped in. (And apparently there was no record of follow-thru being needed on my record, which is why no one else ever contacted me.) So, I'd like to thank Rich Maganini of Ameritech out of Chicago who saw my problem here on the newsgroup and contacted me and hooked me up with some very helpful Ameritech people in the 313 area, including Diane Thomas, a Mr. Jones, and another service person whose name I didn't get. I'd like to thank them all for their time and for taking care of a problem that one of their co-workers dropped the ball on. This message has been brought to you by Steve Kleinedler. ------------------------------ From: sewilco@fieldday.mn.org (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: Re: Teenager's Web Site on Unabomber Booms Date: 15 Apr 1996 10:56:30 -0500 > the evidence 'found' there in the little 10x12 foot hut after many > days of searching, the profile is now nearly one hundred percent That's "in the little 10x12 foot MINEFIELD after many days of searching". Maybe he's just a fan of the Unabomber. Anyone interested in the Unabomber would have info on him around. And it's not surprising that someone who has a hobby of making bombs would be interested in malicious bombers. Perhaps TK just liked to make elaborate devices for blowing up stumps. I'm also stumped unless the FBI finds the Unabomber original materials (especially as he sent his notes as carbon copies, which suggests that either he has the originals filed or he doesn't believe in typewriter ribbons). Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Apr 96 07:57:15 EDT From: john Subject: Last Laugh! How Many FBI Agents Does it Take ... Given the amount of stuff taken out of that cabin, I'm suprised they haven't found the Unabomber's mustache back in there amongst the Underwood collection! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ah, but they did 'find' the original copy of the Unabomber Manifesto; I suppose you heard that. It was after they had been there well over a week. If they found the original, I wonder what he sent to the {New York Times}, a carbon copy? Of course they had to come up with three typewriters before finally 'finding' one on which the copy of the Manifesto might have been typed. Please note however that several months ago the *original* had supposedly been sent to the {New York Times} with a *copy* to {The Washington Post}. Assuming he did not use a copy machine (too modern and high-tech), how many times did he type out by hand this 35,000 word document? ... Isn't it fun watching how every day the FBI comes up with something new they 'just found' after searching this 10x12 foot place continuously for more than a week? After first finding a couple of typewriters it was several days before they found the third one ... yes, the FBI is tidying things up nicely, but you'll note they still have not charged him; they've simply allowed the media to besmirch him in every way possible, and get public opinion on their side. Does something smell bad in the Unabomber case? PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #182 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 16 21:49:57 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA26320; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:49:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:49:57 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604170149.VAA26320@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #183 TELECOM Digest Tue, 16 Apr 96 21:49:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 183 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Intimidating Cellular Phone and a Phony Police Officer (Fred Atkinson) Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone (Ham Radio) (Barry Ornitz) Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: T1 Not a Substitute for Business POTS (N.G. Marino) Re: T1 Not a Substitute for Business POTS (Craig Nordin) Re: Caller I.D. Blocking Question (Robert Randolph) Re: Seeking Cheyenne Bitware (tweek@netcom.com) Billing Contracts (was Re: More Fun With Sprint) (John A. Weeks III) Re: FCC Hearings on Telecommunications '96 Act? (David Devereaux-Weber) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 17:36:57 CST From: Atkinson, Fred Subject: Intimidating Cellular Phone and a Phony Police Officer I had a rather unusual experience last week in which my cellular phone became a godsend to me. I'd like to share it with you. I was on my way to Johns Hopkins University on Wednesday evening and had pulled into the line to the drive through the window at the local Burger King. There were a couple of cars behind me and we'd been waiting a few minutes when a vehicle attempted to cut in front of me. I promptly blocked him out. Suddenly, he had flashing red and blue lights on his dash. He got out and walked up to my window telling me he was a cop, a cop, a cop screaming and yelling it at me. He ordered me to move my car. As is the norm, I asked to see his badge (he was in civilian clothes) to which he screamed he was a cop, a cop, a cop and again ordered me to move my car. I was VERY suspicious as I had completed an extensive training program at the local police academy. I knew that it was mandatory for a police officer to show his badge when it was requested (at least in our county, probably in others). I asked for his name and badge number. At this point, he was getting so wild that I perceived he might get violent. He screamed the same, 'I'm a cop, I'm a cop, I'm a cop' at me and again ordered me to move my car. I rolled back to let him in, wrote down his tag number, and picked up my cellular phone to call the real police. He had gotten back into his car, but got out again when he saw I had the cellular to the side of my face. He tried to intimidate me into hanging up, but I am a lot tougher than that. He asked me why I had such a problem with this. I told him that he was supposed to go to the end of the line like everyone else. He suggested we go inside to talk to the management. I promptly agreed. Suddenly, he decided he could let me go in front of him. I thanked him (very sarcastically). I completed my call to 911 and reported the incident. The dispatcher said they had a police car on the way. When I finished going through the line, I pulled around front so I could see which way he would go when he got through the line. Apparently he panicked and ran off out the back way when he realized that nothing was going to stop me from calling 911. He never came out of the drive through. When the policewoman arrived, I told her what happened and gave her the tag number. She said she'd run it and call me at home tonight saying that if he WAS a police officer, she was going to contact his superiors. When I got her call that night, she said that the neighborhood to which the car was registered did NOT have any police officers living in it that they were aware of (SURPRISE, SURPRISE). She said the patrol officers in that neighborhood were watching that house to see if the car showed up in the driveway. I thought I saw a young girl in the front seat of his car. I think he was trying to impress her. I suspect she wasn't terribly impressed when he went running out of the parking lot with his tail between his legs. Well, my sweet old cellular came in handy. Hopefully, the police will be able to stop this guy from representing himself as a police officer to other citizens. I had been considering getting rid of the cellular to economize, but I think this just changed my mind. For your own safety (and I was told this by an instructor at the police academy) NEVER assume that someone is a police officer just because they say they are. Ask to see the badge. No REPUTABLE police officer will have a problem with that. Also, those red and blue flashing lights on the dash can be had by persons who are not police (obviously, in view of my experience). If you suspect you've been approached by a phony police officer, call you local police station or 911 and report it. Fred [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regretably, sometimes police officers are real, but still rotten to the core. Four years ago, far north side of Chicago: a fast food place specializing in hot dogs, cheesburgers, onion rings, etc. For the several years the place had been open, the owner routinely gave free beverages to police who came in, along with allowing them to use his bathroom on request whether they bought anything or not. Usually he gave them a fifty percent discount on their food, etc. One night there was a burglary in the wee hours of the morning; the guy lost a couple thousand dollars in cash along with a computer and a large television set his customers watched as they ate, etc. The thing the burglars overlooked was that a security camera turned on routinely during the night whenever the alarm system was activated. The videotape turned out quite nice: it was two police officers, and the camera watched as they carried away the television set and put it in their car. The owner turned the videotape over to the commander of the police district after making a duplicate copy for himself and one for the television stations -- the television news people played the tape happily over and over on the news that day so that everyone could watch the burglary in progress -- and he also placed a small sign on the front door of his establishment saying, 'We no longer provide free beverages, half-price food and bathroom facilities for police officers on duty. No doubt some other establishment nearby will appreciate your patronage.' The tape was later used as evidence in the trial of the two officers accused, however the judge ruled that the tape was not clear enough in the darkness to positively identify *which* officers, although it was plain they were police officers. So the two who were suspected got off not guilty. PAT] ------------------------------ From: ornitz@eastman.com (Ornitz_Barry) Subject: Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone (Ham Radio) Date: 16 Apr 1996 12:06:42 -0400 Organization: Eastman Chemical Company PAT, I thought your readers might be interested in how our local emergency dispatch numbers handle 911 calls done via amateur radio autopatch facilities in the Tri-Cities area of eastern Tennessee. Amateur radio has had a long history of providing communication and notification in case of emergencies. Many years ago, when the first amateur radio autopatches were installed on the local ham radio repeater systems, the issue of emergency calls came up. [An autopatch is a simplex connection from the radio system to the telephone system. The mobile radio transmits a special access code which activates the autopatch and returns a dial tone. A local number may then be dialed via touch-tone signals from the remote transmitter. The system is simplex meaning that only one person can talk at a time.] Local emergency agencies were all contacted and informed in advance that they might receive calls in this manner. All were enthusiastic. In fact, when the area began its 911 service, several amateur radio operators were involved with the planning through their association with the local FEMA organizations. We follow a standard procedure when reporting an emergency. This has worked well over the years. We start by announcing to the dispatcher that we are an amateur radio operator reporting an emergency. We give our name and call letters followed by the type and location of the emergency. Only once (out of about a dozen times) was I ever questioned by the dispatcher who was confused by the ANI. Details of the emergency are then requested both by the operator and by the agency the call is transferred to. I have never found a problem with calling the Kingsport 911 number, even though I might have been located outside the city (Sullivan County has its own 911 system) - or even in one of the other Tri-Cities. Once while attending a 4th of July fireworks display in Johnson City (about 30 miles from Kingsport), a pregnant woman fell from her chair in the back of a parked pickup truck when the gate chain broke. She was knocked unconcious - and was about 8 months along. While others went to see about her, I tried to raise help on the local ham radio repeater frequencies. Unfortunately the local hams must all have been at the display so I could get no local help. I then used the Kingsport frequency and although the signal was weak, I was able to bring up the autopatch and dial 911. There was absolutely no question about why I was calling from another city. They took the information and passed it on to the 911 unit in Johnson City. There was an ambulance there within two minutes. I talked to the driver while the paramedics loaded the woman. He said he was told by Johnson City's 911 dispatch that the call had come in from some "ham" via the Kingsport 911. He then said that the dispatchers always give special respect to the hams because of the long history of assistance they have given. The ambulance was able to get the woman to the hospital before the massive traffic jam that occurred a few minutes later. My point in writing this is to tell your readers to not be afraid to call 911 from a cellphone. If there is an emergency of ANY type, please report it. Do not worry if the call is sent to a distant switch for routing. Just be sure to report your correct location. The dispatchers generally all have the telephone numbers of surrounding emergency agencies and many even have "mutual aid" radio frequencies too. Sure, it may take a few extra _seconds_ for the proper agency to be contacted, but this is often far better than the _minutes_ spent looking for a local telephone. If you have a cellphone in your possession, it should be your obligation to use it to help out in an emergency. Barry L. Ornitz WA4VZQ ornitz@eastman.com ------------------------------ From: sewilco@fieldday.mn.org (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone Date: 16 Apr 1996 10:56:56 -0500 The Minnesota Highway Patrol handles all cellular 911 calls. I found it is helpful to know that, as when you start a call by saying "Minneapolis Police, please" the MHP staff quickly transfer you to that agency without having to waste time reporting to the wrong people. Of course when I do that I'm also bypassing the checking which the MHP staff does, where they do a good job of finding the correct agencies for a problem. But it is helpful to know who is answering the phone in a situation like this, as in emergencies there's often quite enough confusion already taking place on your end of the phone call. Yes, which I ask for a certain agency then I have a pretty good idea what is needed. The last call which I started with that phrase, the second phrase which I said to the Minneapolis call taker was "I'm following a stolen car westbound at 42nd street South and Haiwatha Avenue". Which was rather specific for the police, and on their city streets (the Highway Patrol is primary contact for state/federal highways). Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org ------------------------------ From: ngmarino@aol.com (NGMarino) Subject: Re: T1 Not a Substitute for Business POTS Date: 16 Apr 1996 07:10:29 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: ngmarino@aol.com (NGMarino) Dear Mr. Telco Executive - Let me state at the onset, that I'm a capitalist. I believe in profit. But the telcos are a state-sponsored monopoly. They have an obligation to provide service at the lowest cost possible, and with fairness. In my business, I consider it proper to price my services based on percieved customer value. But you, on the other hand, really should price your services based on cost. As a monopoly, you shouldn't resort to the kind of sales-speak you used in the previous response. All the services you mentioned are software-based which means: 1. There is actually very little on-going cost to provide these services, on a line-by-line basis. 2. These features are at least as beneficial to your company's operation as they are to the customer. Has congress ended telco monopoly? If it has, I don't see where. The telcos were allowed to build a tremendous infrastructure, making lots of profit along the way, but competitors are asked to start from scratch. It will be years before there's real competition. ------------------------------ From: cnordin@vni.net (Craig Nordin) Subject: Re: T1 Not a Substitute for Business POTS Date: 16 Apr 1996 07:38:39 -0400 Organization: Virtual Networks Let me do a bad paraphrase: "Discounts based on the modular concept of T1, where any other possible telecom competitor is on an equal footing? Hell No." Just my stenkin' opinion ... http://www.vni.net/ cnordin@vni.net Fly VNI: Send E-Mail to info@vni.net ------------------------------ From: rand777@ids.net (Robert Randolph) Subject: Re: Caller I.D. Blocking Question Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:38:34 GMT Organization: Randolph Biomedical Reply-To: rand777@ids.net (Robert Randolph) On 4 Apr 1996 14:38:14 GMT, tom@ubacomm.comm.uab.edu (Tom Watson) wrote: > I have recently seen in several mail order catalogs, a device that > allows a caller to block his number from the called party's call I.D. > unit. The picture in the ad shows a unit that attaches to the > caller's line that is supposed to keep that persons line from being > identified by anyone called who has caller I.D. service. The device > sells for around $30. My question is, if the caller I.D. information > is generated by the switch of the calling party to the called party, > how can this unit located on the caller's premise, generate caller > I.D. blocking? Just curious if anyone has any insight. You do not have to pay anything to have caller ID blocked. By law in every state, just call your phone company and tell them you want it blocked. Some states, Texas is one, requires that you contact Consumer Affairs Department, Attorney General's Office and get some kind of form. There may be some effort to intimidate you, by suggesting that it is hard to understand why anyone, other than one engaged in criminal activity, should want line blocking ... stay the course, demand it ... they will do what you want. Caller ID is not a convenience to the average consumer. Its greatest benefit it to businesses; by the time they answer their phone, they have identified you, have your account activity on screen and all at your expense ... you saved them time and money. Be aware that all 800 numbers provide caller ID automatically. Robert Randolph Randolph Biomedical 21 McElroy Street West Warwick, RI 02893 401-826-1407 rand777@ids.net http://www2.ids.net/~rand777/home.htm ------------------------------ From: tweek@netcom.com (Reverend Tweek) Subject: Re: Seeking Cheyenne Bitware Organization: Our Lady of Perpetual Freedom Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 18:17:07 GMT E-mailed to: Erik (If he understands English) Jan (If it needs to be re-translated) TELECOM Digest (If Pat feels it should be posted. Feel free to clip the excess quoted. I left enough in so that Erik could follow the chain of response) > EW> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps someone will kindly > EW> translate this for me and other readers. PAT] > erik.wust@easy.nl wrote: > EW> Onlangs zag ik een demonstratie van Cheyenne Bitware, een Jan Ceuleers translates: > Recently I saw a demonstration of Cheyenne Bitware, a nice telecom > program for computer-assisted telephone answering. The program came > for free with a modem ... I have no further information as to its > source ... Can anyone tell me where I could buy or download this > software? France (European Headquarters) Cheyenne Communications Bel Air Building 58, Rue Pottier 78150 Le Chesnay France The USA HQ address is: Cheyenne Communications 3 Expressway Plaza Roslyn Heights, New York 11577 Telephone: 800-243-9462 OUTSIDE USA: 516-484-5110 FAX: 516-484-3446 Texhnical Support is out of Fremont, California, USA. ================================ The above information was found on the back of the manual I have for BitWare Lite 3.2, a get you hooked distribution which came with my el-cheapo ($49) Zoltrix 14.4/Fax/Voice modem. Being that I bought the modem for a Linux box, I have only "played" with the BitWare Lite software (as it requires Windows ... and I try not to do Windows). The Zoltrix modem used RPI chipsets, the Fax section was Class 1, and the Voice format was Rockwell proprietary. (The "conversion" programs available at www.rockwell.com (?) did NOT do a decent conversion between STANDARD VoiceModem formats and the Rockwell format.) I do not know if Bitware Lite, or BitWare, the software Erik asked about, can deal with modems other than the RPI type. The program itself (Lite) and its interaction with the Zoltrix modem, worked well enough that I would consider using it *IF* I were the sort of person who dared to have Windows up 24 hours a day ... but I am not. On the back of the Bitware Lite manual, (just in case anyone is interested) is the following information (ie: Now that we got you hooked, this is what you really need) about "Bitware for Windows v4.0": Voice On Demand (Sounds like a Voice BBS) Voice Broadcasting and Survey Pager Broadcasting Faxserve and NASI Integration. AnyFax OCR (converts fax to MSWORD and Wordperfect) Fax Receipt Pager Notification TWAIN-compliant scanner support I don't endorse BitWare, nor work for them, nor receive any compensation for the above ... In fact, every time I hear the name, I think of BITCOM, the free communications program that, IMO, should only be used to download something better for your new modem ... and frankly, I suspect that there is a connection between Bitcom and Cheyenne, although I may be in error. ------------------------------ From: jweeks@visi.com (John A. Weeks III) Subject: Billing Contracts (was Re: More Fun With Sprint) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:20:38 -0500 Organization: Newave Communications In article , Steven Miale wrote: > Sprint owns our local telco (Centel). After calling today to get my > service changed, I found out that they will no longer be allowing any > long distance company other than Sprint to include their bill with the > regular telephone bill. We are going to see more and more of this happen over the next few years. In a year or two, it will become rare to receive your LD bill along with your local service bill. In the past, it was seen as a benefit for LD carriers to bill through the LEC (local exchange). Customers want to minimize the number of bills that they pay. With the amount of deregulation going on, LD carriers are now trying to establish "relationships" with their customers. This is an attempt to try to increase the length of time that a customer stays, plus it will allow the LD carrier to market additional products and services beyond LD service. A buzz word that we often hear is "bundling", where you can get cellular, paging, LD service, gas, electicity, cable TV, and home security all from one vendor. In fact, you will see discounts tied to purchasing multiple services from the same vendor, rather than the current X% off after so much volume. If you think the LD competition is crazy now, imagine what it would be like if your "services" bill averaged $300 per month rather than the current $30 per month for LD service. I wonder how big of a check AT&T will be sending out to try to get new people to switch? John A. Weeks III (612) 946-8815 jweeks@visi.com Newave Communications FAX 946-8816 http://www.visi.com/~jweeks ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 16:54:47 -0500 From: David Devereaux-Weber Subject: Re: FCC Hearings on Telecommunications '96 Act? In issue V16#178 (4/15/96)ronda@panix.com (Ronda Hauben) asked: [stuff deleted] > Also, is there an email address of someone at the FCC who can provide > such information? > Or are there any newsgroups or mailing lists that officials from the > FCC participate in where such discussion is ongoing, or where at least > announcements are made of how to make input into the process and the > deadlines for such input? Ronda, The FCC has a Web site which lists many of their e-mail addresses. There is also a list for the discussion of the regulation of telecommunications regulation (TelecomReg). To subscribe, send the message: subscribe telecomreg your name (inserting your name in the command) to the address listserver@relay.doit.wisc.edu There are about 1300 subscribers to the list from all over the world, including several from the FCC. We do occasionally get messages and/or responses from FCC staff. David Devereaux-Weber, P.E. djdevere@facstaff.wisc.edu The University of Wisconsin - Madison Division of Information Technology http://clover.macc.wisc.edu Network Engineering (608)262-3584(voice) (608)265-5838(FAX) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #183 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 17 00:05:39 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA07013; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:05:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:05:39 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604170405.AAA07013@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #184 TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Apr 96 00:05:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 184 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Sprint Can't Get Enough (Robert McMillin) Re: Sprint Free Fridays - New Exceptions (Joel M. Hoffman) Sprint: Robin Loyed's Fax Number (was Re: Phone Number) (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Sprint: Robin Loyed's Phone Number (Jon Zerden) Re: Sprint: Robin Loyed's Phone Number (John Cropper) Re: Internet Users Gather to Plan Sprint Class Action (Bob Goudreau) John Henry of the Infobahn (Robert McMillin) Re: Luddite Convention (David Hough) Re: Luddite Convention (Matt Ackeret) Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement (Ian Geldard) Help - Converting min1 and min2 of FOCC to Cell Phone Number (Steve Bagdon) Wireless Crystal Ball Gazers (David Wigglesworth) Employment Opportunity: Industrial Analyst - Telecom (S. Gallucci) Employment Opportunity: Telecom Installer in Phoenix (wallace@primenet.com) Five Area Codes Where There Was One (Carl Moore) Re: Five Area Codes Where There Was One (John Cropper) Six Cent per Minute Long Distance (John Connors) Assistance in programming HP Spectrum Analyzer Needed (John Hart) Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone (Mark J. Cuccia) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Sprint Can't Get Enough Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:34:08 GMT There's an ad in today's {Los Angeles Times} for the Fridays Free promotion. And here I thought they were ready to cry "Uncle!" Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh no, not at all. The same full page ad ran in the {Chicago Sun Times} on Tuesday also. But they changed the name slightly. Now it is called 'Sprint Business'. The same offer as before: fifty dollars per month gets you up to a thousand dollars per month in free calls on Friday. And as the ad said it, 'no exceptions! Free fax, free directory assistance, free cellular long distance, free calls via calling cards, free inter/intrastate one plus calls, etc.' It did not however mention 'free international calls'. Basically they have it set up so you cannot come close to using up a thousand dollars worth of calls, and anyway as we now know, that is just a 'bait and switch' gimmick with no real truth to it. Heck, with all the phone subscribers who much be switching over to Sprint to get this deal, if it were you, would you quit running false advertising like that until or unless a state attorney general or some federal agency told you that you had to quit or you wound up getting sued and losing? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joel M. Hoffman Subject: Re: Sprint Free Fridays - New Exceptions Date: 16 Apr 1996 16:06:32 GMT Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But a company cannot just unilaterally > decide to renege on contracts it has with its customers. Suppose it > was the other way around: you signed on with them for a year under an > arrangment where you would get a certain pricing on calls and at some > point got literature from AT&T with a better deal, and you deciced, > "I am losing so much money with Sprint I will pull out of this contract." > Do you think YOU would get away with it? PAT] According to Sprint, FCC tariff regulations permit a unilateral change to combat fraud, even if the change affects non-fraudulent customers. So, if Sprint found that its old tariff resulted it too much fraud, they were permitted to change the tariff to combat the fraud, even if it would adversely affect existing customers. I'm waiting for the relevent FCC tariff information from them, but I have a sneaking suspicion they'll be able to use this as a legal out. OTOH, I suspect, if Sprint encouraged the fraud -- say, by purposely allowing residential customers to sign up -- I don't think the "fraud" outlet will work. Ultimately, though, this is clearly going to end up with a class-action suit. Joel (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 12:29 EDT From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Sprint: Robin Loyed's Fax Number (was Re: Phone Number) Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > For those of you who are interested in contacting Robin Loyed, > his phone number is (214) 405-5404. But you won't reach him. His fax is: 214/405-5048. Perhaps Friday would be a good day to call/fax ... (BTW, when you call him, be nice. We don't know if this fiasco is even his fault, and everyone deserves to be treated well.) Joel (joel@exc.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I suggest that calls or faxes to Robin Loyed be via Sprint, using 10333 unless you are already defaulted to them. Then, because you were calling the company on business pertaining to the company, I feel you would be within your rights at a later time to deduct the charges for those phone calls. The large number of calls would not be needed if he would accept calls and deal with them in an honorable fashion, but I understand from a few people that to the contrary, his calls are now being closly screened and he is not taking calls from anyone outside the firm. You are right, fax may be the only way to discuss this with him. I am reminded of a few years ago when I needed to speak with the president of a company about a past due bill the company owed to a client of the attornies I was working for. This guy played games with me and would never come to the phone. He had his secretary lie for him, which is probably what Robin Loyed does. Finally, I did a check of the corporate records. The Secretary of State always has records of the names and home addresses of officers of corporations, along with the name and address of the Registered Agent; usually an attorney who accepts legal service for the corporation, etc. It turns out this guy was the president, but *his wife* was vice-president and treasurer of the corporation, although just on paper only. But demand for payment or legal service can be made on any corporate officer. I called her at home one day and made demand on her to pay the bill. She says, 'you will have to talk to my husband, it is his company.' Later that night I called the home again and asked to speak to him. He gets on the phone and tells me to (a) leave his wife out of it, and (b) to call him at his office. My answer was "Mr. Jones, you do not take phone calls at your office! I'll call you tomorrow and you better take my call!" When I called the next day at the office, bingo, suddenly he made himself available. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jon Zerden Subject: Re: Sprint: Robin Loyed's Phone Number Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:52:00 -0400 Organization: Capital Area Internet Service, Inc. srb wrote: > Hi, > For those of you who are interested in contacting Robin Loyed, > his phone number is (214) 405-5404. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I keep hoping that Robin Loyed or > someone authorized to speak for Sprint will respond to the many > messages which have appeared here in the past week, but so far > no response has been forthcoming. It may have to go legal. PAT] It's interesting Robin Loyed's number is in the 214 area code, Texas -- however Sprint's headquaters are in Reston VA (703) area code and Kansas City (818 area code I think). Jon ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Sprint: Robin Loyed's Phone Number Date: 16 Apr 1996 09:52:25 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On Apr 15, 1996 15.15.47 'srb@transposon.LANL.GOV (srb)' wrote: > For those of you who are interested in contacting Robin Loyed, > his phone number is (214) 405-5404. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I keep hoping that Robin Loyed or > someone authorized to speak for Sprint will respond to the many > messages which have appeared here in the past week, but so far > no response has been forthcoming. It may have to go legal. PAT] Pat, Pat, Pat ... you're dealing with a company that doesn't even have an organized service to *offer* the internet to its end-users. Do you actually think that they know what a newsgroup is? John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You're right, they probably do not know much about the Internet or Usenet and newsgroups, etc. I did find out that Robin Loyed's number 214-405-5404 is answered with voicemail after hours. It rings a few times, and the calls is transferred on a no answer/transfer arrangement to voicemail. Perhaos as busy as he must be -- too busy to talk to the people he sent arrogant mailgrams to -- it might be a good idea to leave him voicemail which he can then respond to as time permits. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:21:28 -0400 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: Internet Users Gather to Plan Sprint Class Action David Sternlight (david@sternlight.com) wrote: > How do you tell if you're a bona fide business customer? > Simple -- you're paying metered business rates for local phone > service on the number you signed up with Sprint for Fridays are Free. Not so simple. There are parts of the country where flat rates are available even for business lines, you know. North Carolina, for example. Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: John Henry of the Infobahn Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 06:07:37 GMT On 15 Apr 1996 12:02:25 PDT, Pat said: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can tell you the way I see some very > unthinking people dealing with modern technology has almost convinced > me to become a Luddite on a few occassions. What I have against modern > technology in general, and computers in particular, is that they have > afforded so many people the opportunity to quit thinking for themsevles > entirely. For example many math skills are going by the wayside; people > do not know how to do calculations in their mind. They have no need to > do so since the computer will do it much faster. And did you note the > item in the papers recently talking about how few children these days > are learning good penmanship. Children as young as six or seven years > old are very good typists at keyboards, but do very poorly when asked > to write with a pen or pencil. The computer has by and large replaced > the need to have brains and intelligence in large quarters of American > society. I think many people are Luddites or neo-Luddites out of frust- > ration for these reasons. PAT] You're talking arithmetic and penmanship skills. It's arguable that the latter isn't really necessary in a world where fast typing is more useful. I've been touch-typing for over fifteen years now, mainly because I'm a programmer; last weekend, I ran into an art major who was just as dexterous as I on the keyboard (maybe more so), because he uses computers in his work. In cases like this, I don't care whether society loses those skills; there's good precedent we can do without them. Back when muscle was king, fear of steam power led to proto- Springsteenian songwriting bawling about competition with machines. Of course, John Henry beat the steam drill, but then he laid down his hammer and he died, lord lordy, he laid down his hammer and he died. Computation doesn't carry that occupational hazard, but the moral is the same: humans are good at some kinds of tasks, but machines are better at others. Does that obsolete the three 'R's? 'rithmetic, perhaps, in a very limited way, but reading -- the "R" in "RTFM" -- is still very much with us. For all the yapping about computers replacing books, you will note the documentation still comes in dead tree form. Ask any engineer how much time he or she spends driving Microsoft Word, and you'll get a good idea of just how valuable clear writing is. Seventy four years ago, H. L. Mencken wrote in "The Commonwealth of Morons" that "any man who knows his trade, does not fear ghosts, has read fifty good books, and practices the common decencies stands out as brilliantly as a wart on a bald head." It is no less so today, though one might have added the skill of writing a coherent paragraph to his list. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html ------------------------------ From: David Hough Subject: Re: Luddite Convention Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 08:18:36 GMT Organization: Chaotic In article Tad Cook writes: > BARNESVILLE, Ohio -- Each marching to a different drummer, 350 > delegates to the Second Luddite Congress have come to this countryside > hamlet to write a declaration of independence from the modern world. > For two days, they have been drafting a manifesto calling for a > boycott of TV, cars and computers. They are united (an adjective only > rarely usable at an anarchists' convention) in the conviction that > technology is an enemy. One has to ask (a) how they found out about the congress and (b) travelled there. Dave djh@sectel.com Tel +44 1285 655 766 Fax +44 1285 655 595 ------------------------------ From: mattack@eskimo.com (Matt Ackeret) Subject: Re: Luddite Convention Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 22:47:28 GMT In article , Linc Madison wrote: > In article , Tad Cook > wrote: >> BARNESVILLE, Ohio -- Each marching to a different drummer, 350 >> delegates to the Second Luddite Congress have come to this countryside >> hamlet to write a declaration of independence from the modern world. > Very sloppy reporting on the part of the {Chicago Tribune} and the > {Wall Street Journal} -- neither paper listed the group's web page > address! Sarcasm aside, the article I read about this (in the San Jose Mercury News within the last few days) said that most of the attendees had flown there! (Not very dedicated to their beliefs, huh?) unknown@apple.com Apple II Forever [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well what did you expect them to do, walk or have a horse pull their wagon down the road? And even then, with the latter, do you think there is a philisophical problem for them with the invention of the wheel? Let's not get into contra- dictions unless they are a little more meaningful than that. For example, I have met 'fur protestors' -- the people who object to the killing of animals for their fur -- who none the less wear leather shoes. I ask them why the covering of their feet for protection in the winter at the neccessary sacrifice of a cow is any more important than someone else covering thier entire body for protection using fur at the necessary sacrifice of an otter, for example. Their answer is usually that the cow will in any event be sacrificed for food, and it's skin may as well be used also rather than wasted; furthermore while shoes are a necessary item for our survival, there are numerous types of garments to use in covering one's body, thus making the use of fur 'frivilous'. I suspect the Luddites at their convention would tell you some variation on this same theme. They probably make some distinction between modern technology which is frivilous and that which is needed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ian Geldard Subject: Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 08:48:15 GMT > For example many math skills are going by the wayside; people > do not know how to do calculations in their mind. They have no need to > do so since the computer will do it much faster. The same arguments were used by technophobes against the slide rule. No doubt there were similar people who decried the use of logarithmic tables and predicted the downfall of civilization when the abacus was invented. > And did you note the item in the papers recently talking about how > few children these days are learning good penmanship. Children as > young as six or seven years old are very good typists at keyboards, > but do very poorly when asked to write with a pen or pencil. The ability to write in perfect copperplate was once considered to be an important skill. I quite like calligraphy and prefer using fountain pens, but wouldn't expect a child to be forced to use one or a quill pen anymore. It must have been quite a feat to use those clay tablets with a stylus. > The computer has by and large replaced the need to have brains and > intelligence in large quarters of American society. I think many > people are Luddites or neo-Luddites out of frustration for these > reasons. PAT] New technologies require new skills and augment human intelligence, releasing us from the drudgery of repititive and boring tasks. That children prefer to use a keyboard does not surprise me and is something that should be encouraged. There will always be some who will be left behind or will refuse to keep up out of fear of change. Intellectual neanderthals like neo-Luddites (that's probably been unkind to neanderthals) will follow them into extinction. TTFN - Ian Ian Geldard London, UK [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Again, I am not saying many of the educational things kids have been taught in the past should not *perhaps* eventually be abandoned, but I think we are cutting it a bit close if we do it right now. Furthermore, unlike the invention of the wheel or the printing press or the typewriter, all of which were labor saving devices but still required their owners to *think* about their use; computers seem to be cutting a bit deeper, and in different ways. We were never totally dependent on adding machines or typewriters. We have never been totally dependent on anything up until now; but now so much is done on computer and computer only that it is pathetic. If the computer breaks down then everything around it stops. What other invention in history has ever had that effect? What do you propose to do it at some point in the future the computer breaks down and cannot be fixed? We cannot write programs to put in a new computer because there is no one left who knows how to tell the computer what to do? I suppose we could go dredge up a bunch of old library routines somewhere and try to install those, huh? Everything heretofore has given us a decrease in the amount of *manual labor* required. The computer is the first thing to come along which has afforded us an opportunity to quit thinking for ourselves. That is imminently more dangerous. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 21:20:12 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Help - Converting min1 and min2 of FOCC to Cell Phone Number I'm having serious problems with some AMPS standards. I am trying to convert the min1 of control word 1 and min2 of control word 2, of the FOCC data stream, to a cellular number. Serious problems seem to arise when the last digit of the area code and telephone number end in '0'. I have a great book that explains the algorythm to do this, but it get's totally confusing when '0's are involved. For example, *my* cellular phone number is xx0-xxx-xxx0 - the control words just don't want to convert. Does *anyone* have an algorythm to convert the FOCC control words, which would contain the min1 and min2, into the correct cellular phone number, when there are '0's in the phone number? Thanks much in advance to anyone who can help. This is driving me bonkers. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net Katharine aNd Steve Bagdon (KNS) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:59:48 -0400 Subject: Wireless Crystal Ball Gazers From: David_W@usa.pipeline.com (David Wigglesworth) I am trying to project where wireless and cellular technology will be in about ten years time. I would like to define the broad industry trends. I am looking at this from an equipment manufacturer's viewpoint: # Will the standard mobile phone be a video phone ? # Will you be able to dial up video news services ? # What will happen to todays existing voice networks ? # Will wireless be predominantly broadband or will narrowband still be heavily used ? # How integrated will wireless and fixed networks be ? (ie will you be able to do everything on a mobile phone that you can do on a fixed phone ?) # What features and capabilities will be deployed ? # What takeup of wireless local loop will there be ? (Which countries will use it the most ?) # Will wireless local loop become a bigger market for equipment manufacturers than cellular. I will compile a summary and mail back to Pat for publication in the Digest. Regards David Wigglesworth David_W@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: stepheng@scom.com (Stephen Gallucci: S-Com) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Industrial Analyst - Telecom Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:17:12 GMT Organization: S-Com CSE Ltd. A leading supplier of business and market information to the worldwide IT and telecommunications industry, has a vacancy for an industry analyst. Contact Stephen Gallucci 01296 311402 http://bigweb.scom.com/scom/advert/95_00494.html S-COM Computer Systems Engineers Ltd. Phone (+44) 01296-311411 Fax (+44) 01296-436895 ------------------------------------------------ The company: A leading supplier of business and market information to the worldwide IT and telecommunications industry !Berkshire The role: 1. researching and writing about advanced communications technologies2. Generating reports and commenting on key technologytrends, company activity and communication technology within the communications industry; in the area of Wide Area and Broadband networking. Rates: Up to #30k p.a. depending upon experience Contract length: Permanent. Other lures: Overseas Travel may be required Key skills: Background in technology journalism, research, technical writing, market analysis or product marketing. Please mail your CV to Stephen Gallucci mailto:stepheng@scom.com contact me direct 01296 311402 ------------------------------ From: wallace@primenet.com (wallace@primenet.com) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telecom Installation in Phoenix Date: 16 Apr 1996 09:10:02 -0700 Organization: Wallace & Associates Telephone Installer $36,753 - $43,201 Performs installation of telecommunications equipment and services to include data and voice services, large PABX station equipment, key systems and related equipment. Performs circuit testing and fault correction as needed. Requires three years of experience in installation of voice telecommunications equipment to include single line station equipment, key systems and electronic PABX systems. Maricopa County residency required at time of application. Applications available April 15 to April 26, 1996 at 135 N. 2nd Avenue, Phoenix. City of Phoenix AA/EEO/D Employer PLEASE RESPOND BY U.S. MAIL, TELEPHONE (602-262-6277) OR IN PERSON ONLY! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 96 17:53:48 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Five Area Codes Where There Was One The Moderator writes that there will be five area codes in the Chicago area where there had been only two. Go back just 6 1/2 years and there was just one! (312/708 split entered permissive mode November, 1989.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 00:32:52 GMT Subject: Re: Five Area Codes Where There Was One From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) On Apr 16, 1996 17.53.48, 'Carl Moore ' wrote: > The Moderator writes that there will be five area codes in the Chicago > area where there had been only two. Go back just 6 1/2 years and there > was just one! (312/708 split entered permissive mode November, 1989.) That's not the half of it; 847 will probably have to split again by 2000, and 773 may split again in 2001 ... John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Who told you this? PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Connors Organization: Universal Electronics Inc Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 08:53:07 EST Subject: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance In the most recent issue of {Computer Telephony} magazine, there is an article about long distance pricing. The author indicates that carriers are making deals for as low as 6c/minute. Has anyone heard of or seen a deal that comes even close to this? Thanks, John Connors Universal Electronics voice: 216-963-4809 ------------------------------ From: Hart, John Subject: Assistance in Programming HP Spectrum Analyzer Needed Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:20:00 -0400 I would appreciate some help in either locating or writing a program which will allow me to download a trace out of a Hewlett Packard Spectrum Analyzer. I would like to bring the data into an Excel Spreadsheet for graphing and other analysis. Hewlett Packard has provided some limited assistance but I would really prefer to use an exiting software package rather than write my own. I am using a Hewlett Packard 8594E Spectrum Analyzer and a Compaq laptop Computer. My spectrum analyzer has a RS232, 25 pin connector for communications. Thanks in advance for any input. John P. Hart BellSouth PCI Columbia, SC johnhart@pcs.bls.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:30:01 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone In my recent article on Letters <==> Numericals on the dial, I mentioned the older Australian letters to numbers arrangement. I have a photocopy from an old telco magazine (Bell? IEEE? some other?) which shows dial arrangements from various countries around the world. Articles regarding ANC (All Number Calling) in the late 1950's and early 1960's sometimes showed these varying national standards since telco administrations from all over the world wanted to prepare for customer dialing of International calls. I haven't had a chance to look through my old photocopies, etc. but the following comes from email I received last Summer from a TELECOM Digest reader in Australia who sent me the following info on the old Australian letters layout on the dial: > There was one letter allocated to each number on the telephone dial, and the > letters were all easily distinguished. I do not know how the letters were > selected, though I suspect it was that they were all sufficiently different > so they could not be confused. > 1 = A > 2 = B > 3 = F > 4 = J > 5 = L > 6 = M > 7 = U > 8 = W > 9 = X > 0 = Y > There was a mnemonic used to memorise the order, and it went like this: > ll ig ish ump ike ad nderater ecept abbies > (Yabbies are crab-like animals which I believe are native to Australia). > All of this information I have gleaned from research and old newspaper > articles (the mnemonic was reprinted in the last year in an article about > the numbering changes). I remember reading that the larger Australian cities *did* have exchange name dialing years ago. I don't know if they dialed one, two or three letters of the exchange name, however. I also thank Andy Behrens for reposting the information on letters used today *and* years ago on various European dials/keysets, particularly those from the Scandinavian contries! When I find my chart showing the old Russian dial arrangement, I will try to post that, but I might have to form the letters with "ASCII art", or maybe just use the "name" of the letter, since the letters on older Russian dials were from the Russian alphabet! (I wonder what pronunciation of Russian or Moscow's exchange names sounded like?) MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #184 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 17 12:17:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA08831; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:17:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:17:07 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604171617.MAA08831@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #185 TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Apr 96 12:17:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 185 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Universal Service Filing Supports Public Access (Monty Solomon) Ameritech Residential ISDN Billing Hell! (spatula@netcom.com) ICA Announces 96 Summer Program (Irina A. Strunina) NYNEX - Deceptive Marketing? (David C. Price) 408 to be Split (Gerry A. Brown) Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance (Ron Schnell) Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance (John Cropper) Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance (Arnold Brod) FCC Hearings on Telecommunications Act (la0020@epfl2.epflbalto.org) Re: Different Countries - Different Results (Thomas Gyoeroeg) Re: Sprint Can't Get Enough (John Cropper) Re: John Henry of the Infobahn (John Cropper) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:54:10 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FCC Universal Service Filing Supports Public Access Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:35:58 -0500 From: rciville@civicnet.org (Richard R. Civille) Subject: FCC Universal Service Filing Supports Public Access -- ANNOUNCEMENT -- April 15, 1996 FCC Universal Service Filing Supports Public Access Last Friday, April 12th, the Center for Civic Networking (CCN) and the Graduate School of Library and Information Science (GLIS) at the University of Illinois Champaigne/Urbana filed comments to the FCC Joint Board on Universal Service. The comments are of interest to community networks, public access cable and community computer centers, schools, libraries, community development corporations, state telecommunication policy analysts and others. The filing outlines a set of universal service recommendations and described data analyses that could support them. The Board was urged to develop Universal Service policy that promotes a leveling effect between information haves and have-nots while stimulating new sectors in the economy such as microenterprises and home-based businesses. At the same time this framework is explored, the Board is asked to carefully examine results of analyses that illustrate the characteristics of affected population groups. The Center's Richard Civille said: "The Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service has been tasked with a solemn responsibility. Its recommendations will influence decisions that will affect the new economy and individual quality of life in the United States for decades to come." Dr. Ann Bishop, Assistant Professor at the Graduate School < abishop@uiuc.edu> said: "We strongly urge the Board to seek out and examine data that will illuminate how their recommendations may impact economic opportunity and quality of life not only on disenfranchised groups, but on emerging economic sectors." Bishop is a co-founder of Prarie-Net, a well established community network project serving over 15,000 in southern Illinois. Civille is a co-founder of CapAccess, a community network in the National Capital area serving over 12,000. The filing outlines a Universal Service framework that provides: * Market incentives and individual tax credits to increase computer ownership among low-income households and microenterprises; * Electronic mail services for low-income children and job-seekers; * Development of public access network services that offer useful and beneficial information products and services that address community needs and civic life; * Mechanisms to finance network literacy programs through adult education programs, public libraries, and schools; * Improved Federal data collection on the individual use of networked information. These recommendations are based on "The Internet and the Poor", written by CCN's Richard Civille and published in "Public Access to the Internet" edited by Brian Kahin, MIT Press, 1995. The Center for Civic Networking and the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Illinois, Champaign/Urbana have undertaken a joint project to submit a set of white papers to the Board, based upon Census Current Population Survey (CPS) data that describe emerging groups of information haves and have nots, policy implications of the data and options for decisionmakers to consider. The joint project will analyze Census data on demographic groups such as: * Home-based businesses and microenterprises; * Discouraged workers; * Disabled individuals; * Family farms; * Group households; and * Single mothers on public assistance. These groups will be examined from national samples over a several year period, and then broken down into geographic regions, income quintiles, ethnic background and individual interests such as civic participation. Civille said: "We hope that in the coming months, the Board will consider the demographic characteristics described in these white papers and by similar studies we hope will be submitted by other organizations." ------------------ * --------------------- * ------------------ To receive a copy of the filing or a copy of The Internet and the Poor, please respond privately to this email message. The materials will be available on the CCN web-site in several days, at HTTP://civic.net. The filing is available either in MS-Word binhex format or text. "The Internet and the Poor" is available in MS-Word binhex format *only*. Richard Civille Center for Civic Networking Executive Director P.O. 53152 (202) 362-3831 Washington, DC 20009 rciville@civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html ------------------------------ From: spatula@netcom.com (Drink Tang) Subject: Ameritech Residential ISDN Billing Hell! Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 07:50:39 GMT Is anyone out there having the same problems with Ameritech billing on a residential ISDN line that I am? 313 area code (Michigan). First, they refused to bill me from November 95 until March. After paying off the huge lump sum billed at that point, I get a bill yesterday for, quote, "business local calls" unquote, again dating back to November 1995. Nothing about number of calls or so much per call, just "business local calls" and a dollar amount I am apparently supposed to take on faith. What I ordered was supposed to be the residential flat rate service (actually limited to 400 calls/month I think). Not "business"! Since I run a dedicated connection site, I'm worried that next they will start trying to bill me for thousands of dollars of connect surcharges or something! When I call the *residential* billing inquiry number printed on the phone bill, they cannot give me any information on my account. Period. Half the time they refer me to a number that *immediately* tells me no one is available to take my call (but which informs me "your call is valuable to us!") - and which takes a recording of my name and number. In my experience no one ever returns calls from this number on the same day. The other half of the time they try to refer me to 1-800-TEAM-DATA, which I have already determined know nothing about billing. This level of customer support, well, sucks. There can be no other description. If anyone else in Michigan with a residential ISDN line is experiencing similar problems with Ameritech billing and customer service, please email me. I am preparing a complaint for the Michigan Public Service Commission. ------------------------------ From: Irina A. Strunina Subject: ICA Announces 96 Summer Program Date: 17 Apr 1996 02:16:01 GMT Organization: ICA Summer Program Registration The International Communications Association has announced the complete line-up for its annual ICA Summer Program, a week long academic program bringing together the top educators, consultants and industry professionals as instructors in a university setting. The mix of courses featured in the 1996 program is a reflection of where the telecommunications market is going and is a once a year opportunity for network managers, designers, sales support engineers, planners, users, consultants and executives to be briefed by the top educators and consultants in the industry at the University of Colorado at Boulder. This year's program, the 12th ICA Summer Program, features 28 different classes, six unique end of day interactive discussion groups and ten hands-on laboratory sessions combining to provide a rich and diverse learning environment. The classes are split into six logical divisions with approximately an equal number of classes in each: Internet Technologies, Fast Packet Technologies, Network Applications, Local Area Networks and Internetworking, Transport and Infrastructure and Management and Regulatory Issues. The cost for the full week of training has been kept to a minimum due to the generosity of many corporate sponsors and is $1,100 for the first ICA member student prior to May 1st / $1,300 after May 1st and $1,350 for the first non-ICA member student prior to May 1st / $1,550 after May 1st which includes all classes, lab fees, dormitory housing, meals and planned activities. There are special discounts for more than one attendee per company. For additional information contact ICA Summer Program Registration at 1-800-328-0840 / 1-770-955-7967 or by fax at 1-770-984-2299 or by email: strunina@mindspring.com. ------------------------------ From: David C. Price Subject: NYNEX - Deceptive Marketing? Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 01:21:56 -0400 Organization: Genesys Web Publishing I received a call today from NYNEX and want to confirm if I heard about their new program correctly. The women on the phone informed me that NYNEX has a new program where they will combine your LD onto the local bill. Was I interested? OH I says, you mean with any carrier. NO she says, only with our carrier. The name of our carrier is: "Long Distance Carrier". I said no thank and hung up. Two seconds later it hits me. How many people will never ask, if it means they have to switch LD companies and how many of those who are switched will look at their bill, see "Long Distance Carrier" on it with charges below it and never realize that it is not their original LD company. Anybody else get this call or is my imagination working overtime? Dave ------------------------------ From: gbrown@interramp.com (Gerry A. Brown) Subject: 408 to be Split Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 08:06:09 -0700 Organization: gerry Brown associates I just received notice that the 408 Area Code will be split as soon as April 1998. gerry ------------------------------ From: ronnie@twitch.mit.edu (Ron Schnell) Subject: Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance Date: 17 Apr 1996 06:12:47 GMT Organization: MIT In article John Connors writes: > In the most recent issue of {Computer Telephony} magazine, there is an > article about long distance pricing. The author indicates that > carriers are making deals for as low as 6c/minute. > Has anyone heard of or seen a deal that comes even close to this? Well, maybe. I have been able to get "50%" off deals from both MCI and AT&T on an ongoing basis for the last year and a half. That means approximately seven cents per minute at night and weekends anywhere in the country I can call from here in Florida. I am a very high volume home user, though, so each provider is more than happy to offer me the deal when the other one runs out. #Ron ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance Date: 17 Apr 1996 09:48:27 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On Apr 16, 1996 08.53.07 in article , 'John Connors ' wrote: > In the most recent issue of {Computer Telephony} magazine, there is an > article about long distance pricing. The author indicates that > carriers are making deals for as low as 6c/minute. > Has anyone heard of or seen a deal that comes even close to this? This could be deemed the "industry discount rate", or what carriers charge one another for bulk purchase ( > 1 *million* minutes purchased). Chances of the end-user seeing this figure at this time are extremely slim ... John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 11:28:19 EDT From: Arnold Brod Subject: Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance On April 16th John Connors writes: > In the most recent issue of {Computer Telephony} magazine, there is an > article about long distance pricing. The author indicates that > carriers are making deals for as low as 6c/minute. > Has anyone heard of or seen a deal that comes even close to this? In the long distance market there are two major ways to purchase services and two major divisions in the type of service to purchase. The first distinction is between going directly to a major carrier (ie ATT, MCI, SPRINT and LDDS/WorldCom/WilTel) and buying from a reseller. The pricing from the majors has been typically much higher then resellers. This has primarily been due to FCC tariffs (which apparently is changing). Resellers are not regulated, as far as price is concerned, and since they buy the product fairly inexpensively and have low to no advertising costs they are able to pass the savings on to the customer. This is not just for the customers benefit. They have to overcome name recognition which requires the 30 to 40% savings. There are switched and switchless resellers. I would recommend in general staying with a switched reseller. The second major distinction is between switched and dedicated service. Switched service is your everyday normal service. The name comes from the electronic switches in the Central Offices of the local Bell carriers. Good rates for resellers are between 10 and 12 cents per minute. These tend to be just business oriented and have some minimum monthly usage requirement. Dedicated or T1 (24 separate lines) service is where prices can get fairly low. A physical dedicated line between a place of business and the LD carriers point of presence is established. This bypasses the local Bell carrier. Though the price breaks are substantial in this type of situation, so are the requirements. The first is that usage has to be a minimum of $5000 per month preferrably out of one location. This requirement is one of economics for the business not the carrier. There is also the setup costs and monthly loop charges. Setup can run from free to $500 with loop charges based on the distance to the LD carriers point of presence. But lets say $500 per month would be an average. T1 service typically runs between 6 and 8 cents per minute. So if the economics make sense... This brief explanation is for the "normal" users and not the user who has specific and technical requirements. Such as high speed data tranfer or multiple office tie-ins etc. Hope this helps. Arnold Brod TeleCom Associates http://spring-board.com/one/telecom/tele.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 09:50:00 EDT From: LA Subject: FCC Hearings on Telecommunications Act The FCC homepage presents information on the agency's implementation of the Telecom Act. The information includes timelines and details about specific proceedings. URL: http://www.fcc.gov Note: Look for the document labeled *updated* schedule for Telecom Act proceedings. An initial draft schedule is still linked to the site. The updated schedule may *not* be updated every time a proceeding date changes - you *must* follow the individual proceedings to be sure that you aim at the correct dates/deadlines. You can also subscribe to the FCC Daily Digest email delivery at the FCC site. ------------------------------ From: tgyoeroe@nt.tuwien.ac.at (Thomas Gyoeroeg) Subject: Re: Different Countries - Different Results Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 13:59:23 GMT Organization: Vienna University of Technology, Austria In article , Telecom@Eureka.vip. best.com (Linc Madison) wrote: > In any case, the other obvious question is why a country the size of > Austria needs three- and four-digit city codes, especially for cities > the size of Innsbruck or Vienna. IMHO, that comes with our "hierarchical" numbering scheme and net design. where the first digit stands for the country (Austria has nine "federal-countries") in a way (not exactly). Then you have an exchange with an associated reagion, to which sub-exchanges are linked, and so on. Applying this scheme to the US, it could mean, that CA has the first digit 4, then northern CA 41, mid CA 42 and southern CA 43. The bay area might get 421 (and not 415) and San Francisco might have 4211, San Jose 4212, ... For Los Angeles, you'd get a number like 4311 (and not 213), Santa Barbara 4312, ... You see, this scheme is easier to "enlarge" and add exchanges ... and our 'PTV' is prepared (and hoping), that each household will have at least three phone lines, like they have in the US ... ;-) As a customer, I know that a phone number starting with 05 belongs to Tyrol and thus it's a long distance call "zone 2"-billing from Vienna, whereas numbers starting with "02" are long distance calls "zone 1"-billing. For me, it is much harder to remeber 100 3-digit codes to tell, to which region a phone number belongs to. > (Vienna has a 1-digit city code of 1 when dialed from abroad, but a > 3-digit city code of 222 within Austria. This was caused by this "hierarchical" numbering scheme, cause all "1"s are special numbers to call the fire brigade (122), police (133), ambulance(144), ... (even if you dialed a different number before. These were handled as special sequences; for nervous people.) I think, you can dial now 01 from within Autria, too. That is especially true for all cellular nets (analog and digital). > It appears that Innsbruck was moved from 5222 to 512.) That must have been long, long ago when the capital cities got three-digit codes. (I can't remember, that Innbruck had 5222, but maybe I am too young ;-)) > I tried the number from the U.S., and it reaches an answering machine. I wonder how many people from comp.dcom.telecom just tried this number just to see what happens and hung up.. ;-) And the people there in Innsbruck probably wonder, too. > There also seems to be some confusion in the sources I checked about > the city code for Innsbruck: 512, 522, or 5222. It is 512! (I don't think there is a 5222 city code, but there is 5223 and 5221.) Thomas Gyoeroeg University of Technology, tgyoeroe@nt.tuwien.ac.at Vienna, AUSTRIA thgy@magnet.at Communications Engineering ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Sprint Can't Get Enough Date: 17 Apr 1996 09:59:01 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On Apr 17, 1996 00.34.08 in article , 'rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin)' wrote: > There's an ad in today's {Los Angeles Times} for the Fridays Free > promotion. And here I thought they were ready to cry "Uncle!" > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh no, not at all. The same full page > ad ran in the {Chicago Sun Times} on Tuesday also. But they changed > the name slightly. Now it is called 'Sprint Business'. The same offer > as before: fifty dollars per month gets you up to a thousand dollars > per month in free calls on Friday. And as the ad said it, 'no exceptions! > Free fax, free directory assistance, free cellular long distance, free > calls via calling cards, free inter/intrastate one plus calls, etc.' > It did not however mention 'free international calls'. Basically they > have it set up so you cannot come close to using up a thousand dollars > worth of calls, and anyway as we now know, that is just a 'bait and > switch' gimmick with no real truth to it. Heck, with all the phone > subscribers who much be switching over to Sprint to get this deal, if > it were you, would you quit running false advertising like that until > or unless a state attorney general or some federal agency told you > that you had to quit or you wound up getting sued and losing? PAT] Sprint made the mistake of believing that the rest of the industry would follow them on this one. What they didn't realize is that everyone else was smart enough to recognize the inherent problems in the plan itself, including the consumer! The backpedalling you are now seeing is a direct result of the (firing-squad) death of the person who came up with the original idea... :-) Hopefully someone at the state or federal level will step in shortly, and "give 'em a good whack" ... John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: John Henry of the Infobahn Date: 17 Apr 1996 09:44:25 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On Apr 16, 1996 06.07.37 in article , 'rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin)' wrote: > Does that obsolete the three 'R's? 'rithmetic, perhaps, in a very > limited way, but reading -- the "R" in "RTFM" -- is still very much > with us. For all the yapping about computers replacing books, you > will note the documentation still comes in dead tree form. Ask any > engineer how much time he or she spends driving Microsoft Word, and > you'll get a good idea of just how valuable clear writing is. Seventy > four years ago, H. L. Mencken wrote in "The Commonwealth of Morons" > that "any man who knows his trade, does not fear ghosts, has read > fifty good books, and practices the common decencies stands out as > brilliantly as a wart on a bald head." It is no less so today, though > one might have added the skill of writing a coherent paragraph to his > list. Perhaps, but the era of the "self-made individual" are rapidly drawing to a close. I would put Jobs, Wozniak, and Gates in that category, but there will be very few to follow them (probably one or two per new industry developed in the future, if that). The ability to communicate *effectively* (not just ramble on) will be a contributory factor in one's self-made status. As for the "documentation squeeze", our new OS/400 version docs came almost exclusively on CD-ROM (cost incentive for *us* to print out only what we need when we need it, not to mention the savings on shipping all those huge binders). You many never replace the hardcopy, but the burden to generate it will eventually fall on the end-user. John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #185 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 17 12:52:01 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA12378; Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:52:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:52:01 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604171652.MAA12378@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #186 TELECOM Digest Wed, 17 Apr 96 12:52:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 186 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Sprint Offer... Too Good To Be True? (Van Heffner) AT&T / Lucent Help Needed (Joe Plescia) Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Documents (R. Shaw) Re: Intelligent Networks (Chris Gray) Where Do I Get Information About VMail/Phone Systems (Tim Nelson) Single Rings Disturb Household (Michael Covington) Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere (Ken Levitt) Advisor Flex References Wanted (Jon Zerden) Re: Who Retains The 809 Area Code? (Andy Yee) Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement (Collin Park) Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement (Robert McMillin) Re: Luddite Convention (John Cropper) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 23:11:09 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Sprint Offer... Too Good To Be True? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But a company cannot just unilaterally > decide to renege on contracts it has with its customers. Suppose it > was the other way around: you signed on with them for a year under an > arrangment where you would get a certain pricing on calls and at some > point got literature from AT&T with a better deal, and you deciced, > "I am losing so much money with Sprint I will pull out of this contract." > Do you think YOU would get away with it? PAT] I have not actually seen the tariff that was filed for the "Fridays Free" promotion (I imagine that almost none of their customers have either), but I would guess that it likely has some type of provision in it that allows Spint to modify the offer at any time. Many tariffs have vague provisions in them stating something like "Rates and conditions subject to change without notice. Some restrictions may apply." I believe that dumping non-profitble accounts and calls to certain countries would fall into this category. Before I even finished reading Sprint's Press Release on this offer I *KNEW* that there would be "trouble". Most subscribers to this Digest probably came to the same conclusion after thinking about it for a few seconds. This leads one to wonder... Is it really possible that a Fortune 500 company, the third largest long distance provider in the nation, could be so naive as to not recognize the huge potetial for abuse of this program? With all of the various departments that this program would have to go through for approval, and Sprint's experience with hundreds of previous promotions, how could it be possible that they could so massively underestimate the amount of unprofitable accounts that they would pick-up (i.e. heavy international users)? They seem to now be claiming that they underestimated this huge amount of (unprofitable) international traffic. Is is possible that this multi-billion dollar corporation really was so incompetent as to not realize what was going to happen, even after extending the initial offer for a month beyond it's original expiration date? It seems much more probable that they either planned to "pull the rug out" from under these customers from before the time the program was even launched, or at least had a "contingency plan" in place for the inevitable consequences, than to believe that they are really as stupid as they might have us believe. So, what is it? Incompetence that reaches the highest levels of the corporation, or a carefully planned and deliberate deception of the public? Neither answer is one that is acceptable. Even if it is legal, it certainly is not the type of leadership the the stockholders of Sprint (or their customers) deserve. It just does not make any sense (no pun intended). Well ... stupid is as stupid does ... Hey, just thought of a great money-making offer! Anyone interested in such a service?: Sample Advertisement: Call anywhere in the world FREE - Seven days a week! Just switch to ACME long distance! (Rates and conditions subject to change without prior notice. We reserve the right to refuse service to unprofitable accounts. Conditions vary - depending on whom in our office you talk to. Please send all complaints to ficticious non-reachable scapegoat. Offer void where prohibited. Class of service and billing increments may be changed without prior notice. Disconnection may occur at anytime without prior notice. Card service not available in areas where we may not make a profit. The word "FREE" does not correspond to the similarly-spelled English word "FREE". See ACME dictionary, which is changed often, for actual definition of "FREE". Free calls are available in english-speaking countries only. Foreign languge calls are available at an additional charge. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Special discounts available to certain ethnic groups only. Please contact your La Connexion Familiar representative for thorough cavity search prior to enrollment. Some programs may require the use of an attorney before discounts are applied. Tariffs ... we don't need no stinking tariffs!!!) Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS Eureka, California U.S.A. 1-707-444-6686 PHONE ------------------------------ From: Joe Plescia Subject: AT&T / Lucent Help Needed Date: 15 Apr 1996 12:42:52 GMT Organization: Plescia.Com Reply-To: jplescia@plescia.com Anyone know who to talk to at AT&T (Lucent) about getting a prom for a ISDN Voice / data set? Thanks, joe p jplescia@plescia.com Visit our WWW SITE http://www.plescia.com Joseph P Plescia-Plescia Photo email jplescia@plescia.com 201.868.0065 201.868.0475fax Photofinishing, Studio, Imaging Paging, Beepers, Cellular Phones ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:44:58 CET From: shaw Subject: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Documents Hi Pat, Thanks to Mark Jefferey of Microsoft for his very good summary of the situation of online access to ITU Standards in Telecom Digest #156. A FAQ on our subscription service to ITU Recommendations is available at http://www.itu.ch/special/faqpub-a.html. An annual subscription to all electronic ITU-T Recommendations is around $US 2700.--. Concerning Mark's comment that "Hopefully a system will evolve that allows online purchase of just the documents you need", we are actively working on it. Around May or June 1996, you'll be able to purchase individual electronic ITU standards with a credit card at our web site. Regards, Robert Shaw Information Services Department ITU http://www.itu.ch ------------------------------ From: cgra@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be (Chris Gray) Subject: Re: Intelligent Networks Date: 17 Apr 1996 11:22:57 GMT Organization: Never was my forte Reply-To: grayc@btmaa.bel.alcatel.be You can liken IN to client/server technology, with the switches (SSPs) as clients and the SCPs as servers. The SSP just concernes itself with switching calls, and the SCP supports all the fancy logic and databases. The idea is to make the SSPs dumber (:>) - instead of trying to build advanced services into every switch, you take them out of the switch altogether. Chris Gray Chris_Gray@bcs.org.uk Compuserve: 100065,2102 ------------------------------ From: tim.nelson@yotta.com (Tim Nelson) Subject: Where do I Get Information About VMail/Phone Systems Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:00:40 GMT Organization: The Yotta Company Reply-To: tim.nelson@yotta.com I am looking to setup some kind of voicemail and phone system in my home office, to handle several of the usual things. There would likely be four lines, home, office voice, office fax and modem. I would like to be able to call in, and redial on another line out, if a call comes in and they want to leave a vmail message, I can redirect the call to vmail, and the rest of the usual things. Now, what I am looking for is something, preferably PC/WinNT based, so that I can use it on my current PC. I don't know where to start. Any pointers/product recommendations or things I should consider or read up on? Help would be greatly appreciated. And, on a money topic, I obviously am looking for a fairly inexpensive solution ( Think about it: people who get cellular phones are paying for what is, > in effect, a luxury item. Cellular phone service is not something one > "has" to have; one can always use other options. Luxuries are always > much more expensive. Especially in New York. I have to disagree on your classification of cell phones being a luxury. Certainly they are a luxury for some people, but in today's business world I am required to have a cell phone, a FAX machine, an Internet address, and an 800 number. My competition has these things and if I did not, I would be at a severe competitive disadvantage. I suppose you could consider having a telephone that makes outgoing calls a luxury. After all, I could always run down the street to a pay phone if I needed to make an outgoing call, but I don't think I could stay in business very long doing things that way. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: Jon Zerden Subject: Advisor Flex References Wanted Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 23:21:56 -0400 Organization: Capital Area Internet Service, Inc. Does anyone know the difference between the Gold Advisor Flex, and the regular advisor pager? Also has anyone seen the tests of the tenor? Thanks, Jon ------------------------------ From: andy@winternet.com (Andy Yee) Subject: Re: Who Retains The 809 Area Code? Date: Wed, 17 Apr 96 07:16:33 GMT Organization: StarNet Communications In article , wildixon@uiuc.edu (Wil Dixon) wrote: > Puerto Rico > Specifically ... Thanks! What is the significance of the "C" and "L" suffixes? So, in conclusion, parts of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands would retain the 809 area code? In article , Robert Wolf wrote: > According to Bellcore Letter IL - 95/12-005 dated 12-11-95: > The government of Puerto Rico, represented by the Puerto Rico > Telephone Company and in concurrance with other contral office code > users in Puerto Rico, has requested that a new geographic area code be > assigned for Puerto Rico. As a result, NANPA has assigned the 787 NPA > for this purpose. With this action Puerto Rico will depart from the > 809 NPA. So, again I ask, which islands retain the 809 area code? The US Virgin Islands? Andy Yee, Senior Software Engineer Emerson EMC, Chanhassen, MN Personal Home Page: http://www.winternet.com/~nde ------------------------------ From: collin@kobe.hp.com (Collin Park) Subject: Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement Date: 17 Apr 1996 08:24:34 GMT Organization: HP Asia Pacific Product Operations, Kobe, Japan > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Children as young as six or seven years > old are very good typists at keyboards, but do very poorly when asked I'm told that college students must hand-write their term papers here in Japan, because mastery of the 1945 "daily-use" kanji (Sino-Japanese characters) -- as well as any kanji needed in the student's specialty - is considered an important skill. Of course, as soon as they graduate and take jobs in industry, they use word processors. Some friends tell me they've lost their ability to write the kanji (of course they can still *read* them) as a result of too much typing. > to write with a pen or pencil. The computer has by and large replaced > the need to have brains and intelligence in large quarters of American > society... ... and the need to remember the order and placement of strokes in kanji in Japanese society. Now as for the connection between kanji and intelligence ... cheers, collin ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 13:27:07 GMT On 16 Apr 1996 01:48:15 PDT, Pat said: > Everything heretofore has given us a decrease in the amount of > *manual labor* required. The computer is the first thing to come > along which has afforded us an opportunity to quit thinking for > ourselves. That is imminently more dangerous. PAT] Indeed. While the paragraph above would have passed any spell checker you can name, the word "imminently" (i.e., "likely to happen without delay") is misused for its near-homophone "eminently" ("prominently"). While they may have taught such stuff in the wayback days, it's still questionable whether the schoolmarm's charges were awake. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Luddite Convention Date: 17 Apr 1996 09:46:41 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On Apr 16, 1996 08.18.36 in article , 'David Hough ' wrote: > In article Tad Cook > writes: >> BARNESVILLE, Ohio -- Each marching to a different drummer, 350 >> delegates to the Second Luddite Congress have come to this countryside >> hamlet to write a declaration of independence from the modern world. >> For two days, they have been drafting a manifesto calling for a >> boycott of TV, cars and computers. They are united (an adjective only >> rarely usable at an anarchists' convention) in the conviction that >> technology is an enemy. > One has to ask (a) how they found out about the congress and (b) > travelled there. Do the words "very long clueless walk" mean anything? :-) (Wonder if Ted Kozynski had anything to do with the movement in the first place...) John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #186 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Apr 19 12:54:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA19843; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 12:54:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 12:54:32 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604191654.MAA19843@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #187 TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Apr 96 12:54:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 187 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Any News From Dallas? (Linc Madison) Employment Opportunity: System Support Tech (John W. Warne) Poor Response to India's Third Round of Telecom Bids (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Bell Atlantic, Nynex Merger? (Tad Cook) Modems and Digital Phone Lines (Brad Kenney) ITCA '96 Teleconferencing Event May 21-23 (Jim Herbert) MCI's New Offer (Sudhir Rao) Last Laugh! Recent Telecomics Summary (Dave Leibold) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 01:57:04 -0800 From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Any News From Dallas? I see from the latest NPA/NXX data that Area Code 214 has 750 prefixes in use, which is to say that they're getting VERY close to the point of denying service to new subscribers due to inability to assign a phone number! (Cover your head -- she's gonna blow!) The Texas PUC spake and ordered a geographic split, but I still haven't heard anything "final" in terms of boundaries or effective dates. I'd guess there will be a *very* short permissive dialing period, under the circumstances, and also a very short period before split off prefixes are re-used in 214. Within six months, you could go from a valid number to ringing a wrong number in new service. The preliminary data I've heard indicates that the boundary will follow the LBJ Freeway (I-635 and I-20), but drop down to Forest Lane on the north (following the boundaries between the Dallas exchange and the Richardson and Addison exchanges) and more or less follow Loop 12 and Stemmons up the west side of town. That would mean that all "Dallas" exchanges, possibly plus "Balch Springs," would retain 214, while all the other suburban exchanges (Richardson, Addison, Farmers Branch, Carrollton, Irving, Grand Prairie, Duncanville, De Soto, Lancaster, Mesquite, Garland, Sunnyvale, Wilmer/Hutchins, etc.) would move to 972, along with outlying communities as far away as Waxahachie. There was also some talk of the Texas PUC asking for a wireless overlay for the Dallas area, as well as one for the Houston area. Has there been any motion on those ideas? Of course, to conserve the limited supply of available phone numbers, Southwestern Bell is currently offering to waive the connection charge if you install a second line in your home. Yeah, that makes sense. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 11:24:00 EDT From: John W Warne Subject: Employment Opportunity: System Support Tech VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT Systems Support Technician (Voice) $10.4554/hour (beginning salary) 8 hours per day, 12 month position Primary responsibility: maintaining end-to-end voice (some data) communications services and equipment throughout K-12 public school district. 10-15 years experience in telephony installation, maintenance, and repair. Previous experience with public telecommunications utilities desirable. Will also have responsibility of operating computerized voice messaging parent contact system, using OS/2, KEDIT, and custom computer applications (employee will be trained as necessary on use of the software). Factory certification on NorStar desirable. Will work in a 4-person shop tasked with serving 42 sites in a 800+ square mile school system. Telephone systems include 1A2, Iwatsu IDS-128, Toshiba Strata, and Nortel NorStar. Equal Opportunity Employer, Veterans Preference. Background/criminal investigation and drug test conducted upon recommendation of employment. Tobacco-free workplace (including school and administrative buildings, vehicles, and grounds). For application and detailed information contact: The School Board of Alachua County, Florida, Human Resources Department 620 East University Avenue, Gainesville FL 32601 352-955-7655 Position closes: May 2, 1996 Applicants must obtain and submit formal applications through the Human Resources Department. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 10:06:44 EDT From: rishab@dxm.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Subject: Poor Response to India's Third Round of Telecom Bids The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved 16 APRIL 1996: POOR RESPONSE TO INDIA'S THIRD ROUND OF TELECOM BIDS SONY TO DEVELOP SOFTWARE IN INDIA Poor response to India's third round of telecom bids April 15, 1996: The Indian government's third round of bids for leftover basic telecom licenses met a miserable response. Bids were allowed for a whole month, but only one bid was received by the today, when bids were to be opened. Bharti Telenet, whose Indian partner runs the cellular network in Delhi and has received the cellular licence for the northern state of Himachal Pradesh, bid $190.5 million for the giant central state of Madhya Pradesh with its Italian partner, STET. This amount is to be paid out to the government over the 15-year licence period. The Net Present Value (NPV, bid amount discounted according to payout plan) was calculated as $73.6 million, somewhat higher than the government's reserve price of $58.5 million. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) is expected to sign a letter of intent with Bharti over the next few days. Bharti submitted its bid eight minutes before the 11 a.m. deadline, presumably waiting over the past month to see whether anyone was interested in bidding in this third round. Shyam Telecom, which has licences for cellular services in the north- eastern states bordering on Myanmar and China, as well as the desert state of Rajasthan, waited too long. Shyam's representatives presented their bids a few minutes after the deadline, and with Bharti protesting, were rejected by the DoT. Shyam Telecom is expected to receive the licence for basic telecom services in Rajasthan. This, and Hughes-Ispat's licence for the state of Karnataka (including state capital Bangalore), was a disputed result of the first round of bids opened last August. However, tenders for these circles (regions) were not issued in the second round (in January; it received all of six bids) or the third one, so the dispute, over the proper evaluation of their bids, should be settled eventually. That dispute as well as the poor response to the second and third rounds were largely the result of the DoT's muddled decision to impose reserve prices, which were announced well after the first-round bids were opened. They were reduced by as much as 30% for the third round, but this was obviously not enough. Nothing further is expected on the remaining seven licences, mainly for basic telephony in relatively poor (but potentially quite profitable) parts of the country, until the general elections to be held between April 27 and May 7 this year. Results are expected by May 14, but the coalition politics to which India is unused may cause delays in forming a government with the time to think about telecom privatisation. Eventually, another round of bids may be expected in June or July, this time open to all (rather than only the original first-round bidders), probably with reserve prices significantly reduced or eliminated. Hopefully the next government will undo the grave error of this one: it allowed its greed for licence revenues to overshadow India's need for investment - the investment which was the justification for privatisation in the first place. Basic telephony and cellular licences, and rounds one, two and three of the basic bids can be found at http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/bids.html Note: "Basic telephony" includes fixed-wire, wireless in local loop, and multimedia services. See http://dxm.org/techonomist/reguconv.html Sony to develop computer and TV software in India April 16: Sony is to set up a software centre in India, according to Sony India Managing Director Yoshio Kubo. At a seminar in New Delhi organised by the company, Mr Kubo said that India's skilled software engineers would be useful for Sony's ventures in computer software. The Sony software development centre will probably be located in Bangalore, the heart of India's software export industry, where a similar seminar will be held on April 18. Mr Kubo also acknowledged India's huge production of audio-visual software - the country is the world's largest producer of movies, making over twice as many as Hollywood - and suggested that Sony could use this content in its other projects. Sony Entertainment runs one of the many satellite channels over India, with programming entirely in the Hindi language. Sony TV is distinctly downmarket, with Hindi game shows, Hindi soap operas and the obligatory "film- based programmes" that string together the song-and- dance sequences that fill Indian movies. Sony is believed to be spending well over $30 million to sustain the channel in its first year, but its lowest-common-denominator tone is already bringing it advertising. It charges advertisers much less than its main competitor, Zee TV. Zee is part of Rupert Murdoch's four year-old STAR TV network, and is its most profitable channel. Zee also provides a steady diet of Hindi game shows, soap operas and film-based programmes, with some Arabic-language serials thrown in during small hours (which are late- evening prime time in West Asia). The state-owned Doordarshan network, which has nearly twenty channels, still hogs some 70% of the advertising (total 1995 TV spend: $280 million), as it is the only network that can broadcast from within India. Most of that revenue goes in turn to Doordarshan's Metro channel, which survives on - what else? - Hindi game shows, soap operas and film- based programmes. For more on India broadcasting reforms, see the Techonomist bulletin for April 1, at http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ The Indian Techonomist: weekly summary. http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (rishab@techonomist.dxm.org) Tel +91 11 6853410; Fax 6856992; H-34-C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA May be distributed electronically provided that this notice is attached ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Bell Atlantic, Nynex Merger? Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:02:14 PDT Bell Atlantic, Nynex Stocks Rise on Report They've Revived Merger Talks NEW YORK (AP) -- Shares in Bell Atlantic Corp. and Nynex Corp. both rose in a falling market Wednesday on reports that the two Baby Bells have revived merger talks. Such a combination would create a communications company second in size only to AT&T Corp., with more than $27 billion in annual revenue, more than $3 billion in earnings and more than 36 million residential and business customers from Maine to Virginia. The two companies hope to announce a merger as early as next week, The Wall Street Journal reported, quoting executives close to the talks. Bell Atlantic spokesman Eric Rabe would neither confirm nor deny the report. "We don't comment on rumors and speculation," said Nynex spokeswoman Susan Kraus. On the New York Stock Exchange, where shares were in a broad retreat, Nynex was up $1.50 at $52.62 1/2 a share and Bell Atlantic was up $1.25 cents at $61.50 a share by mid-afternoon. The two Baby Bells have been negotiating, on-and-off, for much of the past year. They combined their cellular businesses last year. Merger talks have intensified in the past few weeks, the Journal said, sparked by the proposed merger of two rival Bells earlier this month and by the new law that frees the Bell companies to enter new markets. One of the key issues in the proposed deal is how big a premium, if any, Bell Atlantic should pay to acquire Nynex, said the executives, who requested anonymity. If there is an agreement, Bell Atlantic would acquire Nynex for stock, the report said. Nynex has a market value of more than $22 billion, and a deal that size would be second only to the U.S. record $25 billion acquisition of RJR Nabisco Inc. by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. in 1989. Earlier this month SBC Communications Inc. and the Pacific Telesis Group became the first Baby Bells to announce merger plans since the Feb. 8 signing of a telecommunications deregulation law. The law allows local and long distance phone companies into each other's business. Cable companies can also provide phone service and vice versa. The $16.7 billion SBC-Pacific Telesis deal would form a company with 30 million phone lines in seven states, including California and Texas, the nation's most populous states. The remaining Baby Bells are U S West, Inc., Ameritech Corp. and BellSouth Corp. The seven regional companies were formed in the 1984 breakup of the Bell System. ------------------------------ From: Brad Kenney Subject: Modems and Digital Phone Lines Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 08:37:38 -0800 Organization: Great Basin Internet Services, Reno, NV Anything anyone out there can tell me about using a modem on a digital phone line would be very helpful. I have connected a 14.4 modem to the line and plugged a phone into the modem. While the modem was not able to pick up the line, the phone, connected throught that modem was. I have established that the modem is working. Help!! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:47:38 -0400 From: Jim Herbert Subject: ITCA '96 Teleconferencing Event May 21-23 Pat, for your readers involved or interested in teleconferencing, the International Teleconferencing Association annual convention and trade show, ITCA '96, is being held May 21-23 in Washington DC at the Sheraton Washington Hotel. Topics will cover teleconferencing, room videoconferencing, desktop videoconferencing, data conferencing and interoperability as they relate to distance education and training, telecommuting, telemedicine, and workgroup collaboration. Applications within these areas will be addressed using ISDN, PSTN, ATM, Ethernet, IsoEthernet, and the Internet as transmission media. There are three free general session short courses, a variety of free tutorials, free passage to 300 booths of videoconferencing displays, and a paid conference program that is fully accredited for CEU points from George Washington University. Specific agenda details and online registration can be found at http://www.itca.org. Follow the links to ITCA '96 and Attendee Information. Jim Herbert Association Management Bureau 1650 Tysons Boulevard Suite 200 McLean VA 22102 v 703-506-3271 f 703-506-3266 ------------------------------ From: Sudhir Rao Subject: MCI's New Offer Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:31:58 -0700 Organization: Synopsys Inc. On the night of April 15, I got a call from MCI and they made a very good offer. They asked me which country I call most often, and what I pay per minute now. I told them I pay 73.5 cents/min to India which I call often. The rep said they would offer me 38 cents/min to India, 24 hours, 7 days a week and this rate would be effective forever. I asked three times to verify that rate of thirty eight cents a minute and signed on. I forgot to ask what the program was called and when it would be effective. I changed to MCI with my local carrier and then rechecked with MCI customer service. They said I had MCI World Savings which is limited to three billing periods and the rate during this period is 83 cents a minute to India. Also, I would have to record the numbers I call, with them, in advance. I'm sure other people must have got a similar offer made to them. So can you let me know if the offer was genuine or a hoax. I have no way of checking with MCI except calling service and they certainly haven't heard of anything like it. Sudhir Rao 700A East Middlefield Road, A.2.2 415-694-1515 Mountainview CA 94043. Fax: 415-694-1703 email: sudhir@synopsys.com http://members.tripod.com/~Sudhir/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please report back to us if this turns out to be another hoax like Sprints Free Friday promotion. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org (Dave Leibold) Date: 13 Apr 96 11:22:40 -0500 Subject: Last Laugh! Recent Telecomics Summary It's time for another round of those sightings of fone-related funnies. One catch is that this survey comes from a limited selection (mostly those strips carried in the Toronto Star). Tip-offs for future Telecomics lists can be considered if info is e-mailed to one of my usual addresses. On with the tel-toons ... Mother Goose and Grimm (18 Oct 1995): Danger is looming, so dial 1-800-CATASTROPHE ... except the guy at the payphone has trouble matching the letters to the numbers in time. Doonesbury (27 Nov 1995): Bernie tries to get Mike to get a web site going. Mike then cell-phones Alex to ask what a web site is. Sylvia (29 Nov 1995): Interactive Voice Response (IVR) gag ... the Sylvia Opinion Hotline. Non Sequitur (14 Dec 1995): From the Christmas season, "santa@npole.com" is entertaining a lineup of kids at the store ... but rather than sit on a jolly St Nick's lap, they interact with a terminal on a chair ... Walnut Cove (29 Dec 1995): Lori's dad is still on the info "cul-de-sac", by using the more traditional browsing of books (those printed-word things, you know). On The Fastrack (30 Dec 1995): Little Patina says she's "spamming", sending the same e-message to many destinations. Her mother figures "it's supposed to be called 'sending thank you notes to your loved ones'". Shoe (30 Dec 1995): Shoe doesn't do pagers anymore, since they kept him from his sleep. It's not that he threw it away, he "just stopped wearing it to staff meetings." The Better Half (weekend of 13 Jan 1996): Harriet Parker laments how her husband Stanley will spend "10 minutes downloading a sound bite" from the 'Net, but not from her mouth. Non Sequitur (22 Jan 1996): Arguing in the 90s ... a couple in bed, but sorting out their differences with separate on-line terminals. Mutts (24 Jan 1996): Phone goes unanswered ... fish in a bowl hopes "that wasn't for me". Charlie (26 Jan 1996): Charlie calls into an IVR unit... he is to press 2 for "head honcho", 3 for "guru" and 4 for "big cheese". Animal Crackers (28 Jan 1996): Lyle's unrequited love for Lana continues ... his phone call to his unintending intended goes unanswered ... a bird buddy informs Lyle that "she has Caller I.D.". Beetle Bailey (3 Feb 1996): General resists a telemarketer call ... but the solicitator wonders why *his* time was wasted by his target. Charlie (7 Feb 1996): Charlie's doctor takes a call waiting ... on the stethoscope. Reality Check (7 Feb 1996): Remember that low-tech communications system with string and soup tins? Now, there's someone on "Can-Waiting" (a three-way connection is shown). Dave (18 Feb 1996): A look at honesty (or the lack thereof) in cyberspace ... Dave goes on chat but like too many on these on-line services, he impersonates a female. However, at the other end is found a female doing her own gender switcheroo. Dave (date unknown, except for 1996 copyright; local paper only carries on Sunday): A glossary of the computer terms "log on", "log off", "log over" (with a push by Darla) and finally "loghead". [Note: Darla is Dave's girlfriend, not wife as reported in last Telecomics, according to the viewer e-mail from last time.] Hi & Lois (28 Feb 1996): A caller is turned over to Hi's "secretary", namely infant daughter Trixie who greets telemarketers with a "GBLXT FOO!" Shoe (weekend of 2 Mar 1996): Shoe gets a lesson in how to e-mail his uncle Mel in Sarasota ... after all the booting up, clicking, typing and loading, he asks the computer expert "is a stamp still only 32 cents?". Beetle Bailey (9 Mar 1996): The General calls "A" Company ... but gets IVR with selections for vacation schedule, sports standing, or an option if war breaks out. Doonesbury (11 Mar 1996): Digital campaigning, a theme inspired by both net fever and the impending American elections. Family Circus (12 Mar 1996): Billy is about to show Grandma his model rocket launcher ... but first he has to put the phone down. [It didn't look like a camera/telephone was used for this...] I Need Help (18 Mar 1996): And now, "900 numbers for women" ... one of them would go "Ooh, baby, I'm gonna bring you wild, wild flowers. Then I'm gonna take you to dinner, whip out my credit card..." etc.etc. Shoe (18 Mar 1996): Someone wants his calls held ... actually, callers are to be told the guy's "not here". Of course, he would take a call from Ed McMahon. On The Fastrack (27 Mar 1996): Patina hacks through a parental guidance Internet filter ... college cost listings happen to be the forbidden files. Reality Check (2 Apr 1996): "As far as dating was concerned, Todd was a guy with a lot of hang-ups". Literally, that was ... Sherman's Lagoon (7 Apr 1996): Sherman finds a shell with IVR, complete with access to surf music, tech support, on hold, etc. On The Fastrack (10 Apr 1996): And now ... Wendy goes on "virtual maternity leave". Other Net Comic Places: Not to be outdone are various web page addresses that popped up in various 'toons: Dave http://www.davetoon.com/dave Doonesbury http://www.doonesbury.com Ernie http://home.navisoft.com/piranhaclub Ghost Story Club http://www.comicspage.com/ghostclub/ Mother Goose and Grimm http://www.grimmy.com Sherman's Lagoon http://www.slagoon.com/lagoon (I don't have the URL for Randy Glasbergen's site (he does The Better Half comic, among other works), but that should be traceable via various search sites like Yahoo, etc). Now, e-mails for some comix: Dave DAVEtoon@aol.com Farcus 74777.3301@compuserve.com Frank & Ernest FandEBobT@aol.com Non Sequitur sequitoon@aol.com On The Fastrack 76711.2174@compuserve.com Fidonet : Dave Leibold 1:259/730@fidonet.org Internet: Dave.Leibold@superctl.tor250.org ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #187 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Apr 19 13:45:54 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA25221; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 13:45:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 13:45:54 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604191745.NAA25221@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #188 TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Apr 96 13:18:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 188 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NPA 604/250 Split List With Place Name Details (Dave Leibold) Problems With Nynex Maintainence in Old Apartment Building (Gary Ferguson) Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (Stanley Cline) Anguilla (809 Caribbean) to Probably be 264 (ANG) (Mark J. Cuccia) New Callback Discussion Group (104343.674@compuserve.com) Anyone Using InternetMCI For Personal Dialup Access? (Henry Mensch) Employment Opportunity: Telecom Manager (Reed Miller) 1964 Alaska Earthquake (Mark J. Cuccia) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 23:56:17 EDT From: Dave Leibold Subject: NPA 604/250 Split List With Place Name Details 250/604 area code split for British Columbia: Area code 250 is activated 19 Oct 1996. Dialing of either 250 or 604 in those areas changing to 250 can continue until the "mandatory" date of 6 April 1997 (advanced from 1 June 1997). ANI changes (automatic number identification) are expected for 7 March 1997. After doing some matching with charts I had, these are the exchanges staying in 604 (all others change to 250): Abbotsford, Agassiz, Aldergrove, Beach Grove, Black Point, Boston Bar, Bowen Island, Brackendale, Britannia Beach, Chilliwack, Cloverdale, D'Arcy, Fort Babine, Fort Langley, Gibsons, Haney, Hemlock Valley, Hope, Ladner, Langley, Mission, New Westminster, Newton, Nimpkish Lake, North Vancouver, Pemberton, Pender Harbour, Pitt Meadows, Port Coquitlam, Port Mellon, Port Moody, Powell River, Richmond, Rosedale, Sardis, Sechelt, Squamish, Vananda, Vancouver, West Vancouver, Westview, Whalley, Whistler, White Rock, Whonnock, Yale, Yarrow. Here is a list of how the NXXes break, and the places they belong to (anything with "???" means I don't have the info yet, or have some conflicting data for this). Sources include the latest Bellcore IL on 604/250 as well as my own notes for 604 (which in turn was collated from phone books, various contributions, other sources). That work has been in slow gear while the numbering explosing in North America has been in high gear. ................................. NXXes Remaining in area code 604: ................................. 202 ??? 205 ??? 209 ??? 215 ??? 217 Abbotsford 218 Richmond 219 ??? 220 Vancouver 221 Vancouver 222 Vancouver 224 Vancouver 228 Vancouver 230 Vancouver 231 Richmond 240 Vancouver 241 Richmond 244 Richmond 250 Vancouver 251 Vancouver 252 Vancouver 253 Vancouver 254 Vancouver 255 Vancouver 257 Richmond 258 Vancouver 261 Vancouver 263 Vancouver 264 Vancouver 266 Vancouver 267 Vancouver 268 Vancouver 270 Richmond 271 Richmond 272 Richmond 273 Richmond 274 Richmond 275 Richmond 276 Richmond 277 Richmond 278 Richmond 279 Richmond 280 Vancouver 290 Vancouver 291 Vancouver 293 Vancouver 294 Vancouver 298 Vancouver 299 Vancouver 301 ??? 302 Abbotsford 303 Richmond 306 ??? 307 ??? 309 Aldergrove 312 ??? 313 ??? 316 Chilliwack 318 Vancouver 320 Vancouver 321 Vancouver 322 Vancouver 323 Vancouver 324 Vancouver 325 Vancouver 327 Vancouver 328 Vancouver 329 Vancouver 331 Vancouver 341 Vancouver 351 New Westminster 377 New Westminster 412 ??? 415 ??? 420 Vancouver 421 Vancouver 430 Vancouver 431 Vancouver 432 Vancouver 433 Vancouver 434 Vancouver 435 Vancouver 436 Vancouver 437 Vancouver 438 Vancouver 439 Vancouver 443 Vancouver 444 Vancouver 448 Richmond 450 Vancouver 451 Vancouver 452 D'Arcy 454 Nimpkish Lake 460 Pitt Meadows 461 Port Moody 462 Whonnock 463 Haney 464 Port Coquitlam 465 Pitt Meadows 466 Haney 467 Haney 469 Port Moody 473 ??? 482 Vancouver 483 Powell River 485 Westview 486 Vananda 487 Black Point 488 Vancouver 501 Newton 514 ??? 517 ??? 520 New Westminster 521 New Westminster 522 New Westminster 524 New Westminster 525 New Westminster 526 New Westminster 527 New Westminster 528 New Westminster 530 Langley 531 White Rock 532 Langley 533 Langley 534 Langley 535 White Rock 536 White Rock 538 White Rock 540 New Westminster 541 White Rock 543 Newton 550 ??? 551 New Westminster 552 Port Coquitlam 555 (Directory Assistance) 556 Abbotsford 570 Vancouver (?) 571 New Westminster (?) 572 Newton 574 Cloverdale 576 Cloverdale 580 Whalley 581 Whalley 582 Whalley 583 Whalley 584 Whalley 585 Whalley 586 Whalley 588 Whalley 589 Whalley 590 Newton 591 Newton 594 Newton 596 Newton 597 Newton 599 Newton 601 ??? 602 Vancouver 603 ??? 606 Vancouver 607 ??? 608 ??? 612 ??? 617 ??? 618 Vancouver 623 Vancouver 631 Vancouver 640 Vancouver 641 Vancouver 643 Vancouver 644 Vancouver 645 Vancouver 649 Vancouver 650 Vancouver 654 Vancouver 657 Vancouver 660 Vancouver 661 Vancouver 662 Vancouver 663 Vancouver 664 Vancouver 665 Vancouver 666 Vancouver 667 Vancouver 668 Vancouver 669 Vancouver 671 Richmond 680 Vancouver 681 Vancouver 682 Vancouver 683 Vancouver 684 Vancouver 685 Vancouver 686 Vancouver 687 Vancouver 688 Vancouver 689 Vancouver 691 Vancouver 702 ??? 708 Vancouver 714 ??? 730 Vancouver 731 Vancouver 732 Vancouver 733 Vancouver 734 Vancouver 735 Vancouver 736 Vancouver 737 Vancouver 738 Vancouver 739 Vancouver 740 Sechelt 760 New Westminster 775 Vancouver 792 Chilliwack 793 Chilliwack 794 Rosedale 795 Chilliwack 796 Agassiz 797 Hemlock Valley 801 ??? 802 ??? 805 ??? 806 ??? 807 ??? 808 New Westminster 813 New Westminster 815 ??? 816 Vancouver 817 Vancouver 818 New Westminster 819 Chilliwack 820 Mission 821 Richmond 822 Vancouver 823 Yarrow 824 Sardis 826 Mission 844 Vancouver 850 Abbotsford 852 Abbotsford 853 Abbotsford 854 Abbotsford 855 Abbotsford 856 Aldergrove 857 Aldergrove 858 Sardis 859 Abbotsford 863 Yale 864 Abbotsford 867 Boston Bar 869 Hope 870 ??? 871 Vancouver 872 Vancouver 873 Vancouver 874 Vancouver 875 Vancouver 876 Vancouver 877 Vancouver 878 Vancouver 879 Vancouver 880 Vancouver 882 Fort Langley 883 Pender Harbour 884 Port Mellon 885 Sechelt 886 Gibsons 888 Fort Langley 889 New Westminster 891 Vancouver 892 Squamish 893 Britannia Beach 894 Pemberton 895 Vancouver 896 Britannia Beach 898 Brackendale 899 Vancouver 903 North Vancouver 905 ??? 908 ??? 913 ??? 915 Whalley 917 ??? 918 (Wide area paging) 921 West Vancouver 922 West Vancouver 924 North Vancouver 925 West Vancouver 926 West Vancouver 927 Port Coquitlam 929 North Vancouver 930 Whalley 931 Port Moody 932 Whistler 933 Port Moody 936 Port Moody 937 Port Moody 938 Whistler 939 Port Moody 940 Ladner 941 Port Coquitlam 942 Port Coquitlam 943 Beach Grove 944 Port Coquitlam 945 Port Coquitlam 946 Ladner 947 Bowen Island 948 Beach Grove 951 New Westminster 961 Vancouver 970 Vancouver 975 Fort Babine 977 Vancouver 978 Vancouver 979 Vancouver 980 North Vancouver 981 North Vancouver 983 North Vancouver 984 North Vancouver 985 North Vancouver 986 North Vancouver 987 North Vancouver (?) 988 North Vancouver 990 North Vancouver ............................... NXXes changing from 604 to 250: ............................... 203 Campbell River 212 ??? 216 ??? 223 Boswell 225 Riondel 226 Vallican 227 Crawford Bay 229 Balfour 232 Toad River 233 McDame Lake 234 Iskut 235 Telegraph Creek 236 Bearskin Lake 237 Tats Lake 238 Goldbridge 239 Cassiar 242 Tumbler Ridge 243 Beaver Valley 245 Ladysmith 246 Chemainus 247 Gabriola Island 248 Parksville 249 Bouchie Lake 256 Lillooet 259 Shalalth 260 Vernon 262 Attachie 265 Nakusp 269 Fauquier 281 Woss Lake 282 Port Alice 283 Gold River 284 Port Alice 285 Quadra Island 286 Campbell River 287 Campbell River 288 Holberg 289 Ocean Falls 292 Hedley 295 Princeton 296 150 Mile House 297 McLeese Lake 304 ??? 305 ??? 308 Vernon 314 ??? 315 ??? 317 Kelowna 319 Kamloops 326 Kincolith 330 Red Rock 332 Kyuquot 333 Lasqueti Island 334 Courtenay 335 Union Bay 336 Cumberland 337 Merville 338 Courtenay 339 Comox 340 Donald 342 Invermere 343 Field 344 Golden 345 Fairmont 346 Spillimacheen 347 Radium Hot Springs 348 Parson 349 Canal Flats 350 Douglas Lake 352 Nelson 353 Kaslo 354 Nelson 355 Slocan 356 Victoria 357 Salmo 358 New Denver 359 South Slocan 360 Victoria 361 Victoria 362 Rossland 363 Victoria 364 Trail 365 Castlegar 366 Duncan Lake 367 Fruitvale 368 Trail 369 Trout Lake 370 Victoria 371 Kamloops 372 Kamloops 373 Savona 374 Kamloops 375 Westwold 376 North Kamloops 378 Merritt 379 Falkland 380 Victoria 381 Victoria 382 Victoria 383 Victoria 384 Victoria 385 Victoria 386 Victoria 387 Victoria 388 Victoria 389 Victoria 390 Lantzville 391 Victoria 392 Williams Lake 393 Hendrix Lake 394 Alexis Creek 395 100 Mile House 396 Lac La Hache 397 Forest Grove 398 Williams Lake 399 Thrums 413 ??? 416 ??? 417 Cranbrook 422 Skookumchuck 423 Fernie 424 Yahk 425 Sparwood 426 Cranbrook 427 Kimberley 428 Creston 429 Jaffray 440 Alkali Lake 441 Cluculz Lake 442 Grand Forks 445 Greenwood 446 Rock Creek 447 Christina Lake 449 Midway 453 Ashcroft 455 Lytton 456 70 Mile House 457 Cache Creek 458 Spences Bridge 459 Clinton 468 Nanoose Bay 470 Kelowna 471 Fort Ware 472 Victoria 474 Victoria 475 Victoria 476 Tatla Lake 477 Victoria 478 Victoria 479 Victoria 480 Victoria 481 Puntzi Mountain 484 Beaverdell 489 Cranbrook 490 Penticton 491 Kelowna 492 Penticton 493 Penticton 494 Summerland 495 Osoyoos 496 Naramata 497 Okanagan Falls 498 Oliver 499 Keremeos 503 ??? 523 Logan Lake 529 Elko 537 Ganges 539 Gulf Island 542 Vernon 544 White Rock 545 Vernon 546 Armstrong 547 Lumby 548 Oyama 549 Vernon 553 Loos 554 North Kamloops 555 (Directory Assistance) 557 Port Clements 558 Vernon 559 Queen Charlotte City 560 Chilako 561 Prince George 562 Prince George 563 Prince George 564 Prince George 565 Prince George 566 Valemount 567 Vanderhoof 568 Giscome 569 McBride 573 Dallas 575 Highland Valley 577 Pritchard 578 Aspen Park 579 Westsyde 587 Blackpool 592 Victoria 593 Bridge Lake 595 Victoria 598 Victoria 613 Prince George 614 ??? 615 ??? 616 Nanaimo 620 Horsefly 621 Greenville 622 Prince Rupert 624 Prince Rupert 625 Port Simpson 626 Masset 627 Prince Rupert 628 Port Edward 629 Pender Island 630 Prespatou 632 Kitimat 633 Aiyansh 634 Kemano 635 Terrace 636 Stewart 637 Sandspit 638 Terrace 639 Kitimat 642 Sooke 646 Jordan River 647 Port Renfrew 648 Tachie 651 Atlin 652 Saanich 653 Fulford Harbour 655 Saanich 656 Saanich 658 Victoria 659 Riske Creek 670 Ahousat 672 Barriere 673 Blue River 674 Clearwater 675 Sorrento 676 Vavenby 677 Little Fort 678 Avola 679 Chase 690 Fort Fraser 692 Burns Lake 693 Genelle 694 Grassy Plains 695 Francois Lake 696 Topley 697 Granisle 698 Decker Lake 699 Fraser Lake 706 ??? 707 ??? 715 ??? 716 Nanaimo 717 Kelowna 720 (old Partyline service?) 721 Victoria 722 Cedar 723 Port Alberni 724 Port Alberni 725 Tofino 726 Ucluelet 727 Victoria 728 Bamfield 729 Keating 741 Nanaimo 742 Nimpo Lake 743 Cobble Hill 744 Victoria 745 Youbou 746 Duncan 747 Dragon Lake 748 Duncan 749 Lake Cowichan 750 McLeod Lake 751 Wellington 752 Qualicum 753 Nanaimo 754 Nanaimo 755 Nanaimo 756 Wellington 757 Bowser 758 Wellington 759 Rolla 761 Zeballos 762 Kelowna 763 Kelowna 764 Okanagan Mission 765 Rutland 766 Winfield 767 Peachland 768 Westbank 769 Lakeview Heights 770 Penticton 771 Dease Lake 772 Wonowon 773 Minaker 774 Fort Nelson 776 Muncho Lake 778 Cassiar 779 Lower Post 780 East Pine 781 Flat Rock 782 Dawson Creek 783 Hudsons Hope 784 Dawson Creek 785 Fort St John 786 Pouce Coupe 787 Fort St John 788 Chetwynd 789 Taylor 790 Likely 791 108 Mile House 798 Lakelse 799 Bella Coola 804 ??? 809 ??? 812 Victoria 814 ??? 825 North Nelson 827 Montney 828 Kamloops 829 Moyie 830 ??? 831 Kitsault 832 Salmon Arm 833 Salmon Arm 834 Mica Creek 835 Tappen 836 Sicamous 837 Revelstoke 838 Enderby 839 Klemtu 840 Manning Park 841 Hartley Bay 842 Hazelton 843 Willowbrook 845 Houston 846 Telkwa 847 Smithers 848 Kitkatla 849 Kitwanga 851 Kamloops 860 Kelowna 861 Kelowna 862 Kelowna 865 Elkford 866 Wynndel 868 Kelowna 881 Victoria 887 Grasmere 890 Comox 897 Woodfibre 902 ??? 906 ??? 920 Willow Flats 923 Willow Point 928 Beaver Cove 934 Tahsis 935 Cortes Island 949 Port Hardy 952 Victoria 953 Victoria 954 Parksville 955 Celista 956 Port McNeil 957 Bella Bella 960 Vanway 962 Hartway 963 Pineview 964 Vanway 965 Summit Lake 966 Hansard 967 Chief Lake 968 Dunster 969 Winter Harbour 971 Salmon Valley 972 Bear Lake 973 Sointula 974 Alert Bay 982 Hagensborg 989 Wildwood 991 Quesnel 992 Quesnel 993 Kersley 994 Wells 995 Victoria 996 Fort St James 997 MacKenzie 998 Hixon David Leibold -+- dleibold@else.net ++ aa070@freenet.toronto.on.ca ------------------------------ Subject: Problems With Nynex Maintainence in Old Apartment Building From: gary.ferguson@consultant.com (GARY FERGUSON) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 14:32:00 -0400 Organization: The Consultant BBS * Brooklyn, NY * 718-837-3236 Reply-To: gary.ferguson@consultant.com (GARY FERGUSON) Following this group a bit I have already found answerers to some concerns of had regarding caller ID. I would like to ask of those participating in this group for some guidance regarding a different matter. I live in a tenement building with 100 apartments. The phone connection panel is located in the basement. Previously it took five months of repeated calls to the local customer service and the upstate main office to get the panel secured with a cover. My calls did not bring any results, but the later complaints of a number of residence who refused to pay their bills due to charges in the hundreds of dollars for 900 calls. Before NYNEX taking action they would claimed the basement security was the responsibility of the landlord and the landlord would say he could not modify NYNEX equipment. The first attempt by NYNEX to solve this problem was to mount scraps of plywood over the incasement. This was unacceptable and so continued my calls to NYNEX. Eventually I caught a hired out outside contractor (by NYNEX) in the basement, specifying the job. I introduced myself, took him to another basement with a similar installation to show how the job was done properly. Then I pointed out that the main panel was not the only open junction box, but one existed for each apartment line in the building. After advising where he could locally purchase the materials to do the job, they returned and did the job properly. The situation now is they never responded to my second concern, which is grounding. They claim that the circuits are sufficiently grounded by gas breakers at the local company terminals. For one provisions for additional wiring do not to my knowledge meet with NEC codes. The wires a run on the exterior of the building 4 feet from the grounded and draped over the flat roof. I do not believe this is exterior rated wire as well. My concern after the building was struck by lighting once before is the safety of life and the electronic equipment I have connect to my phone service. For one almost any phone or modem manual suggest that you phone feed be grounded to protect your equipment. The NEC I believe requires that all (low Voltage) circuits be wired along the perimeter of the structure. That a panels with circuits running along a structure permitter must be ground at the source and at the circuit loops, meaning the panel and or at all circuit panels. The local housing AHJ enforcement states that they are not responsible for low voltage, the local fire house chief states that it is not fire code. After the incident when lighting struck and losing about $2,000 worth of equipment, due to the building A/C not being earth grounded, became conscious of this need. Not until I installed my PC a Modem, with poor performance, did I test and discover the building was not grounded. At that time my complaints were fruitless. Only during the Video/cable installation was the landlord forced to ground the building electrical, but that is another story. My point is why do I have to become a second time victim of neglect to get correct what I perceive to be a violation of codes. When I had suggested that the improperly run exterior wiring is an invitation to conduct a lighting strike and it is possible for the high voltage to arc across (building basement panel) to other circuits on the block, before ever reaching the main Tel Co. switching terminal, I am given a stare of disbelief. It is now over a year later and the condition still exist. They still claim that phone panels do not need be earth ground. If you look at homes any other buildings in the neighborhood many phone panels are grounded to anything, electrical conduit, fire sprinkler piping and structural steel. Bonding to conduit that itself may not be grounded is of no use and what allows for sharing a preexisting ground in this manner? NYNEX has been able to consistently respond in two ways; To inquire if I was an electrical engineer and to state that my calls would be replied to by someone in the technical area, which never happened ... Any response is appreciated, even if it means being corrected! TIA Gary Ferguson ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 00:17:29 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Someone commented to me a few days ago that when placing third-number billed calls via AT&T, that there appeared to be no verification at the number to which the call is being billed. In other words, AT&T is completing calls without getting verification from someone at the billing number. So in curiosity, I tried to place third-number calls (to numbers that are *known* to always be busy or no-answer, or that have been disconnected and therfore don't supervise, to avoid charges.) Both BellSouth and AT&T, which both use "automated" operator-call processing systems, completed my test third-number calls ("billed" to my other line, which is not collect- or third-number-restricted) WITHOUT calling the other line for verification. The calls went through! When did LD carriers stop verifying third-number billings? This is clearly an opportunity for fraud, since no PIN or other code is required. (I assume if the third-number activity became excessive, that the carrier would step in to do something, but still, not checking the identity of the caller is a bit ridiculous.) Stanley Cline ** Roamer1 on IRC (see why?) mailto:scline@usit.net or mailto:scline@chattanooga.net CIS 74212,44 ** MSN WSCline1 http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~scline/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:42:37 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Anguilla (809 Caribbean) to Probably be 264 (ANG) Recently while websurfing, I came across a *number* of websites for Cable and Wireless, a *major* carrier (local, national toll and international) in the British (or former British) Caribbean and elsewhere in the "British" World. Their various websites are mostly all linked to each other. http://cwix.com/cwplc/ The website for their Anguilla operations in the Caribbean is: http://www.candw.com.ai/ I recently emailed C&W in Anguilla inquiring about the 809 Area Code in the Caribbean, as to if Anguilla is going to request a *new* NPA of their own. Yes, they *have* requested 264 (ANG) from Bellcore NANPA, and it has been approved by them! However, the Government of Anguilla has not yet approved it. From the "master" listing of NPA's and my description of description and listings of NPA formats from the INC Area Code Assignment Guidelines, 264 comes from the "General Purpose" listing of NPA's. "General Purpose" NPA's are not "presently" being reserved or held for other special or geographic functions. "Geographic Relief" codes are being reserved for *specific* assignment to forthcoming geographic splits (and/or overlays) in the US and Canada where a new code assignment is NEEDED due to relief of the old NPA code exhausting its supply of Central Office NXX code, however *we* don't yet know the *exact* future assignments of these "Geographic Relief" NPA codes. These "Geogrpahic Relief" codes have been *carefully* selected and co-ordinated by Bellcore NANPA and the various local Central Office Code administrators of the various local carriers in the US and Canada, so that a code assigned in a forthcoming split won't cause a "code conflict" in their numericals being the same as an already assigned local central office code in the area(s) affected by the split/overlay. I don't yet know any possible date for the possible future implementation of 264 (ANG) for Anguilla's split from 809. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: INetPhone <104343.674@CompuServe.COM> Subject: New Callback Discussion Group Date: 19 Apr 1996 04:06:15 GMT Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) We are starting a new Internet mailing list for callback. The purpose is to discuss/share experiences relating to callback use and to post questions. For now subscriptions must be sent to 104343.674@compuserve.com with the words "subscribe callback" in the subject. You will receive a response within 24 hours including an faq and instructions on how to post and unsubscribe. This is our temporary address until we move over to our listserv server in about 1 month. Regards. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 19:02:45 PDT From: Henry Mensch Subject: Anyone Using InternetMCI For Personal Dialup Access? I signed up with InternetMCI for dialup ppp access for my powerbook, and have been unable to get timely support from them ... their documentation suggests I write to support@mci.com or call a toll- free number (that I don't have with me at the moment), and nobody answers the e-mail, and the phone call leaves me on hold forever. Are folks getting support from InternetMCI through other means? I'd like to know. Thanks! # henry mensch / po box 14592; sf, ca 94114-0592 / # http://www.q.com/henry/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:05:05 EDT From: reedm@ucg.com (Reed Miller) Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telecom Manager A large communications company located just outside of Washington, D.C., is looking for a telecom manager to handle its voice systems. Applicants should have at least three years of experience managing a PBX, voice mail, modems and general CPE, and should have experience in negotiating long distance and local service contracts. Also, applicants should be willing to assist in a possible redesign of the entire voice system. Please mail your resumes and a cover letter to: Stephanie Allen Director of IT United Communications Group 11300 Rockville Pike, Suite 1100 Rockville, MD 20852-3030 Or, you can e-mail them to Stephanie Allen at: ccmi@ucg.com. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 14:07:22 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: 1964 Alaska Earthquake A few months back, there was discussion in this Digest about telco fires and other disasters. In 1964, there was a major earthquake in Anchorage AK, which obviously affected telephone and other utility services. There is a history of this earthquake and the aftermath, particularly regarding telephone services at the website of the ATU, the Anchorage Telephone Utility. The URL for information about the 1964 Anchorage earthquake is at: http://www.atu.com/whoweare/quake.html ATU's main URL is http://www.atu.com By the way, Alascom is the dominant toll carrier in Alaska. It was formerly the monopoly DDD toll carrier, owned by RCA in the 1970's (when the government and military wanted to get out of civilian telecom services in Alaska), and owned by Pacific Telecom in the 1980's. Alascom has been owned outright by AT&T for about a year or two now. There is a history of Alascom as a file in the Telecom Archives ftp site. Most local exchange telephone services in Alaska have been provided locally, usually by a department of each local city government such as ATU and the City of Fairbanks telephone utility, or by a privately owned company or stockholder held corporation such as Juneau which was served by Contel, but is now served by Pacific Telecom. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #188 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Apr 19 14:11:05 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA27783; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:11:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:11:05 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604191811.OAA27783@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #189 TELECOM Digest Fri, 19 Apr 96 14:11:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 189 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Issue Numbering Error (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Cellular Rates, NYC and Elsewhere (Jeffrey W. Drake) Re: Single Rings Disturb Household (John Fabrega) Re: Single Rings Disturb Household (Mark Smith) Re: Single Rings Disturb Household (Brad Smith) Re: Single Rings Disturb Household (Larry Ludwick) Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement (Kevin R. Ray) Re: Digital Age Spawnd Neo-Luddite Movement (Ron Bean) Re: T1 Not a Substitute for Business POTS (John N. Dreystadt) Re: John Henry of the Infobahn (John Higdon) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Administrivia: Issue Numbering Error Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:00:00 EDT The issue of the Digest just prior to this one was #188, and it did say that in the header of the version to mailing list subscribers. However in the envelope information at the top it was incorrectly identified as #189. Please correct your copies to show the correct number. PAT ------------------------------ From: jwdrake@netcom.com (Jeffrey W. Drake) Subject: Re: Cellular Rates, NYC and Elsewhere Organization: Temple of Syrinx Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:49:50 GMT Ken Levitt (levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org) wrote: > In TELECOM Digest V16 #169 Paul Robinson writes: >> Think about it: people who get cellular phones are paying for what is, >> in effect, a luxury item. Cellular phone service is not something one >> "has" to have; one can always use other options. Luxuries are always >> much more expensive. Especially in New York. > I have to disagree on your classification of cell phones being a > luxury. Certainly they are a luxury for some people, but in today's > business world I am required to have a cell phone, a FAX machine, an > Internet address, and an 800 number. > My competition has these things and if I did not, I would be at a > severe competitive disadvantage. I suppose you could consider having > a telephone that makes outgoing calls a luxury. After all, I could > always run down the street to a pay phone if I needed to make an > outgoing call, but I don't think I could stay in business very long > doing things that way. I agree that cell phones are luxury items in that AFIK they is no Universal Lifeline cell phone service. I would guess that in some remote area the only way to telecommunicate is directly via the air (CB/HAM) which might warrent a goverment subsidy but that would be the exception. It may be a competitive necessity to have a 800/888 number, cell phone ... A 'real' necessity is food, water, shelter ... A business necessity is a phone (the same kind as a home phone) [a way to quickly talk to your customers], snail mail [a way to send documents], word of mouth [old method of advertising], pencil and paper [old way to record and store info], and other items that are older cousins of high technology ... paper money. A necessity is anything needed to survive, even if barely ... you don't have to make a profit to stay in business ( think they call them charities) just keep your head above water. I bet the phone companies would love for thier customers to believe that having a T-1 for Home phones is a necessity. Think about it, better signal to noise ratio and really true voice sound ... jwdrake@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: jfabrega@nettally.com (Fabrega, John) Subject: Re: Single Rings Disturb Household Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 06:54:00 -0400 In TELECOM Digest V16 #185 Michael Covington wrote: > About twice a day, at quite random times of day (but so far, not > between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.), my telephone rings once and there is no > one on the other end. > Anyone care to speculate as to what is going on? It's been happening = > for a couple of weeks. > Alternatively, someone told me that telemarketers now dial several > numbers simultaneously and only talk to the first one that answers. > Can anyone confirm this? Wouldn't it be illegal, as harassment? If the line is only ringing once then hanging up without you answering it, I would doubt that it is a telemarketer. Also, if they are legiti- mate, the hours would probably be limited to 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. The 'predictive dial' telemarketing systems do in-fact dial out on more than a one-to-one ratio using various sorts of 'predictive' algorithms. In theory, they try to predict the probability of a call being answered and an operator being available and dial out on the appropriate number of lines. This works well about 90+% of the time -unless it is poorly programmed or inappropriately turned up. If a line is ANSWERED (as detected by the machine) and no operator is available, the call is dropped. Although I have not been in that industry for a few years, there was pressure applied from within the industry to keep 'no-ops' to a minimum in order to try to keep it from becoming illegal. To my knowledge, it is still legal and widely used. It doubles to triples operator productivity. BTW, you can usually tell when you are being called by a predictive dialer from the delay when you say hello until you hear the operator starts talking. They don't hear you say hello. They see your name pop on their screen and hear a beep to tell them that they have a call. I'm not sure (and would be interested to know the answer) if caller ID is provided if the caller is using a dedicated T-1. I didn't think they had a phone number. P.S. I am not a telemarketer nor am I defending them. John Fabrega, Line1 Communications, Inc. (VoiceMail, FaxMail, Fax-on-demand, Fax Broadcast, Long Distance) 904/668-6666 Fax:904/668-5307 ------------------------------ From: Mark Smith Subject: Re: Single Rings Disturb Household Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 18:47:16 EDT Organization: New Jersey Computer Connection, Lawrenceville, NJ In Article, wrote: > Alternatively, someone told me that telemarketers now dial several > numbers simultaneously and only talk to the first one that answers. > Can anyone confirm this? Wouldn't it be illegal, as harassment? Not exactly. Telemarketers are turning to "Predictive Dialers" that dial simultaneously slightly more calls than the number of available representatives. Once a call is answered (i.e. not busy, no answer, or answering machine), it is switched automatically to the representative, and their computer pops the callee's info on the screen. The reason that more calls are made than people can handle is that many of them will be busy or no answer. Occasionally, more calls than expected will connect, and the dialer will hang up on somebody. Where I work this is logged automatically, and used to change the number of calls being made. The callee is also scheduled to be first to be called when a representative is free, normally a minute or two later. Any respectable telemarketer will configure their system to minimize the number of dropped calls, because it makes no sense to pay for them if they will go unconnected. However, I could see an unscrupulous company not minimizing these calls to keep the representatives constantly busy. Where I work, we are lucky if we see more than five calls dropped like this per day. Mark ------------------------------ From: bsmith@infodial.net (Smith, Brad) Subject: Re: Single Rings Disturb Household Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 07:39:30 -0700 I've had the same problem as Michael Covington reported. One day I got six single-ring calls with no one on the other end. I called GTE here in Los Angeles and was vectored to a group that put a trap on my line for a two week period. I am to log all such calls and report them at the end of the period. I assume they will then contact the caller and suggest that my number be removed. The lady I talked with said the problem is sometimes caused by an auto-dial device with the wrong number coded into it. That didn't seem too plausible to me, and after Mr. Covington's message, I'm even more convinced. (of course, as with all intermittent problems, the calls stopped right after the trap was put in place !) Brad ------------------------------ From: Larry Ludwick Subject: Re: Single Rings Disturb Household Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:58:00 -0400 Organization: Network Product Support Michael Covington wrote: > About twice a day, at quite random times of day (but so far, not > between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.), my telephone rings once and there is no > one on the other end. > Anyone care to speculate as to what is going on? It's been happening for > a couple of weeks. > I've just had Caller ID installed (it becomes active tomorrow) but don't > know whether it will shed any light on the problem -- quite possibly not. > A couple of years ago Athens has a prankster who did this sort of > thing, creating a long wild goose chase for a supposed technical flaw > in the switching system. I wonder if he's back. > Alternatively, someone told me that telemarketers now dial several > numbers simultaneously and only talk to the first one that answers. > Can anyone confirm this? Wouldn't it be illegal, as harassment? The very first thing you should do is report this to your local telephone company. Their equipment may be causing this inadvertantly, but what's more likely is that you have a high resistance short on your cable pair. The first burst of ringing voltage breaks down the resistance and shorts the pair simulating an off-hook condition as though someone had answered your phone. You may be missing actual phone calls. Has anyone complained of being unable to reach you? Larry ------------------------------ From: kevin@eagle.ais.net (Kevin R. Ray) Subject: Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement Date: 19 Apr 1996 03:50:02 GMT Organization: American Information Systems, Inc. Tad Cook (tad@ssc.com) wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can tell you the way I see some very > unthinking people dealing with modern technology has almost convinced > me to become a Luddite on a few occassions. What I have against modern > technology in general, and computers in particular, is that they have > afforded so many people the opportunity to quit thinking for themsevles > entirely. For example many math skills are going by the wayside; people > do not know how to do calculations in their mind. They have no need to > do so since the computer will do it much faster. And did you note the > item in the papers recently talking about how few children these days > are learning good penmanship. Children as young as six or seven years > old are very good typists at keyboards, but do very poorly when asked > to write with a pen or pencil. The computer has by and large replaced > the need to have brains and intelligence in large quarters of American > society. I think many people are Luddites or neo-Luddites out of frust- > ration for these reasons. PAT] Pat, I rarely jump in on any subject here but had to throw my two cents worth in on this noteworthy topic which indirectly even relates to telecommunication in today's society. I am a system administrator by profession and do independant computer consulting on the side. Being 26 years old I am in the mainstream of todays "techies" and have all the latest electronical toys that are out there. Based on this message alone with a little creativity I'm sure many people could find out where I live, my phone number, my drivers license number, my license plate, what kind of car I drive, where I work, etc, etc, etc ... all without leaving the computer. It would take me about a half hour to find that all out on someone (and I won't share all my secrets :-), but at what point do we as a people today "draw the line"? All the above information is EASILY obtainable on myself if gotten in the right order, and the bad part is that I am a "private" person but my 'number' is in more computers than I care to think about. People taking technology and mis-using it today? Definately. I have CALLER-ID (as most people today) and have used it with great care. I was literally the second person to get it in this area when it became available here (I still wonder who beat me out :-). Though I have neighbors who mis-use this technology. They get *ONE CALL* from a number they do not recognize and ALWAYS call it back saying something along the lines of, "Yeah, you called me. What did you want?". Only once have I called a unknown number back after the same number called for 10 days in a row never leaving a message (from out of state). I am caught up on my bills (so I think :-) and decided to call it back. Turns out it was a local paper who sold their subscriptions to a "boiler room" someplace to sell. I am fighting technology in my own little fight. I personally refuse to own or use a microwave. I have found that spending the time properly cooking food, seasoning it, and making enough for just that meal has been frustrating (at times :-), relaxing (most of the time), and, believe it or not, economical (most of all). Given the choice of watching TV or listening to a "radio show" the 'boob tube' goes off. With computer equipment in the six figure range at my finger tips how many computer games do I own? -0-. Give me a challenging program to write any day of the week. Ever go and buy something and have been given the wrong change by the teenager behind the counter (whether in your favor or theirs)? And try and correct the matter with the being standing there to only be told, "but the register says...". And then ask them what the change should be for $10.91 from a $20 bill only to get "that deer looking into the head lights look". Happens all the time to me. I young enough to be these kids older brother and already I feel a generation gap ... As much as computers and technology have made my life easier (or so I think) I have said for many years now: "Computers will be the up-rise and down-fall of man kind and society as we know it and have known it." I hope I am wrong but don't see where else it is going at this point. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The cash register at a nearby 7/Eleven store is programmed incorrectly on the tax rate. The register was apparently used in another nearby town where the tax rate is a little more. They claim there is nothing they can do, they are required to collect whatever the cash register says. Telling them that if nothing else it is *totally against the law* to collect a sum of money claiming that said sum of money represents 'taxes' when in fact no such tax exists gets you nowhere. The regional office of 7/Eleven had no idea what I was talking about. I finally put in a call to corporate, and they said they would look into it. We'll see. Next stop will perhaps be to the local licensing commissioner here. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Apr 96 18:51:00 CDT From: madnix.uucp!zaphod@nicmad.nicolet.com (Ron Bean) Subject: Re: Digital Age Spawnd Neo-Luddite Movement > And did you note the item in the papers recently talking about how > few children these days are learning good penmanship. Children as > young as six or seven years old are very good typists at keyboards, > but do very poorly when asked to write with a pen or pencil. PAT, I have to comment on this handwriting business. All of my mother's contemporaries (born in the mid 1930's, plus or minus 10 years) seem to have uniformly terrible handwriting, so the "golden age of handwriting" must have been before their time. That generation still writes letters (ie, snail mail) but they're really hard to read. It's a blessing when one of them gets a computer (or even a typewriter). I used to marvel at the ability of the USPS to deliver my mother's hand-addressed mail. My grandmother's handwriting was pretty hard to read too, but I recently came across a couple of postcards that my grandfather sent to his kids in April of 1941, just after he had joined the Army Air Corps (about eight months before Pearl harbor), and they are written in very neat block lettering, similar to what they teach in drafting classes (he was a doctor -- I wonder what his prescriptions looked like?). He was born around the turn of the century. My theory is that people from earlier times *appear* to have had better handwriting because only the good examples were saved. All the illegible stuff was thrown out decades ago. BTW my handwriting is terrible, but I've actually received compliments on it! That's because when I write something that someone *else* has to read, I make sure it's readable, even if I have to cross things out and start over (I often throw out the first attempt at even simple notes, and re-copy them a little more neatly). It's amazing how few people take the time to do this, because it saves an enormous amount of time correcting mistakes later. madnix!zaphod@nicmad.nicolet.com (Ron Bean) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All of my 'writing' is actually printing except for my signature, which is 'written'. I do not have good penmanship either but my printing is usually very neat. PAT] ------------------------------ From: johnd@mail.ic.net (John N. Dreystadt) Subject: Re: T1 Not a Substitute for Business POTS Date: 19 Apr 1996 02:08:39 GMT Organization: Software Services In article , bobd@well.sf.ca.us7 says: > The answer from that T1 is not a means of offering cheaper multiple > business (1MB) lines. Rather, Pacific BellUs SuperTrunk T1 service > provides Rindustrial strengthS circuits with capabilities far beyond > POTS. > Functionalities of Pacific Bell SuperTrunk T1 include Calling > Restriction, Two Way Direct Inward Dialing (DID), and Alternate > Routing for Disasters, answer supervision on outbound calls, Call > Transfer (with #5 ESS), dial plans allowing interoperability between > multiple PBXs and between PBXs and Centrex, account codes allowing > call tracking and cost control, software defined trunk groups, and > end-to-end digital service for increased reliability and performance. Additional value is a reasonable justification for increased price but if your company wants to increase profit margin, lower prices for services that require actual copper being pulled may make sense. Certainly in areas where there is substantial growth in the demand for phone lines, a pricing structure that causes high demand for the same services that cause additional trenching and other physical plant upgrades will hurt profit margins. On the other hand, this is the kind of pricing structure we should expect from a company with regulated profit margins. If the company is trying to grow, there is a tendancy to ignore the cost side of the equation since an increase in costs turns into an increase in the total profit the company can earn. The bad news for the current employees of LECS is the upcoming deregulation is going to re-orient the companies towards profit margins rather than gross profits. Many employees will lose their jobs either because they don't change fast enough or more likely, the groups they are in don't change fast enough. Change is coming fast and furious. John Dreystadt ------------------------------ Organization: Green Hills and Cows Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 22:09:20 -0700 From: John Higdon Subject: Re: John Henry of the Infobahn psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) wrote: > Perhaps, but the era of the "self-made individual" are rapidly drawing > to a close. I would put Jobs, Wozniak, and Gates in that category, but > there will be very few to follow them (probably one or two per new > industry developed in the future, if that). The ability to communicate > *effectively* (not just ramble on) will be a contributory factor in > one's self-made status. Sounds like stuff I heard in the fifties. "The time of self-made men is drawing to a close. There just are not that many things left to be discovered." We were not going to see any more Edisons, that was for sure. Going back even further, there was a proposal around the turn of the century to close the US patent office. After all, everything had already been invented. I suppose that it is just human nature to assume that where one happens to be in time is the pinnacle of achievement and that the knowledge of all things has come to pass. Fortunately, there are always a few who somehow fail to learn that and break the rules by forgetting convention and creating yet new and spectacular wonders. Yes, the ability to communicate is essential; it is the driving engine behind humankind. But I would not look for the death of the reality of self-made men quite yet. We might all be surprised. John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX: john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407 | http://www.ati.com/ati | ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #189 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 22 00:50:51 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA07160; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 00:50:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 00:50:51 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604220450.AAA07160@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #190 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Apr 96 00:40:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 190 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Number of Phone Lines and Area Code Splits (Linc Madison) BellSouth Appoints Randy New VP - Leg. Implementation (Mike King) SLC-96 Problem With Local C.O. (Drew Morone) Stop - Pay Toll - Continue Talking (G. L. Sicherman) PacBell ISDN Tariffs - CPT Correction (Monty Solomon) Cellular in Olympic Kayaking Venue ... Again (Stanley Cline) Regional Bell Company Mergers? (Lisa Hancock) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 17:08:50 -0800 From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Number of Phone Lines and Area Code Splits There's an article in the Sunday {San Francisco Exaggerator} (oh, uh, I mean {Examiner}) about Caller ID. Aside from a bogus comment attributed to "telecom consultant Scott Rex" that the fact that Caller ID Blocking doesn't work on 800/900 numbers is due to "inconsistent FCC policies," the article doesn't say much new. (This is on page D-1 and D-6, 4/21/96) What caught my eye, though, was some numbers about the number of telephone lines in various states. They only listed a few, but here they are: California: 10 million residential 4 million business = 14 million total Florida: 3.8 million total No. Carolina: 1.4 million total Now, a little simple math indicates that each area code has a capacity of something over seven million numbers, so how is it that California has 13 area codes (soon to double), Florida is in the process of expanding from four to eight, and North Carolina just went from two to three? There aren't THAT many distinctive ringing customers (zero in California, in fact), and there aren't THAT many little towns using a whole prefix for six phone lines, and I don't think California would be adding so many new area codes if we were only using 12% of our capacity. Are the Examiner's numbers from outer space? Are those numbers perhaps the number of different residential/business SUBSCRIBERS (so a company with two prefixes for its PBX counts as one subscriber)? My guess would be that those numbers also include only conventional wireline subscribers. The article also suggested that the balance of the number of residential versus business phone lines in California is much more heavily tilted towards residential than in the other states mentioned. They also make a very disingenuous statement about per-line blocking, comparing the experiences of Florida and North Carolina. Their nice little map graphic shows Florida as offering only per-call blocking, but North Carolina offering per-line blocking. In the text, though, they say, "The freqency of blocking in a state depends on who wins the hype wars before caller ID is introduced, says Bell South rep John Goldman. In Florida, a state with 3.8 million phone lines where there was no fuss over the service, 400,000 subscribers have caller ID and only 11,000 have line blocking. In North Carolina, a state with 1.4 million phone lines, controversy and a more aggressive stance by regulators led mroe than 400,000 customers to request line blocking -- even though only 82,000 customers have caller ID." Well, yes, of course, more people request it where it is offered free than where it is not available. Well, duh. States they show as NOT offering per-line blocking are: NV, CO, NE, KS, OK, MO, AR, LA, WI, MI, IL, IN, KY, TN, MS, AL, FL, GA, SC, VA, WV, DC, MD, DE, NJ, CT, PR, as of "first quarter 1996." Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They probably built their entire article on comments from 'consultant Scott Rex' ... don't you get so annoyed when you read the asinine things printed in the papers which you know for a fact are dead wrong? It always makes me wonder how much more is dead wrong I don't have the sophistication to figure out. And of course if you call to discuss this with the 'reporter' who wrote it, what is going to be that person's first response to your comments? (All together now!) "Who are you, and what could you possibly know about anything? What are your credentials to question what the telecom experts have reported?". As an alternative, sometimes the answer will be, "well, I took it all from a report I got from XX, and he (they) certainly would know what they were talking about ..." So after you go through this long discussion qualifying who you are and what you know about anything, they'll discover they are 'on deadline' or some equally silly thing and not have the time to talk to you right now. I'll be quite suprised if any factual errors get exposed in any sort of correction to the original. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: BellSouth Appoints Randy New VP - Leg. Implementation Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 02:28:52 PDT Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 13:42:23 -0400 From: BellSouth Subject: BellSouth Appoints Randy New Vice President of Leg. Implementation ATLANTA -- Randy L. New, BellSouth Assistant Vice President of Legislative and Regulatory Matters, has been appointed Vice President - Legislative Implementation, a newly created position at BellSouth Corporation. Charles P. Featherstun, currently General Counsel - BellSouth, D.C., has replaced New. The positions became effective Apr. 16, 1996. New is responsible for BellSouth's implementation of the regulatory provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He also chairs a BellSouth committee that will review all regulatory aspects of the new law before implementation. "Randy has a wealth of experience in regulatory affairs and was closely involved with telecommunications reform legislation that became law earlier this year," said John L. Clendenin, BellSouth Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. "He's a perfect fit for this new position as we enter a new era in telecommunications with fresh opportunities for BellSouth and a competitive marketplace," continued Clendenin. New, a native of Atlanta, received his undergraduate degree in political science from Emory University and his J.D. degree from the Emory School of Law. He has been with BellSouth for 10 years and has a broad experience with the company both as an attorney and as a manager of the company's legislative and regulatory issues. He served in his previous position of assistant vice president for four years. He was one of the first attorneys in the Legal Department of BellSouth Enterprises, a subsidiary formed in the late 1980s to manage BellSouth's unregulated businesses. As Assistant Vice President of Legislative and Regulatory Matters, Featherstun is responsible for the handling of regulatory matters involving BellSouth subsidiaries other than BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., and assuring that regulatory initiatives throughout the corporation are consistent with corporate strategies. A native of Akron, Ohio, Featherstun received his undergraduate degree in political science from Ohio University and his J.D. degree from Georgetown School of Law. He has more than 20 years of experience in regulatory and legislative affairs at both state and federal levels. Following nine years with the Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. and two years with Bell Communications Research, Inc., Featherstun joined the BellSouth Legal Department in 1985 with responsibility for Federal Communications Commission (FCC) matters. He also was Regulatory Counsel for BellSouth Enterprises for five years. BellSouth is a $17.9 billion communications services company. It provides telecommunications, wireless communications, directory advertising and publishing, and information services to more than 25 million customers in 17 countries worldwide. For Information Contact: Al Schweitzer (404)249-2832 Tim Klein (404)249-4135 ----------------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: drew@j51.com (Drew Morone) Subject: SLC-96 Problem With Local C.O. Date: 20 Apr 1996 20:28:43 GMT Organization: TZ-Link, a public-access online community in Nyack, NY. My local C.O. (Pearl River, NY/NYNEX) has a problem, and consequently, so do I. I'm located about two miles from the C.O., and I have 55 lines on my incoming modem pool. The area is pretty depleted of copper pairs, so they have a hut about 1000 feet from my location that has SLC 96's going back over fiber to the Central office. Ideally, they would put all of my lines on the SLC's, instead of the copper they have scrimped to fill the order. They say they can't because if they have more than three lines hunting per shelf (on the SLC96) it causes problems with the switch back at the Central Office. Now I'm dealing with five lines with a pronounced 60 cycle hum, and no decent copper pairs in the area to move to. What could be the problem at the central office switch that would cause problems with the hunt off the SLCs? I have -NO- idea what kind of hardware they are using at the C.O. Has anyone had any dealings like this or any similar situations with NYNEX? Drew Morone drew@j51.com TZ-Link Internet 47 Summit Street System Administrator Nyack, NY 10960-372 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:16:29 -0400 From: gls@atpsol.cvu.att.com (G. L. Sicherman) Subject: Stop - Pay Toll - Continue Conversation From the {Asbury Park Press} for 1996-04-20: by Raymond Fazzi Bell Atlantic-New Jersey has instituted a new policy on toll calls made on its 75,000 pay telephones: Pay as you go or just plain go. Starting this past Monday, pay telephone users who are nearing the end of their time limit on medium-distance calls get a recorded message instructing them to insert money for more time. If the money is not paid, the call is cut off. Previously, callers were allowed to complete the call. After the call, the telephone would ring and, when answered, an operator would instruct the person to pay the overtime amount. The policy was changed because the overwhelming majority of people don't pick up the ringing telephone, Bell Atlantic spokesman Ells Edwards said. "The company is losing hundreds of thousand of dollars a year because of customers who go over their time limit on the pay phone," he said. Edwards would not reveal exactly how much has been lost, but he said Bell Atlantic Corp. [...] loses more on such calls in New Jersey than anywhere else in its six-state Mid-Atlantic territory, which includes Philadelphia and Washington D.C. The company may institute the new practice in the rest of its service area if it is successful in New Jersey, he said. [...] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Apr 1996 23:07:53 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: PacBell ISDN Tariffs - CPT Correction Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The original note (which was full of error) arrived at the same time as this correction note which follows. I won't bother to run the original since it would like just cause some confusion, but in the event you saw it elswhere over the weekend, what follows below appears to be the accurate version of events. PAT] TAP-INFO - An Internet newsletter available from listproc@tap.org INFORMATION POLICY NOTE - California ISDN tariffs April 10, 1996 I was wrong about the PacBell announcement on ISDN. After reading some newspaper reports and a press release by PacBell, I incorrectly assumed that PacBell was abandoning its efforts to charge residential consumers a per minute fee for ISDN usage after 5 pm and on weekends. This is wrong. While PacBell has abandoned its efforts to double its per minute charges, it has not backed down on its efforts to impose per-minute usage fees on residential users for off- peak use. Under the exiting residential ISDN tariff, which PacBell is seeking to change, residential users do not pay per-minute charges after 5 pm and on weekends. PacBell wanted to double its per minute charges for residents and business, and then impose the off-peak per-minute charges on residential consumers, after a 20 hour usage allowance. PacBell had dropped its efforts to double its per-minute charges, but it still wants to impose the off-peak usage charges on residential consumers. I regret the error from our previous post on this. If you want to talk with PacBell about this, contact Mary Hancock (415/394-3620, mghanco@legsf.pacbell.com), who sent out the original PacBell press release, which said that PacBell would "raise the monthly fee for ISDN by $8, rather than increasing the per-minute charges." Apparently an increase from 0 to 1.46 per minute for evening usage isn't considered an increase by PacBell). I wouldn't have made this mistake if I had bothered to call PacBell before sending out yesterday's note, and I'll try to avoid this mistake in the future. jamie For 128 Kbps service, here is the correct report about what is going on. Table 1 Cost of Residential ISDN in California - PacBell (cents per minute for 2B service New Per-Minute PacBell Proposal Current Proposal that PacBell Res Res* Abandoned Day 2.10 2.10 4.20 Evening 0 1.46 2.92 Night/Weekend 0 .84 1.68 (divide these numbers in half for the charge for using a single B channel). *The off-peak residential per-minute usage fees for residential consumers kick in after 20 hours of B channel usage (10 hours of 2B). James Love (love@tap.org,202/387-8030) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ INFORMATION POLICY NOTES is a free Internet newsletter sponsored by the Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP) and the Consumer Project on Technology (CPT). Both groups are projects of the Center for Study of Responsive Law, which is run by Ralph Nader. The LISTPROC services are provide by Essential Information. Archives of TAP-INFO are available from http://www.essential.org/listproc/tap-info/ TAP and CPT both have Internet Web pages. http://www.tap.org http://www.essential.org/cpt Subscription requests to tap-info to listproc@tap.org with the message: subscribe tap-info your name TAP and CPT can both be reached off the net at P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax: 202/234-5176 Here is the PacBell press release upon which the incoorect conslusions were drawn: April 8, 1996 FOR MORE INFORMATION: Mary Hancock (415) 394-3620 mghanco@legsf.pacbell.com Statement: Pacific Bell FASTRAK ISDN Pricing Modification The following statement is attributable to Tom Bayless, Director, Switched Digital Services for Pacific Bell. A media conference call to answer questions regarding the amendment has been scheduled for Tuesday, April 9 at 10:00 a.m., PDT. To access the conference, please dial 1-800-259-6654 and ask to be connected to the Tom Bayless conference call. As a result of the California Public Utilities Commissions' March 13 order and related pricing rules that provide guidelines on how Pacific Bell will resell its products and services, we have modified our December filing on ISDN pricing. Under the amendment, we will raise the monthly fee for ISDN by $8, rather than increasing the per-minute usage charge. The CPUC's order moved ISDN into a competitive product category. In this category, the rules for how the product should be priced require that each component of ISDN (i.e., usage, monthly fee and installation) be priced separately, and that each component be priced to enable us to recover our costs. As a result, the various components can no longer subsidize each other. Under this scenario, our December request proposing an increase in usage to help us cover our cost of providing the service is no longer viable. Our amended proposal will enable us to provide the service at a monthly rate that is still among the lowest in the nation, and with usage charges that are among the most reasonable in the U.S. It also reflects concerns we've heard that raising the per-minute charges would have a significant impact on our heavy ISDN users. ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Cellular in Olympic Kayaking Venue ... Again Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:10:29 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services A few weeks ago, when I discussed small and oddly shaped cellular coverage areas, I mentioned that the Ocoee/Copper Basin, Tennessee area (the venue for Olympic kayaking in July) had no B-system service, and that US Cellular (the B licensee) planned to offer B service there. (I travel through the area from time to time to get to points in northeast Georgia.) Well, US Cellular is NOT going to offer service there by the Games, even temporarily. According to the chief engineer at USCC in Knoxville, the area did not "have the traffic" (from USCC's customers, I guess) and was "in a national forest", therefore it would be impossible to establish a permanent cell site there. (Never mind CellularOne did ... their towers are on the forest BOUNDARY. USCC could certainly co-locate with C1 if they wished.) When I asked about their using a mobile/temporary cell, he said that US Cellular "does not do that." BellSouth Mobility, a sponsor of the Games and the B carrier in all other venues -- including Birmingham, AL and Miami, FL, doesn't own a license to provide service in the area, so they cannot provide service. (They ARE the B carrier in areas to the west and south, however ... go 10-15 miles from the venue and you're back in BellSouth-land -- the Chattanooga system [CHT MSA/parts of TN RSA#7] to the west and southwest, Atlanta [GA RSA#1] to the south.) The A-side carrier, GTE Mobilnet/CellularOne, has conveniently decided to send roamers from BellSouth B systems to "American Roaming Network" aka "Cellular Express." In other words, they are forcing *expensive* credit card roaming on Chattanooga and Atlanta B-side customers, who have no option to use the B carrier, since there is none. (Never mind that GTE's Chattanooga customers can roam on the BellSouth B system in Georgia RSA#1 -- Dalton, etc., and the rest of the Atlanta system, without using credit cards.) This problem also exists in other areas of Tennessee where there's no B system coverage (such as Monteagle mountain between Chattanooga and Nashville.) GTE DOES have a roaming agreement with BellSouth -- but evidently it includes B markets (Indianapolis, San Francisco, Hawaii, etc.) only, or excludes Tennessee. I called GTE to ask why they were forcing credit card roaming; the several people I spoke with had not a clue. I called BellSouth Mobility's corporate office in Atlanta, and was bounced from person to person, finally to speak with a manager who said "the situation of being in an OLYMPIC VENUE unable to use a BellSouth phone is of SUBSTANTIAL MAGNITUDE and needs to be addressed NOW." She referred me directly to the head of roaming for BellSouth; I left her a message today (no call back yet.) I called the Chattanooga BellSouth office; the person that handles customer relations, and my account, hasn't called back yet. Last but not least, I called ACOG (Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games) -- they are going to investigate, as they said the situation is UNACCEPTABLE. (They are certainly not willing to get phones from GTE, or Airtouch Cellular in Atlanta, for those working in the kayaking venue. BellSouth would naturally be upset ...) This whole situation is nonsense -- US Cellular tends to have a poor attitude toward roamers, and Chattanooga roamers in particular. (They have a _very_ poor record with me, GTE, BellSouth, and many others high roaming rates, abysmal service -- no/spotty call delivery, etc., incompetent employees.) In this case, USCC certainly blew their chance to prove themselves as a capable, decent carrier. And ... evidently, GTE has decided to use the Games to its advantage, and gouge ACOG, BellSouth, B-side roamers, etc. This hurts BellSouth, Chattanooga, the Olympics, and everyone involved. I don't think BellSouth is to blame for this problem. My predictions: BellSouth will probably persuade US Cellular to sell its license for Polk County, TN (Ocoee) to them, since USCC will *never* cover the area. (IMHO, the area is viable, given the large number of people that visit Ocoee on *weekends*. They come in BUSLOADS to kayak and "ride the rapids"!) But that will happen too late for the Games -- if it does. GTE will probably be forced (by ACOG? read: $$$) to set up an "emergency" roaming agreement with BellSouth in the interim. [Update: Between the time I wrote this and the time I sent it, the local BellSouth rep called -- they said they didn't WANT Polk County because of the high cost of providing service.(?) They said that agreements between "home carriers" are rare -- but in that area BellSouth is NOT A COMPETING CARRIER! And they DO have an agreement with GTE for GA RSA#1, etc. I still haven't heard from Atlanta, who seems to take the problem much more seriously. IMHO, there's a lot of BS coming from BS, GTE, and USCC about this ... maybe ACOG can clear the Air[Touch.] Puns intended ... as for me, CellularOne here I come again.] Stanley Cline, d/b/a Catoosa Computing Serv., Chatta., TN mailto:scline@usit.net -- http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CIS 74212,44 -- MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) Subject: Regional Bell Company Mergers? Date: 22 Apr 1996 00:54:11 GMT Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net I understand several new regional Bell companies are considering merger, for example Nynex and Bell Atlantic. Maybe I'm missing something, but if the companies merge together, get permission to carry long distance, then what was the point of breaking them up (at considerable expense to us) in the first place? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All that happened 'in the first place' was that a single company -- AT&T, which at that time owned all the Bell Companies -- was forced to get rid of them. AT&T could have chosen to simply set them all aside as one large company then, possibly to be known as the 'Bell System' rather than the seven or eight companies it chose to create instead. What the court-ordered divestiture of AT&T called for was getting rid of the local telcos. *How* they got rid of them and in what condition was left to AT&T. It was felt that by forcing AT&T to get rid of the locals, the various entities wishing to compete with AT&T in the long distance market would have a better chance of success. Even if all the local telcos around today were to merge into a giant conglomeration once again, it would come no where close to the concentration of power AT&T held prior to 1983. Not all of us -- including yours truly -- believe the original divestiture was proper. It essentially amounted to the taking of AT&T's property without their permission. Some will point out that AT&T did in fact 'consent' to the whole thing; but I daresay if you had a big gun pointed at you as they did, you would 'consent' to robbery also, and it really would not be fair if people later said that after all, you had agreed to be raped and robbed merely because you finally gave up the fight. Did some things happen as a result of divestiture that would not have happened had AT&T continued to rule telecom unmolested? Perhaps ... but nothing that I feel *genuine, legitimate* competition would not have eventually caused to happen anyway instead of the bogus 'we will take away a century of your work and accomlishments since there is no chance we could ever equal your ability, and once we have reduced you to our common denominator then we will 'compete' with you on the terms we decide' thing which occurred in the early 1980's. At least one good thing about this year's legislation was that at least we got Judge Greene out of the way. Too bad we could not have gotten him out of the way fifteen years ago. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #190 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 22 14:24:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA06077; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:24:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:24:06 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604221824.OAA06077@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #191 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Apr 96 14:24:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 191 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Single Rings Disturb Household (Gary Stebbins) Re: Single Rings Disturb Household (Ron Elkayam) FCC Universal Service Filing (William Warren) NANP & FCC Staff Say NO to Texas PUC Area Code Overlay Plan (Len E. Elam) Re: Any News From Dallas? (Stephen Samuel) Re: Any News From Dallas? (Joe Isham) Results of Caller ID Cost Question (Matthew G. Monsoor) Downloadable NANP Information From Bellcore (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement (Eric Friedebach) Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement (Wes Leatherock) Re: Internet Users Gather to Plan Sprint Class Action (Wes Leatherock) Re: Internet Users Gather to Plan Sprint Class Action (Ed Ellers) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Gary Stebbins Subject: Re: Single Rings Disturb Household Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:03:44 -0700 Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. > BTW, you can usually tell when you are being called by a predictive > dialer from the delay when you say hello until you hear the operator > starts talking. I used to say "hello" several times. Now, when I answer the phone and hear silence, I hang up immediately. I don't seem to be getting called back once I've done this. gary ------------------------------ From: relkay01@fiu.edu (Ron Elkayam) Subject: Re: Single Rings Disturb Household Date: 22 Apr 1996 07:46:22 GMT Organization: Florida International University On Thu, 18 Apr 1996 07:39:30 -0700, Smith, Brad (email: bsmith@infodial. net) posted: > One day I got six single-ring calls with no one on the other end. I > called GTE here in Los Angeles and was vectored to a group that put > a trap on my line for a two week period. I am to log all such calls > and report them at the end of the period. > (of course, as with all intermittent problems, the calls > stopped right after the trap was put in place !) You could try hitting *69. Even if you're not subscribed to the service (Call Return), the feature will work and you'll pay on a per-use basis. In my case (Bell South Land) the charge is 75c per call. This is something new they started April 1st (per-use *69 and *66). Oh, incidentally. I called the rep to ask if I'll be charged 75c per call even after I exceed $4 (which is the normal monthly fee for Call Return) and she said "yeah, you pay 75c per call with no limits". I heard that in Canada, you also pay a per-usage fee, but they set up a limit (which is basically the flat monthly rate) after which all usage of the feature is free. ------------------------------ From: an488465@anon.penet.fi (W Warren) Organization: Anonymous forwarding service Reply-To: an488465@anon.penet.fi Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 03:34:49 UTC Subject: FCC Universal Service Filing Mr. Townson, My opinions differ greatly from those of my employer: please accept this anonymous commentary on your Digest's article. Thank you. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I usually do not accept anonymous posts for the Digest. I will withhold names on occassion for good reason but I prefer to know who is writing me even if you ask me to keep it a secret. I'll make this one exception for 'W Warren' since the article seems interesting. Please don't make a habit of it. PAT] ----------------- The notice recently published in the Digest, advocating increased government involvement and control of the internet, should be a warning to all who read it. The notice presents so many assumptions that I can touch only the low points: from the belief that the poor must be (or can be) helped with computers and/or internet access, to casual mention of government data collection about individual users' access habits. Please step back and look at this announcement in light of what it *doesn't* say, as well as what it does. It frightened me - I hope it does you, as well. > From: rciville@civicnet.org (Richard R. Civille) > Subject: FCC Universal Service Filing Supports Public Access > > FCC Universal Service Filing > Supports Public Access > > Last Friday, April 12th, the Center for Civic Networking (CCN) and the > Graduate School of Library and Information Science (GLIS) at the > University of Illinois Champaigne/Urbana filed comments to the FCC > Joint Board on Universal Service. [snip] > The filing outlines a set of universal service recommendations and > described data analyses that could support them. The Board was urged > to develop Universal Service policy that promotes a leveling effect > between information haves and have-nots while stimulating new sectors > in the economy such as microenterprises and home-based businesses. The board "was urged"? By whom? "...promotes a leveling effect"? Why? Since when are "home-based businesses" a "new" sector of the economy? What, exactly, is a "microenterprise"? The word smacks of "affirmative action" both in construction and vagueness. > At the same time this framework is explored, the Board is asked to > carefully examine results of analyses that illustrate the > characteristics of affected population groups. In plain English? Or is gobbledegook a requirement for reports to a government agency? Leaving aside the assumption that the board can carelessly examine parts of the paper, I can't wait to find out what "characteristics" the "affected" groups exhibit ... [snip] > Dr. Ann Bishop, Assistant Professor at the Graduate School > said: "We strongly urge the Board to seek out and > examine data that will illuminate how their recommendations may impact > economic opportunity and quality of life not only on disenfranchised > groups, but on emerging economic sectors." Oh, OK, here it comes: " ...not only on disenfranchised groups...". Dr. Bishop seems to assume that the "disenfranchised" (whatever that means) are entitled to free computers and internet access as a given, without debate or critical thought. [snip] > The filing outlines a Universal Service framework that provides: > * Market incentives and individual tax credits to increase computer > ownership among low-income households and microenterprises; "...individual tax credits"? Does that mean I can get a refund based on my CPU seconds? Or must I become a "have-not" in order to have? > * Electronic mail services for low-income children and job-seekers; Children need electronic mail as much as they need CB sets or access to the Playboy channel. Absent an accepted standard (which only parents can set), the lowest of the lowest common denominator will soon prevail. Of course, "Electronic mail services" sounds familiar and safe -- a new age set of pen pals, perhaps? -- but anyone who has email has ALL the internet, since any file or service can be converted to a format acceptable to SMTP. Of course, they'll still need ALL the hardware ... And as for "job-seekers", I get more than enough trash email already, thank you. I do not want my mailbox crowded with solicitations from every yokel who has "harvested" (a beautiful euphemism) my user id from comp.dcom.telecom. > * Development of public access network services that offer useful and > beneficial information products and services that address community > needs and civic life; Such as? What, exactly, can a computer and "public access network services" offer that I, as a middle class professional, will find "useful and beneficial"? As for addressing "community needs and civic life", what does the FCC or any federal bureacrat know about my community or its civics? The only public access network I support is the community channel on the local cable TV station: free of charge to all those with a TV. > * Mechanisms to finance network literacy programs through adult > education programs, public libraries, and schools; "Mechanisms" is a wonderful word: its use infers an appliance that will generate money. However, "network literacy" is meaningless: am I "literate" if I can operate Netscape or browse the online Sears catalog? School and library boards of trustees have better ways to spend my tax dollars than on littering libraries and schools with more expensive toys. > * Improved Federal data collection on the individual use of > networked information. Reread that sentence, several times. > These recommendations are based on "The Internet and the Poor", > written by CCN's Richard Civille and published in "Public Access to > the Internet" edited by Brian Kahin, MIT Press, 1995. My questions are based on deep suspicion of anyone presuming to know how best to spend my tax money. William Warren --****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION*** Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. Please, report inappropriate use to abuse@anon.penet.fi For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help@anon.penet.fi If you have any problems, address them to admin@anon.penet.fi [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The above only applies if you write direct to 'William Warren'. Your reply will NOT be anonymous if you send it to the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:47:16 -0500 From: leelam@ietm0.lfwc.lockheed.com (Len E. Elam) Subject: NANP & FCC Staff Say NO to Texas PUC Area Code Overlay Plan This is paraphased from an article in the Friday, 19 April 1996, {Fort Worth Star-Telegram} newspaper. Last month's Texas PUC order would split the Dallas and Houston area code geographically and also add an overlay area code in each area for new users of cell phones, beepers, and so on. Nothing would change for current users of "wireless communications" devices as only new cell phone and beeper customers would be assigned to the overlay area codes. An FCC staff member says that this does not meet federal regulations, agreeing with the NANP (North American Numbering Plan) decision denying the request for two additional area codes for overlay area code use. No FCC final judgement has been made yet, according to a PUC representive. This has no affect on the neighboring 817 Area Code (Fort Worth), which supposedly will need to be split within two years. Sincerely, Len E. Elam, Engineer-Senior Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems PO Box 748, Mail Zone 5904 Fort Worth, Texas 76101-0748 (817)763-2970, Email: LEElam@LMTAS.LMCo.Com ------------------------------ From: samuel@wimsey.com (Stephen Samuel) Subject: Re: Any News From Dallas? Date: 21 Apr 1996 19:24:38 -0700 Organization: Online at Wimsey/iSTAR - Canada In article , Linc Madison wrote: > I see from the latest NPA/NXX data that Area Code 214 has 750 prefixes > in use, which is to say that they're getting VERY close to the point > of denying service to new subscribers due to inability to assign a > phone number! (Cover your head -- she's gonna blow!) > The Texas PUC spake and ordered a geographic split, but I still > haven't heard anything "final" in terms of boundaries or effective > dates. I'd guess there will be a *very* short permissive dialing > period, under the circumstances, and also a very short period before > split off prefixes are re-used in 214. Within six months, you could > go from a valid number to ringing a wrong number in new service. This sounds like an excelent place to do an overlay rather than a split! Giving people six months or less to switch everything over and tell all of their friends sounds like a harsh passage. Stephen Samuel (604)876-0426 samuel@wimsey.com http://www.wimsey.com/~samuel/ ------------------------------ From: jisham@onramp.net (Joe Isham) Subject: Re: Any News From Dallas? Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 01:48:08 GMT Organization: GROT - Never Knowingly Oversold In article , Telecom@Eureka.vip. best.com (Linc Madison) wrote: > The Texas PUC spake and ordered a geographic split, but I still > haven't heard anything "final" in terms of boundaries or effective > dates. Well, Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk spake, and said "We're gonna sue!" if all of the city of Dallas were not kept in 214. So everything, from what I've heard, is on hold right now. > I'd guess there will be a *very* short permissive dialing > period, under the circumstances, and also a very short period before > split off prefixes are re-used in 214. Within six months, you could > go from a valid number to ringing a wrong number in new service. AFAIK, we're still scheduled for a September start to permissive dialing and a March full cutover. > The preliminary data I've heard indicates that the boundary will > follow the LBJ Freeway (I-635 and I-20), but drop down to Forest Lane > on the north (following the boundaries between the Dallas exchange and > the Richardson and Addison exchanges) and more or less follow Loop 12 > and Stemmons up the west side of town. That would mean that all > "Dallas" exchanges, possibly plus "Balch Springs," would retain 214, > while all the other suburban exchanges (Richardson, Addison, Farmers > Branch, Carrollton, Irving, Grand Prairie, Duncanville, De Soto, > Lancaster, Mesquite, Garland, Sunnyvale, Wilmer/Hutchins, etc.) would > move to 972, along with outlying communities as far away as > Waxahachie. The "Central Zone" exchanges will stay in 214, the suburbs (including Addison, which consists mostly of north Dallas, where Mayor Ron Kirk lives (surprise!), will shift to 972. > There was also some talk of the Texas PUC asking for a wireless > overlay for the Dallas area, as well as one for the Houston area. Has > there been any motion on those ideas? The FCC has determined that these wireless overlays are anti-competitive and therefore illegal. > Of course, to conserve the limited supply of available phone numbers, > Southwestern Bell is currently offering to waive the connection charge > if you install a second line in your home. Yeah, that makes sense. And I've done my part to add to that depletion by (finally) getting a second line for the modem. jisham@onramp.net : Joe Isham, Dallas TX : http://rampages.onramp.net/~jisham/ ------------------------------ From: Matthew G. Monsoor Subject: Results of Caller ID Cost Question Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 16:57:12 -0700 Organization: California State University Sacramento Hello All, The following are the results of my question back in March what others are paying for Caller ID! If not in notes only one submitter. ----------------------------- Results ------------------------------- Telco Name Number or Both (Sometimes Notes Supplied Name Only (Called Deluxe) Cincinnati Bell $6.50 $8.50 Submitter not 100% Sure. Bell Atlantic $6.50 $7.50 2 Submitters on this one. South Western Bell $6.50 Received $25 credit Incentive on First Bill. Bell South $6.00 ** $7.50* See Below! Ameritech $6.50 $9.00 Submitter received a $.50 CID Discount on Each Bill, but didn't know what this was. Sprint/United $7.00 $7.50 Submitter guessing on Deluxe CID charges. Southern Bell $5.00 $7.00 US West $6.50 NYNEX $6.50 Bell Canada $5.00 $7.00 (+1-519) * $3.50/mo for Automatic Blocking, (see next note) ** Includes Automatic Blocking of incomming calls if Caller has their outgoing CID blocked (ie: *67) Matthew G. Monsoor - monsoor@csus.edu - (916)278-6288 University Telecommunications, CSU Sacramento 6000 J. Street, Sacramento, California 95819-6091 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:35:28 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Downloadable NANP Information From Bellcore As of Friday 19 April, Bellcore has corrected their North American Numbering Plan webpages (http://www.bellcore.com/NANP). The formatting and "factual text" errors have now been cleaned up. Also, the annual NANP Area Code Update (also issued as a Bellcore IL - Information Letter) for January 1996 is also available via the Bellcore webpage, as a downloadable MS-Word 6.0 document. It is a bit dated, as we now know about the recent announcements for Ohio (440 splits from 216 and 937 splits from 513) and additional Caribbean NPAs, not to mention what we've learned since I attented the March 1996 INC meeting, as well as various INC/ICCF mailings some of us receive. The URL for this document is: http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/npa-doc.exe and must be saved to a local directory. When you double click on the filename npa-doc.exe in your own directory, npa-doc.doc will be extracted. Hopefully, Bellcore NANPA will make all future IL's regarding the NANP available this way, as well as traditional postal mail and/or individual fax. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: aerostar@ccia.com Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 01:56:00 EDT Subject: Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement In V16 #177, our Moderator wrote: > And did you note the item in the papers recently talking about how few > children these days are learning good penmanship. Children as young as six > or seven years old are very good typists at keyboards, but do very poorly > when asked to write with a pen or pencil. PAT: Like most of us, I have found it more convenient to produce a piece of correspondence on my computer rather than writing it out by hand. But there is always a time when a hand-written note would be more appropriate. It shows that _you yourself_ had written it and, hopefully, given thought to the readability and spelling. In other words, you took the time and effort to do something the hard way to show sincerity. But that has changed too. I saw an ad from a company that will take your handwriting and convert it to a font for your word processing program. Now your laser printer can churn out "hand-written" letters for you (spell/grammar checked, of course) just as easy as your regular correspondence. I'm sure that it would be easy to spot if you paid attention, at least for know. If I ever got something like that in the mail, I would respond with a really ugly font (one that resembles the numbers on the bottom of a check) and use the salutation "Dear Sir" just for spite. Eric Friedebach aerostar@ccia.com ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) Subject: Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 03:02:00 GMT tom@ssd.hcsc.com (Tom Horsley) wrote: [ ... text deleted ... ] > Why they don't even teach the elements of blacksmithing. I tell you > things are just going straight to hell ... Curiously enough, there are private horseshoeing schools now. In fact, I pass one frequently with a sign announcing it is their south campus. (I believe this is true, too, that they have at least two campuses.) Horseshoeing was, of course, one of the principal duties of blacksmiths. There is apparently an increasing demand for the skill both at horse racing tracks and for recreational riding. Many of the other blacksmith skills are now included in the function of machinists (as in machine shop). Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@baremetl.com ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 03:10:00 GMT Subject: Re: Internet Users Gather to Plan Sprint Class Action goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) wrote: > David Sternlight (david@sternlight.com) wrote: >> How do you tell if you're a bona fide business customer? >> Simple -- you're paying metered business rates for local phone >> service on the number you signed up with Sprint for Fridays are Free. > Not so simple. There are parts of the country where flat rates are > available even for business lines, you know. North Carolina, for > example. I don't believe there is anywhere in Southwestern Bell territory (Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas) where flat rate business service is not available, and where it is not the service used by the great majority of business customers. There are places in those states where measured service is not available at all. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@baremetl.com ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: Internet Users Gather to Plan Sprint Class Action Date: Sun, 21 Apr 96 21:13:38 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) David Sternlight writes: > It raises the question of clean hands. Better if only those who are bona > fide business customers in this program participate in any class action > suit. How do you tell if you're a bona fide business customer? > Simple -- you're paying metered business rates for local phone service on > the number you signed up with Sprint for Fridays are Free. Business rates, si. Metered? Perhaps not. Many communities, thankfully, still have non-measured business service tariffs, something that folks in the big cities often don't realize (just as people in smaller cities and towns can't understand why places like New York and Chicago have message unit service instead of flat rate). ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #191 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 22 15:40:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA14402; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:40:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:40:15 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604221940.PAA14402@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #192 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Apr 96 15:40:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 192 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (Steve Cogorno) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (Ron Schnell) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (Zev Rubenstein) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (Steve Forrette) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Modems and Digital Phone Lines (Bruce A. Pennypacker) Re: Modems and Digital Phone Lines (Tom Betz) Re: Modems and Digital Phone Lines (Steve Bunning) Re: Modems and Digital Phone Lines (James Van Meggelen) Re: Modems and Digital Phone Lines (Brian Wohlgemuth) Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance (Barton Fisher) Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance (David Miller) Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance (Bob Schwartz) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:31:24 PDT Stanley Cline said: > Someone commented to me a few days ago that when placing third-number > billed calls via AT&T, that there appeared to be no verification at > the number to which the call is being billed. In other words, AT&T is > completing calls without getting verification from someone at the > billing number. Bell Companies *never* call for verification on a Third Party Billing unless the call is originating from a payphone or a toll-restricted phone. This is standard practice. Suppose you are calling from your home phone and bill a call to my phone. Bell assumes that I will accept the charges, and places the call. When the bill comes, if I in fact, did *not* authorize the call, Bell will reverse the charges to *your* phone. Someone always has to pay. This isn't possible on a pay phone, so that necessitates a verbal authorization. If you want to prevent any calls from being billed to your line, ask your BOC to place Third Party Restriction on your line. (You can also add Collect Call restriction.) Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: ronnie@twitch.mit.edu (Ron Schnell) Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? Date: 22 Apr 1996 15:08:00 GMT Organization: MIT In article scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) writes: > When did LD carriers stop verifying third-number billings? This is > clearly an opportunity for fraud, since no PIN or other code is > required. (I assume if the third-number activity became excessive, that > the carrier would step in to do something, but still, not checking the > identity of the caller is a bit ridiculous.) They never have checked, unless you are calling from a payphone, or otherwise restricted phone. If you are calling from a normal phone, they believe they have recourse if the charges are later refused. Ron ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:39:56 -0500 From: zev@wireless.attmail.com (zev) Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? Stanley Cline wrote: > Someone commented to me a few days ago that when placing third-number > billed calls via AT&T, that there appeared to be no verification at > the number to which the call is being billed. In other words, AT&T is > completing calls without getting verification from someone at the > billing number." I believe that only bill to third (B23) calls made from pay phones are verified. Calls made from private numbers are usually not verified, since it is assumed that private residence phones are secure, and therefore if the B23 number denies all knowledge of the charges (DAKs), the phone company will charge the calling party phone. So, in Stanley's case, I presume the call was made from one of your premises (residence?) phones and billed to another similar phone. If you were to deny the charges on the B23 line, the charge would probably show up later on your first line (though if they are on the same account, the customer service rep would probably smell a rat). In the case of frauduelnt use, the amounts are pretty large, and the phone company will eventually investigate and prosecute, if necessary. Try the call again from a pay phone, and it should be denied. Zev Rubenstein zev@attmail.com Independent Telecommunications Consultant ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? Date: 22 Apr 1996 07:46:56 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , scline@usit.net says: > Someone commented to me a few days ago that when placing third-number > billed calls via AT&T, that there appeared to be no verification at > the number to which the call is being billed. In other words, AT&T is > completing calls without getting verification from someone at the > billing number. Try the same expriment from a payphone. I think you'll find that they are verified in that case. The reason they are not verified when calling from a non-payphone is that if the charges are disputed, they can always go back and bill the call to the line that originated the call. It need not be established that the owner of the originating line placed the call themselves. After all, that person is responsible for the use of their instruments, even if they let someone else use them and that person, unknowing to the line's owner, places fraudulent third-party calls. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 09:07:25 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? Stanley Cline wrote: > Someone commented to me a few days ago that when placing third-number > billed calls via AT&T, that there appeared to be no verification at > the number to which the call is being billed. In other words, AT&T is > completing calls without getting verification from someone at the > billing number. (snip) > Both BellSouth and AT&T, which both use "automated" operator-call > processing systems, completed my test third-number calls ("billed" to my > other line, which is not collect- or third-number-restricted) WITHOUT > calling the other line for verification. The calls went through! > When did LD carriers stop verifying third-number billings? > (I assume if the third-number activity became excessive, that > the carrier would step in to do something, but still, not checking the > identity of the caller is a bit ridiculous.) I have various types of calling cards with Bell and AT&T, as well as an account (card-type) with MCI; I have also at times had accounts with (GTE) Sprint and US Telecom (prior to US Sprint), the old ITT Longer Distance (many years before "Metromedia" or LDDS), and even Allnet (long prior to Frontier). I've had *no* need to place Third Party calls billed back to my home number since I've always had calling cards. At one time, I wasn't Third-Party bill-back restricted if there were an emergency where a relative needed to make a toll call and only had my number for billing purposes. And I myself always used to think that the Telco operator called the Third Party to accept billing verification. NOT ALWAYS SO! A few years back, I had a two-minute daytime call billed to my number Third-Party, via AT&T. I know I wasn't home at the time to accept billing authorization, so I called up Bell to complain. I was referred to AT&T (800-222-0300) to get a credit. AT&T said they would credit me and initiate an "investigation". The originating number was from a Centrex (not PBX) in the New Orleans area, at a government/military location. I was told that maybe the calling person quoted the third (billing) number incorrectly, or the operator had keyed the number incorrectly. AT&T told me that many local telcos offer collect and/or Third-Party blocking, and to check with South Central Bell on those features. I am now Third-Party restricted (at *no* additional monthly fee). I can still make outgoing calls which I can bill (or attempt to bill) to a Third-Party, but via local (traditional) telcos, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, and some "legitimate" or "honest" carriers, I am in the national database as not to bill Third Party. (This database is usually *not* honored by such companies as ITA, Integretel, etc, as many of us already know). The service-rep at Bell even told me that "in the environment" we are in today, many carriers do *not* participate in this database. Both Bell and AT&T Operators and supervisors and Business Office reps and their supervisors told me that if: - the *originating* line has no special billing restrictions (i.e. not calling from a payphone, PBX, Hotel/Motel/Hospital/Dorm room); - the *called* number is not restricted; - and the database check (in real time) shows that the *third* (billed) party doesn't have any real restrictions (coin, PBX, etc) or requested third party bill-back restrictions, then the call is placed and billed. This procedure might be more tightly restricted in other locations or circumstances. If you are calling *from* a payphone or other "real" restricted line (PBX, Hotel/Motel/Hospital/Drom room), and the called and third (billed) party doesn't have "real" or "requested" restrictions, then the operator is to call the third (billed) party to get billing authorization. If the third party isn't home, then the call cannot be continued. I've also been told by Bell and AT&T that if a third party disputes billing, then they can *try* to eventually bill the calling or called party for the call. Since they might not be able to effectively bill a payphone or restricted PBX extension, then that's why they have to get "realtime" authorization from the third (billed) party if the calling party is calling from a Payphone or PBX. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ From: Bruce A. Pennypacker Subject: Re: Modems and Digital Phone Lines Date: 22 Apr 1996 17:29:54 GMT Organization: Stylus Products Group, Artisoft Inc. In article telecom16.187.5@massis.lcs.mit.edu, Brad Kenney said: > Anything anyone out there can tell me about using a modem on a digital > phone line would be very helpful. I have connected a 14.4 modem to > the line and plugged a phone into the modem. While the modem was not > able to pick up the line, the phone, connected throught that modem > was. I have established that the modem is working. If it's a regular analog modem then you're out of luck. The digital telephone line and phone work fine because they're both digital. But you can't simply connect digital and analog equipment together and hope it will work. You'll need some sort of analog to digital converter for the modem to work. Bruce Pennypacker | Stylus Innovation | Phone: +1 617 621-9545 Resident TAPI guru | Division of Artisoft | Fax: +1 617 621-7862 brucep@stylus.com | 201 Broadway | http://www.stylus.com | Cambridge, MA 02139 | sales: sales@stylus.com ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Modems and Digital Phone Lines Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 11:24:51 -0400 Brad Kenney wrote: > Anything anyone out there can tell me about using a modem on a digital > phone line would be very helpful. Hello Direct! sells a couple of nice boxes for doing just that. They have a web site at http://www.hello-direct.com - or call them at 1-800-444-3556. My boss uses a Konexx DataDapter -- -- but beware; I had to send it to the manufacturer for an upgrade to support his high-current modem. Konexx did the mod for free, but it took more than a week. Konexx makes another model for high-current modems, but HD! doesn't carry it. HD! just added a more compact (and cheaper) device to their catalog that does the same thing, but it doesn't seem to be listed on their web page. -- Tom Betz - (914) 375-1510 -- tbetz@pobox.com | tbetz@panix.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An easy way to remember the Hello Direct phone number is to think of it as 800-HI-HELLO. They do have a very good catalog; you may want call and obtain a copy. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:14:01 -0300 From: Steve Bunning Subject: Re: Modems and Digital Phone Lines Brad Kenney wrote: > Anything anyone out there can tell me about using a modem on a digital > phone line would be very helpful. I have connected a 14.4 modem to > the line and plugged a phone into the modem. While the modem was not > able to pick up the line, the phone, connected throught that modem > was. I have established that the modem is working. There is no easy way to connect an analog modem to a digital phone line directly. There are some companies who make equipment that allow analog modems to connect to the phone itself. This equipment has an RJ-11 jack for the modem and connects into the handset jack of the phone. Try Konexx at www.konexx.com (800-275-6354) or Hello Direct at www.hello-direct.com (800-444-3556). Steve Bunning | ACE*COMM | 301 258-9850 (voice) Product Manager | 209 Perry Parkway | 301 921-0434 (fax) TEL*COMM Division| Gaithersburg, MD USA 20877 | bunning@acec.com "CDRs collected and managed in real-time." ------------------------------ From: James Van Meggelen Subject: Re: Modems and Digital Phone Lines Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:11:02 -0700 Organization: ionsys.com Brad Kenney wrote: > Anything anyone out there can tell me about using a modem on a digital > phone line would be very helpful. I have connected a 14.4 modem to > the line and plugged a phone into the modem. While the modem was not > able to pick up the line, the phone, connected throught that modem > was. I have established that the modem is working. A modem is an analog device. It is impossible for a modem to communicate over a digital line. Since many modems pass the connection through to the "phone" jack, it is conceivable that a digital set plugged into the modem will work. A modem cannot work in a digital line, in fact, many PCMCIA type modems get "cooked" in digital jacks in hotel rooms. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 9:40:32 -0400 From: Brian Wohlgemuth Subject: Re: Modems and Digital Phone Lines > Anything anyone out there can tell me about using a modem on a digital > phone line would be very helpful. What you will need to do is purchase an Analog Terminal Adapter to work on your current phone system. That will allow you to plug in a modem into the digital line of your KSU. If you are planning to get an additional line for the modem in the future, I would suggest just getting it now and having a jack installed that is not wired into your KSU. That way you have an additional line now available to use your modem on and you don't have the expense of purchasing a ATA. ------------------------------ From: bfisher@mail.calypso.com (Barton Fisher) Subject: Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 02:20:23 GMT Organization: HTP Net, Inc. 516-757-2599 I currently purchase LD at .0625 cpm on T-1 on a month to month agreement -- if interested I can send you details. Bart ------------------------------ From: davem@whidbey.net (David Miller) Subject: Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance Date: 22 Apr 1996 02:20:38 GMT Organization: Whidbey Internet Services Reply-To: davem@whidbey.net In message - Wed, 17 Apr 1996 11:28:19 EDTArnold Brod writes: > On April 16th John Connors writes: >> In the most recent issue of {Computer Telephony} magazine, there is an >> article about long distance pricing. The author indicates that >> carriers are making deals for as low as 6c/minute. >> Has anyone heard of or seen a deal that comes even close to this? > Dedicated or T1 (24 separate lines) service is where prices can get > fairly low. A physical dedicated line between a place of business and > the LD carriers point of presence is established. This bypasses the > local Bell carrier. Though the price breaks are substantial in this > type of situation, so are the requirements. The first is that usage > has to be a minimum of $5000 per month preferrably out of one > location. This requirement is one of economics for the business not > the carrier. There is also the setup costs and monthly loop charges. It is not even necessary to do $5k/month for a T-1 access to be cost effective. My employer does about $2500 per month in total LD, but found a T-1 which costs us $1100 per month to be cost effective. Read on. We are located in a SMALL town over 65 miles from Seattle and also in GTE territory. GTE charges one of the highest fees for us to connect to an alternate LD carrier. Also, our per trunk cost is nearly $50/month with taxes. The lowest dialup rates we could get were .10 in state and .125 out of state. We also did about $400 month of long distance into the Seattle area. We Installed a T-1 to Realcom, alias MFS now, in Seattle last year. We now pay .099 for all long distance and Seattle area calls are local to us. I also route all 800 outgoing over the T-1. So it looks this way: Savings on long distance from lower rates $400 Savings on no charges for Seattle calls $500 Saving from dropping 8 local trunks $400 ____ Total savings $1300 Less cost of T-1 1100 ____ Net savings from T-1 $200 I could tell horror stories about MFS/Realcom and their total lack of followup on other promises and features, but I'll save that for another post. The T-1 itself has proved satisfactory and cost effective for us in all respects. Regards, Dave Miller Firefighter, EMT-IV Marysville, WA USA davem@whidbey.net ------------------------------ From: Bob@BCI.NBN.com (Bob Schwartz) Subject: Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 18:11:05 +1200 Organization: BCI John, I would like to confirm for you that a .06/minute is a rate paid by some companies for domestic long distance. Not literally six cents but a bit more or a bit LESS. As a consultant I review bills for some large users with negotiated agreements. I review them for compliance with the contracted rates. My company also negotiates customized contracts. A major user is a desirable customer for a carrier (or a LEC). So desirable that it might be wothwhile to provide them with a rate near cost. Six cents allows all of the hard costs to be recovered with a bit left over. Comments on other replies: You do NOT need a reseller to get this rate. This is not a rate available to carriers only. This rate will never be seen on a residential account, it requires LOTS of minutes. Bob Schwartz Bob@BCI.NBN.com Bill Correctors, Inc. (415)488-9000 Separating the phone line from the bottom line. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #192 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 22 17:02:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA23921; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 17:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 17:02:13 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604222102.RAA23921@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #193 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Apr 96 17:02:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 193 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: MCI's New Offer (Sudhir Rao) Re: MCI's New Offer (Jatinder Hayer) Re: MCI's New Offer (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Advisor Flex References Wanted (Greg Abbott) Re: Advisor Flex References Wanted (Barry Margolius) Re: Advisor Flex References Wanted (Mark Steiger) Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone (Ed Ellers) Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone (Ham Radio) (Steve Bagdon) Re: Bell Atlantic, Nynex Merger? (Jay Kaplowitz) Re: Regional Bell Company Mergers? (Barry Margolin) The Computer Job Hotline (kenmil@inlink.com) Least Cost Switching (Jack Smies) US West/Continental (Sabine Bernede) Looking to Add Telecom Links to Our Site (Andy Smith) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sudhir Rao Subject: Re: MCI's New Offer Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 09:14:01 -0700 Organization: Synopsys Inc. Here's MCI's email response to the mail I sent them asking for an explanation: From for.home.services@MCI.com Thu Apr 18 12:16:34 1996 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:20:59 -0600 X-Sender: iot01694@inetmail.dna.mci.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: sudhir@synopsys.com Subject: MCI Rate Information^ Thank you for contacting MCI Internet Customer Relations regarding rate information associated with your calls to India. Upon investigation of your situation, we have been unable to locate any promotional offering for $.38 per minute when calling to India. MCI's best rate for directly dialed calls to India is the promotion you are currently participating in. This promotion offers a special bonus discounted rate to all countries MCI offers service to ($.82 on all direct dial calls to India), 24 hours per day, seven days per week AND 50% off all domestic direct dial rates for your first three invoices using MCI. MCI takes pride in all communications with its customers and prospects. MCI representatives are trained to explain the details of MCI long distance service accurately. Please accept our sincere apologies for any miscommunication that occurred. Once again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to address your concerns. While MCI truly regrets your frustration, we cannot offer the per minute rate you request. Sincerely, MCI Internet Customer Relations ------------------------------------------------ Sudhir Rao 700A East Middlefield Road, A.2.2 415-694-1515 Mountainview CA 94043. Fax: 415-694-1703 email: sudhir@synopsys.com http://members.tripod.com/~Sudhir/ ------------------------------ From: Jatinder Hayer Subject: Re: MCI's New Offer Date: 22 Apr 1996 19:09:09 GMT Organization: Bellcore (Bell Communications Research Ltd.) Sudhir Rao wrote: > On the night of April 15, I got a call from MCI and they made a very > good offer. They asked me which country I call most often, and what I > pay per minute now. I told them I pay 73.5 cents/min to India which I > call often. The rep said they would offer me 38 cents/min to India, 24 > hours, 7 days a week and this rate would be effective forever. I asked > three times to verify that rate of thirty eight cents a minute and > signed on. > I forgot to ask what the program was called and when it would be > effective. I changed to MCI with my local carrier and then rechecked > with MCI customer service. They said I had MCI World Savings which is > limited to three billing periods and the rate during this period is 83 > cents a minute to India. Also, I would have to record the numbers I > call, with them, in advance. > I'm sure other people must have got a similar offer made to them. So > can you let me know if the offer was genuine or a hoax. I have no way > of checking with MCI except calling service and they certainly haven't > heard of anything like it. I had a somewhat similar experience with AT&T. Couple of weeks ago, they called me and offered me a rate of nine cents/min to Canada and ten cents/min within U.S.A., 24 hrs, seven days a week for next six months. I asked at least three times to verify if there were any time restrictions. After confirming, I joined the program. After a week, I called the customer service just to confirm once more and I was told that the nine cents/min rate to Canada is only valid on weekends and ten cents/min within U.S.A is only from 7 PM to 7 AM weekdays and weekends (similar to Sprint's plan). Interestingly enough, later that day I received one of those courtesy calls from AT&T marketing to review my calling plan. She told me once again that I was enrolled for nine cents/min to Canada 24hrs, seven days. When I told her what I found from the customer service she quickly finished the call indicating that customer service people have the right information. So it seems marketing and customer service people don't share the same information. They entice you with an attractive offer but don't follow it through. I am glad I called to confirm with customer service otherwise I would have made lot of calls at expensive times. One thing I learned from Sprint's Free Friday fiasco is to be very cautious, knowing that the phone companies will go to any extent to get your business, even lying. Jatinder Hayer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 10:54:00 EDT From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: MCI's New Offer Organization: Excelsior Computer Services In article you write: > On the night of April 15, I got a call from MCI and they made a very > good offer. They asked me which country I call most often, and what I > pay per minute now. I told them I pay 73.5 cents/min to India which I > call often. The rep said they would offer me 38 cents/min to India, 24 > hours, 7 days a week and this rate would be effective forever. I asked > three times to verify that rate of thirty eight cents a minute and > signed on. Here we see the real problem with what Sprint has done by refusing to honor their Free Friday program as promised. I also asked (twice, literally, but not three times) if Sprint could change the plan before a year, and was told they could not. If Sprint can, in spite of this, change the plan, anyone can, and every telecom company suffers. Joel (joel@exc.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In general, it is a wise idea to not trust or take at face value what you hear from telemarketers for the various carriers. And as we have seen in Sprint's case at least, even having it in writing often does not matter. They'll pretty much make things up as they go along, and unless you are in a position to make them follow their contracts -- verbal or otherwise -- there is not a lot you can do. Has anyone yet gotten Robin Loyed of Sprint to accept telephone calls or return messages left at 214-405-5404? ... I am beginning to think it is just a 'phone name'; a name they put on a voicemail box to buffer the calls they knew they were sure to get. I cannot stress strongly enough at this point that Sprint customers -- especially those affected by the Free Friday fraud -- should **suspend all payments** Sprint claims are due. Instruct your accounts payable people to put a total freeze on payments to Sprint for any reason until they become responsive to requests for information on exactly how/if they intend to honor their contractual obligations, etc. You have no lawful obligation to pay invoices in dispute until after they have been resolved. If they try to harass you and claim there is no dispute, then you take it to the Federal Trade Commission. Resolution of the dispute will only be possible when Robin Loyed speaks with you and answers your questions. Naturally, you will need to have Loyed send you copies of Sprint's Articles of Incorporation, their license to do business in your state, a printed copy of the tariff they filed with the FCC relative to the class of service which you are using, etc. If Loyed cannot or will not supply those printed documents, including the names/addresses of the officers of the Corporation and its federal and state tax identification numbers, then so far as you are concerned, they have no legal authority to function in your community. Your accounting system requires that you have tax ID numbers on file. Obviously at this point, what they say on the telephone means nothing. Get it all in writing. If a collection agency should call, politely inform them that it is *in dispute* and being resolved directly with Sprint. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:40:25 -0500 From: Greg Abbott Subject: Re: Advisor Flex References Wanted Jon Zerden wrote: > Does anyone know the difference between the Gold Advisor Flex, and the > regular advisor pager? Also has anyone seen the tests of the tenor? The difference is size and functionality. The new one is much more modern looking and just a little (very little) bit smaller. In my opinion, the Gold Advisor Flex is not as well designed or as functional as the regular old advisor. I've carried the old style for about six years and love it. I have a Gold on trial on the new paging system my carrier (Ameritech) has installed and I've got to say, I don't like it. The system is fine, I've got great coverage and the system performs very well. It's just the pager that I don't like. The primary problems are that it must be removed from the holster to read it and the read button is in a awkward location which has caused me to drop it several times when attempting to read my messages. Other minor problems include the shape, being streamlined, it's hard to hold onto with one hand (you've got to use both hands to really be able to use the thing at all) and the tone selection has eliminated all but one of the original tones. The new tones sound like some kids toy rather than a professional pager ... they're awful! Ameritech has told me that they only intend to stock this one model of alpha pager. I really hate to see them drop the old style (which I imagine Motorla is dropping in favor of the new design/system requirements); it's proven itself time and time again. If this is the best my carrier will be able to offer, I may recommend that we switch to a different carrier who will use the old style advisor. 99999 11 11 INTERNET: GABBOTT@uiuc.edu GREG ABBOTT 9 9 1 1 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/gabbott 9-1-1 COORDINATOR 99999 == 1 == 1 COMPUSERVE: 76046,3107 KB9NBH 9 1 1 VOICE: 217/333-9889 METCAD 9 1 1 FAX: 217/384-7003 1905 E. MAIN ST. 9 111 111 PAGER: 800/222-6651 PIN #9541 URBANA, IL 61801 ------------------------------ From: bfm@pobox.com (Barry Margolius, NYC) Subject: Re: Advisor Flex References Wanted Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:24:26 GMT Jon Zerden wrote: > Does anyone know the difference between the Gold Advisor Flex, and the > regular advisor pager? Also has anyone seen the tests of the tenor? First of all the Advisor Gold Flex uses the flex paging protocol. This protocol is not quite universally available. As to the pager itself, it is quite a bit smaller than the Advisor; it has four lines of smallish text (I can read it without my reading glasses only in good light); it automatically senses when it needs backlighting. I also think that flex allows for better battery life, but I'm not sure on this one. The Advisor Gold's size makes it a better choice for me. There's also an Advisor Pro model which is even smaller than the gold, but has only two shor lines of text. It's my second choice, with the larger full sized advisor my third choice -- I wear mine all the time, so I don't like bulky pagers. Barry F Margolius, New York City bfm@pobox.com For PGP Key, finger bfm@panix.com ------------------------------ From: stud@parka.winternet.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: Re: Advisor Flex References Wanted Date: 22 Apr 96 23:58:42 GMT Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Jon Zerden writes: > Does anyone know the difference between the Gold Advisor Flex, and the > regular advisor pager? Also has anyone seen the tests of the tenor? I know one of the major differences is that the Gold Advisor uses Flex protocol for reception of pages. This makes it much less prone to interfearance problems and also makes the battery last 3-4 times as long. It also has a much larger message capacity. They explain the Flex protocol and all about the advisor Gold on the motorola homepage. http://www.motorola.com Mark Steiger stud@winternet.com http://www.winternet.com/~stud Key Fingerprint = 9F DE FD 90 CB 4C DF 9A C5 4A 41 63 3C 6E 33 83 Finger me for my PGP key and other fun stuff. ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone Date: Sun, 21 Apr 96 21:07:56 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) John Cropper writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here you can dial the seven digit > number for the police if you know the number. On the couple of > occassions I wanted to report something to the Skokie Police when > I was out walking around with my cell phone, I just dialed them > on 847-982-5900. PAT] You can in the Louisville, Kentucky, area too. In fact some suburban cities encourage you to do so to reach their police dispatchers directly, since 911 in Jefferson County is a sick joke. (Our PSAP only forwards calls to the dispatch centers of the appropriate agency, so if you need Louisville police assistance all they do is forward it to LPD. This will be fixed in a few years, unfortunately with a mandatory per-line fee rather than through general tax revenue.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 12:08:02 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: 911 From a Cellular Phone (Ham Radio) Cellular 911 in Tallahasse, Fl used to be handled rather oddly, from what I remember, in the late 80's. The 911 call was patched through to the general number, rather then communiations. Every call had to go through the general for some reason. I was so used to dialing 911 from a land-line, and have someone answer '911 - do you have an emergency?'. The first time I called from a cellular (back when celluar was new) I was suprised when I simply heard the 'Tallahassee PD, how may I help you?'. After the second call I knew to immediately ask for 'communcations', identify myself as a cellular user, then announce my priority and problem 'non-life threatening, lights out in rush hour, corner of Tennessee and US-27', that sort of thing. It seems that as long as you speak clearly and intelligently, they would listen. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net Katharine aNd Steve Bagdon (KNS) http://www.rust.net/~bagdon ------------------------------ From: Jay Kaplowitz Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic, Nynex Merger? Organization: Long Island Information, Inc. 516-INTERNET Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 17:47:27 GMT The deed is done. NYNEX is history, at least as a stand-alone company. The new Bell Atlantic will be the second largest telecom company in the country and the fourth largest in the world. The merger model emerges from the Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile cellular joint venture. Costs were cut. New services were introduced. And according to Ray Smith, Bell Atlantic chairman, the new company is now leading the industry in every category (probably including hold times to customer service!). Smith will be the first chairman; he pledged, at a just concluded press conference, that there would be dramatic improvements in the quality of customer service in New York; NYNEX has paid some hefty fines because of service weakspots. Smith and NYNEX Chairman Ivan Seidenberg both emphasized growth. They talked about the huge long distance business within their combined region (Seidenberg estimated it at $20 billion). Smith said that, heretofore, the long distance companies had enjoyed a cozy cartel when it came to pricing and said that the presence of Bell Atlantic in the market will change that quickly. It will be interesting to see how the NYNEX and Bell Atlantic cultures come together. Interestingly, they both use a company called Senn-Delaney to help change their cultures. This was reportedly an issue in the aborted deal between Bell Atlantic and TCI. Smith said he was glad that deal fell through and said that this was a done deal. Smith and Seidenberg talked about the merger as a "natural" because of the companies' complementary markets and values. Smith said that the idea for the merger first emerged in the late 1980s when he and Seidenberg's predecessor, Bill Ferguson, met to talk about marketplace similarities. One growth area emphasized by Smith: Internet business. If I remember the statistic correctly, something like 40% of the Internet users in the country reside in the new companies' home turf. Smith talked about singificant growth in ISDN. Smith and Seidenberg said that the companies remained committed to video and that they would begin to deploy wireless video services later this year. They talked about growth, but they also acknowledged that the new company would have 3,000 less positions than the current ones will have after existing force reduction programs are completed. None of the reductions are expected to involve union-represented craft employees. One reporter asked Seidenberg to comment on reported opposition to the deal from AT&T and MCI. Said Seidenberg: That's the best evidence that the deal will foster competition. Press releases and background documents were available on the Bell Atlantic home page (http://www.bell-atl.com). They are supposed to be available on the NYNEX home page (http://www.nynex.com) but I didn't find them there when I looked. ------------------------------ From: barmar@tools.bbnplanet.com (Barry Margolin) Subject: Re: Regional Bell Company Mergers? Date: 22 Apr 1996 14:34:47 -0400 Organization: BBN Planet Corp., Cambridge, MA In article , Lisa wrote: > Maybe I'm missing something, but if the companies merge together, get > permission to carry long distance, then what was the point of breaking > them up (at considerable expense to us) in the first place? Whether or not you agree with the original breakup, it's a clear fact that the telecommunications industry today is far different from what it was at the time. There's now considerable competition in long distance, and competition in local access has been emerging slowly. So even if all the Baby Bells were to recombine (into a "Big Baby"?) they would hardly be the only players. In particular, the new Telecommunications Act opens up the local telephone market to cable and long distance companies. And, as Pat already mentioned, the main intent of the original breakup was to prevent the subsidy of local access charges from the long distance fees. I think the Telecommunications Act may still require that if a company provides both types of services that it account for them in such a way that they prevent such subsidies. Barry Margolin barmar@bbnplanet.com BBN PlaNET Corporation, Cambridge, MA Phone (617) 873-3126 - Fax (617) 873-6351 ------------------------------ From: kenmil@inlink.com (Dargrafix) Subject: The Computer Job Hotline Date: 22 Apr 1996 03:09:19 GMT Organization: Inlink Looking for a job? Check out http://www.inlink.com/~kenmil ------------------------------ From: jsmies@xs4all.nl (Jack Smies) Subject: Least Cost Switching Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 08:16:21 GMT Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses Reply-To: jsmies@xs4all.nl Hi, We are a reseller working with two operators. (In the future hopefully more) We would like to route our trafic to the operator who is offering the lowest tarif to a certain region. We envision this by having a table with telephone numbers determining which operator the trafic should handle. Is this possible, and if so what kind of equipment would we need for that? TIA, Jack ------------------------------ From: Sabine Bernede Subject: US West/Continental Date: 22 Apr 1996 10:31:31 GMT Organization: Promethee I am a French student and researcher in telecoms issues (politics and economics in particular). I am working on the US West/Continental Cablevision deal, but little information is available on their sites and in telecoms links available. Would anyone know of a cyber place where I could find relevant information about this deal? Thanks in advance, Loren (via Sabine's address).- ------------------------------ From: aherncorp@aol.com (AhernCorp) Subject: Looking to Add Telecom Links to Our Site Date: 22 Apr 1996 12:52:10 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: aherncorp@aol.com (AhernCorp) Ahern would also like to add some more telecommunications related links to our site. Please e-mail any suggestions (URLS) to AhernCorp@aol.com. Ahern Communications site contains pictures, prices and descriptions of many new telecommunications products as well as links to other telecom sites. Ahern's URL: http://members.aol.com/AhernCorp/ Andy Smith, Director of Marketing Ahern Communications Corporation http://members.aol.com/AhernCorp/ 800-451-5067/Fax 617-328-9070 Business Communications Experts ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #193 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 22 19:04:12 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA07425; Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:04:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:04:12 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604222304.TAA07425@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #194 TELECOM Digest Mon, 22 Apr 96 19:04:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 194 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Three Year Old Boy Calls 911, Saves Mother's Life (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: NYNEX - Deceptive Marketing? (Zev Rubenstein) Re: Anyone Using InternetMCI For Personal Dialup Access? (Barry Mishkind) Re: Anyone Using InternetMCI For Personal Dialup Access? (Andrew Diestel) Re: Number of Phone Lines and Area Code Splits (Jim Cantrell) Re: Number of Phone Lines and Area Code Splits (Judith Oppenheimer) Re: BellAtlantic/Nynex Merger (Derek J. Tarcza) No More 10-ATT-0 (Ryan Welty) Pay-per-use Call Return Fee (Mark Brader) Software Jobs Offered: DSP, C, Real Time - San Jose (humres@arraycomm.com) Don't Change the PIC Yourself! (Jason Fetterolf) Questions About the ex-809 Area Code (David Esan) Re: 408 (and 510, 209) to be Split (Linc Madison) Converting FOCC Words/min1 to Cellular Telephone Number (Steve Bagdon) Re: Caller I.D. Blocking Question (Lynne Gregg) Re: Last Laugh! NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong (Gordon Burditt) Re: Last Laugh! NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong (John Mark) Last Laugh! Ohio Community Responds to Offensive Number) (Eric Friedebach) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 17:30:25 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Three Year Old Boy Calls 911, Saves Mother's Life When an intruder began stabbing his mother last Wednesday, three year old Rodney Cobbins II knew exactly what to do. He called 911 on the phone, something he had learned how to do only two days earlier. "There is no doubt he saved his mother's life and probably his own as well," said Chicago Area 1 police detective Frank Valadez. Lakisha Turley, 19, an office manager and mother of Rodney was stabbed repeatedly in the face, arms and hands with a knife in the attack on her at her home. A recording of the call to 911 showed a very frantic little boy telling 911 operators, "Come and help my mother! A bad man is trying to kill her!" Operators at the 911 center told the boy not to hang up the phone; to leave it off the hook and run away. They then listened to the attack in the apartment in the 6500 block of South Stewart Street in Chicago. Detective Valadez said, "911 dispatchers were able to hear and tape record what was going on ... and they could even hear the sirens of squad cars as they arrived. We know the mother heard them also, and so did her attacker who became panicky and tried to leave. The next thing he knows, officers were coming in through the front and back doors. The alleged attacker was arrested." Ms. Turley was taken to Cook County Hospital, where her facial wounds alone required more than one hundred stitches. Little Rodney is staying with his father, Rodney Cobbins of Grand Rapids, Michigan while his mother recovers. His father mentioned that the child had learned about 911 and how to use the phone to call police just two days prior. The suspect, Darin Vernon, 26, who Detective Valadez said is on probation for battery and drug charges, has additionally been charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault. Such a smart and brave little guy! PAT ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:40:41 -0500 From: zev@wireless.attmail.com (zev) Subject: RE: NYNEX - Deceptive Marketing? On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, David Price wrote: > I received a call today from NYNEX and want to confirm if I heard > about their new program correctly. The women on the phone informed me > that NYNEX has a new program where they will combine your LD onto the > local bill. Was I interested? OH I says, you mean with any carrier. > NO she says, only with our carrier. The name of our carrier is: "Long > Distance Carrier". I said no thank and hung up. Two seconds later it > hits me. > How many people will never ask, if it means they have to switch LD > companies and how many of those who are switched will look at their > bill, see "Long Distance Carrier" on it with charges below it and > never realize that it is not their original LD company. I ran this past someone at AT&T, and got the following response: As for the alleged NYNEX slamming, I think your forum participant was hoodwinked by some deceptive marketing tactics. Rather than NYNEX, it was most likely another IXC attempting to slam the customer. Here's why it couldn't have really been NYNEX: 1. NYNEX is not yet allowed to offer an interLATA toll service. (They have nothing to slam to/with) 2. NYNEX's intraLATA toll is already billed along with the customers' local service. 3. To date, none of the NYNEX states have instituted intraLATA toll presubscription. Therefore, the only intraLATA PIC'd service that can appear on a NYNEX bill is the only one available to the customer -- NYNEX's. Here's a translation of some of the jargon: PIC'd is from Primary Interexchange Carrier (PIC), which is your selected default Long Distance carrier. You "presubscribe" to your PIC when you sign up for service. This term turns the noun in to an adjective. Slamming is the deceptive practice of changing someone's PIC without their knowledge, either by changing it without any contact at all or by making deceptive phone calls like the one noted by David. Zev Rubenstein zev@attmail.com Independent Telecommunications Consultant ------------------------------ From: Barry Mishkind Subject: Re: Anyone Using InternetMCI For Personal Dialup Access? Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 10:05:36 -0700 Organization: The Eclectic Engineer Henry Mensch wrote: > I signed up with InternetMCI for dialup ppp access for my powerbook, > and have been unable to get timely support from them ... their > documentation suggests I write to support@mci.com or call a toll- > free number (that I don't have with me at the moment), and nobody > answers the e-mail, and the phone call leaves me on hold forever. > Are folks getting support from InternetMCI through other means? I'd > like to know. networkmci has among the most abominable bounce messages I've ever seen. They provide no information at all on why messages bounce. In fact, after receiving 50 of them in the past five days from a mailing list (while on the road at NAB), they just stopped with no reason. Nothing has been changed. Postmaster@networkmci.com DOES NOT REPLY. Which is the same pattern that used to apply to MCIMAIL. (At least mcimail did respond this time "It isn't us".... but better than silence). Based on their service level so far, I wouldn't touch 'em. Barry Mishkind Tucson, AZ http://www.broadcast.net/~barry ------------------------------ From: adiestel@solar.sky.net (Andrew Diestel) Subject: Re: Anyone Using InternetMCI For Personal Dialup Access? Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 14:46:57 GMT Organization: SkyNET Online Henry Mensch wrote: > I signed up with InternetMCI for dialup ppp access for my powerbook, > and have been unable to get timely support from them ... their > documentation suggests I write to support@mci.com or call a toll- > free number (that I don't have with me at the moment), and nobody > answers the e-mail, and the phone call leaves me on hold forever. > Are folks getting support from InternetMCI through other means? I'd > like to know. I too had a hard time, so I cancelled. Then I continued to get billed for three or four months after. They did eventually credit the account though. I got a local internet provider; got an 800 number pointed to it for when I travel. Costs a lot less than MCI Internet. $20.00 unlimited PPP or SLIP access, Email; Newsfeed, etc. I don't need the fancy features MCI "includes". adiestel@sky.net 800DIESTEL ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 09:33:30 -0700 From: Jim Cantrell Subject: Re: Number of Phone Lines and Area Code Splits Linc Madison wrote: > Florida: 3.8 million total > No. Carolina: 1.4 million total > Now, a little simple math indicates that each area code has a capacity > of something over seven million numbers, so how is it that California has > 13 area codes (soon to double), Florida is in the process of expanding > from four to eight, and North Carolina just went from two to three? I have six DID lines that use up 51 numbers and 99 cell phone numbers which probably average less than a single line to support. For how many lines does a T1 count? DS3? It's no surprise that the quantity of telephone numbers exceeds the quantity of lines; the whole system relies on the fact that the number of users on line at any one time is a fraction of the total. There are some rules of thumb for this, I just don't recall what they are. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If ten percent of the subscribers are on the line at the same time, things are quite busy. The common equipment in most telephone exchanges maxes out with about fifteen percent of the users making calls at once. It is far more common to have five or six percent of the subscribers making calls at any given time, and during slow overnight periods, possibly only one or two percent of the subscribers making calls. PAT] ------------------------------ From: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) Subject: Re: Number of Phone Lines and Area Code Splits Date: 22 Apr 1996 16:51:51 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: callbrand@aol.com (CallBrand) > And of course if you call to discuss this with the 'reporter' who wrote > it ... Pat makes a good point here. When Reuters first broke the 888 auction story, I called the reporter. A brief conversation helped to clarify much about what the article did, and did not, say. It also doesn't hurt that the reporter now has an additional source, so that hopefully future articles will be more accurate, etc. Just my two cents. Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand A leading source of information on 800 issues. CallBrand@aol.com, 1 800 The Expert, (ph) 212 684-7210, (fx) 212 684-2714 http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/ ------------------------------ From: Derek J. Tarcza Subject: Re: BellAtlantic/Nynex Merger Date: 22 Apr 1996 19:36:52 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Any specifics for the new merger? Does anyone know how this will effect me as an existing Bel-Atl. Customer? I don't expect service to go down; at least I hope not. I've already had enough problems with the current BA. Derek J. Tarcza DerekJ609@worldnet.att.net Lawrenceville, NJ (609) 895-0234 ------------------------------ From: weltyrc@mail.auburn.edu (Ryan Welty - KR4OQ) Subject: No More 10-ATT-0 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 19:46:46 GMT Organization: Auburn University College of Architecture, Design, & Construction Just got my AT&T bill, and it says now to dial calling card calls only by dialing 1 800 CALL ATT. It was my understanding that the 10 + three digits LD carrier codes were to be replaced with 101 + four digits. Is this not so? Can someone post a list of the new four digit codes? You see, I dial 10ATT0 for my calling card calls (often, from payphones as I have a pager) and I'd like to keep the digits I have to dial to a minimum. Best Regards, Ryan "RC" Welty weltyrc@mail.auburn.edu WEGL Chief Engineer 04 Building Science ------------------------------ From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Pay-per-use Call Return Fee Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 21:05:34 GMT Ron Elkayam (relkay01@fiu.edu) writes: > You could try hitting *69. Even if you're not subscribed to the > service (Call Return), the feature will work and you'll pay on a > per-use basis. > I heard that in Canada, you also pay a per-usage fee, but they set up a > limit (which is basically the flat monthly rate) after which all usage > of the feature is free. In Bell Canada territory (which is not all of Canada), the monthly limit on pay-per-use Call Return is double the flat monthly rate, so there is still some attraction to paying the flat rate if you use the feature often. From memory, the numbers are 50 cents, $6/month, and $3/month, in Canadian dollars, plus tax (15% here in Ontario). Mark Brader, msb@sq.com, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto ------------------------------ From: Subject: Software Jobs Available: DSP, C, Real-Time in San Jose Organization: ArrayComm, Inc., Santa Clara, CA Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 21:30:12 GMT ArrayComm, in San Jose, California, is developing base station technology for wireless communications systems based on state-of-the-art signal processing techniques. In particular, we build boards packed with DSPs that process signals from arrays of antennas to improve the performance of cellular telephone systems. We are currently looking to fill many positions, including those in SOFTWARE development. Position: Software Engineer Job Duties/Responsibilities: Successful software engineering candidates will participate in the design and construction of large software systems implementing signal processing techniques and communications protocols on hardware platforms containing a mix of DSP chips and general purpose processors. Desired Qualifications: Substantial experience in one or more of communications protocol programming, DSP programming (Motorola, AT&T), scientific/numeric programming, real-time systems and BS degree are required. Extensive C/UNIX experience, signal processing and numerical analysis background, digital circuitry and/or communications systems background, and an advanced degree are desirable. Salary: Competitive, based on experience. Send resume and cover letter to: hum.res@arraycomm.com 408-428-9083 FAX ArrayComm, Inc. 3141 Zanker Road San Jose, CA 95134 Principals only, please. EOE. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 12:42:57 -0400 From: Jason Fetterolf Subject: Don't Change the PIC Yourself! Organization: Apollo Concepts On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Michael J. Wengler (mwengler@qualcomm.com) wrote: > Everyone should be aware that *you* can get your long distance carrier > changed in less than 24 hours (typical, I believe). > If *you* call the local business office of your local phone company > and request a different long distance carrier, it will be changed, in > my experience, in less than 24 hours (I think I recall "effective > after 5 PM today" coming from the rep). > If you order service, however, from MCI or any other carrier, it takes > days for them to change your PIC. Most of that time, presumably, is > handshaking and verifying on their end, since its fast when you call > yourself. > And you won't be charged twice for changing to MCI once: ie, if you > order the change and MCI proceeds to order the change, it will be > changed once and you'll be charged once. My understandings of the provisioning (of a PIC change) process are that some, but perhaps, not all, of the LD carriers need to input certain types of data, and perform coding that may be specific to a particular billing plan for a new account BEFORE it is provisioned onto the carrier's network. IF one would call the LEC and change the PIC himself, it could occur that the new carrier assigned will not properly provision the new account, and that you could be billed at the "open rate" and in FULL minute increments, rather than getting the specific rate plan you may have signed up for, and with 6 sec increments. I heard of a case where an impatient LD agent switched the PIC himself, for over 3200 accounts, and they all received this "open rate" of 22 cents/min, and full minute billing, for business LD service ... (instead of 12-14 cents/min.) Has anyone else experinced this, and familiar with which carriers are not susceptible to this? I think that perhaps AT&T can overcome this self-PIC-ing with their advanced technology ... (and high price leadership.) Jason Fetterolf Apollo Concepts email: jasonf@p3.net Tel: 610-873-4111 ------------------------------ From: David Esan <103145.117@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Questions About the ex-809 Area Code Date: 22 Apr 1996 12:40:09 GMT Organization: MOSCOM The area codes and exchanges for the US and Canada are stored in FCC #10. But the information for the Caribbean area codes is not stored there. In fact, they list only Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, and then all the Puerto Rico exchanges are listed as San Juan. With the split of the area code, each island is going to be responsible for their own tiny area code. Is there presently a central clearinghouse for Caribbean area codes? Is there a publication that lists the actual locations of each exchange? Do we have to contact each individual island? Thanks for any help. ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: 408 (and 510, 209) to be Split Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 18:08:33 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , gbrown@interramp.com (Gerry A. Brown) wrote: > I just received notice that the 408 Area Code will be split as soon as > April 1998. Following up on that, I called the Pacific Bell number for information on the northern California area code splits, 1-800-544-0355 (note: John Cropper reports that this number only works from northern California). They said on that recording that public meetings will be held in June for the 916 and 415 splits, dates to be announced in May, splits to be effective in late 1997 or early 1998. Area codes 408, 510, and 209 may split as soon as April 1998; meetings to be held in September/October, dates to be announced in August. That just leaves 707, "California's only non-splitting area code!" I can just see the ads now. Of course, even 707 has a population of about a million, and there's a lot of growth around Vallejo, Napa, and Santa Rosa. The other northern California area code, 619, is splitting in March 1997. (San Diego is northern California?? No, but the current 619 extends about as far north as the middle of 415, 510, and 209.) The new NPA is 760. All of the other southern California area codes (213, 310, 818, 805, 714, and 909) will be splitting in the next one to three years. Silly note: I just noticed a subtle error on the map for area code 619/760 that was enclosed with my bill last month. They show area code 562 (the split of 310 in Los Angeles), but they still label 310 as "Long Beach," even though most of Long Beach is moving into 562. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon) Subject: Converting FOCC Words/min1 to Cellular Telephone Number Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 09:45:47 -0500 Organization: Rust Net - High Speed Internet in Detroit 810-642-2276 Does anyone out there have enough background knowledge of AMPS to help me with this? I am having problems when a phone number has a '0' in it. I am trying to convert the FOCC min1/min2 to the cellular phone number. Thanks in advance to anyone who can assist me with this. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net http://www.rust.net/~bagdon/mr2.html ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Caller I.D. Blocking Question Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 09:55:00 PDT Robert Randolph (rand777@ids.net) wrote: > You do not have to pay anything to have caller ID blocked. By law in > every state, just call your phone company and tell them you want it > blocked. Not entirely correct. Some states, like Florida, do NOT allow consumers to order Per Line Blocking (law enforcement agencies may order it from the telco), therefore telcos there do not offer it. They do however, support *67, which is used for Per Call Blocking. *67 is the FCC-mandated method of Per Call Blocking and must be supported by all carriers offering Calling Number Services. Aside from Florida and lack of Per Line Blocking, there may be one or two other states that fall into this category. Generally, though, most states do permit Per Line Blocking. Texas, as Robert cited, requires the consumer request to come through the PUC's office. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lerctr.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong Date: 22 Apr 1996 19:27:15 -0500 >> The NYNEX "Time" number (+1 617 637 1234) is reporting the incorrect >> time. It is fast by about 20 seconds. How do the phone companies set >> this time? Is this the same time used by the billing computers? > Ah, you see, the phone companies use TWO clocks. the first one, which > is properly synchronized with UTC and the US Naval Observatory, et al, Speaking of the US Naval Observatory, check out their page: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/phonecheck.html They encourage you to check out the time numbers offered by phone companies and report how far they were off. They also gave "This Week's Cuckoo Clock Award" to themselves, for having their NTP servers tick.usno.navy.mil and tock.usno.navy.mil about 12.4 MINUTES slow for almost two hours the morning of Tuesday, April 16. They were reconfiguring some equipment and these servers failed to switch over to the backup time source. Now, how many other systems got bad time from these sources and passed it on? Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lerctr.org!gordon [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Gordon, perhaps you would be so kind as to write again with a summary of *how* to use 'tick' and 'tock' for time setting purposes. Also, isn't there a BBS one can log in to for information on time standards, etc? Can one connect using FTP to their sites? PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Mark Subject: Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 13:02:16 -0500 Organization: Third Millennium Industries At around 11:45 pm (4/18/96 Eastern US time) "NYNEX time" was indeed 16 seconds fast compared to +1-202-762-1401 which is the (new) number for the US Naval Observatory Master Clock. About a year ago I noticed that the Washington DC phone company time 1-202-844-2525 was about 10 seconds off from the the Master Clock and using my own clock I found that the phone company time "snuck back" in small leaps over a few days to alignment with the Master Clock. If a phone call starts in one calling rate period and continues on into another rate period the per minute rate changes accordingly giving a mixed rate for the entire call. So at most one minute's charge could be in dispute. If my memory serves me this didn't used to be the case. If a call had started in the 1970's at 10:59pm and the rates dropped at 11:00pm and the call lasted an hour the entire call would have been billed at the higher rate! ------------------------------ From: aerostar@ccia.com Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 22:09:55 EDT Subject: Last Laugh! Ohio Community Responds to Offensive Number PAT: Heard this today on WKBN (radio) Youngstown, Ohio: "Residents of Talmadge, Ohio have convinced the city to take action to remove two advertising billboards for a high sugar/caffeine beverage. Apparently, the billboards included a non-working 800 number: 800-BITE-ME." Eric Friedebach aerostar@ccia.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #194 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 23 13:26:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA23006; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 13:26:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 13:26:11 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604231726.NAA23006@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #195 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Apr 96 13:26:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 195 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ATT "True Voice" Patent Survives Reexamination, Mostly (Monty Solomon) Help Save Telephones on the Internet - Email the FCC (Monty Solomon) Telephone Bill Paying, by Phone, in Australia (Dale Robinson) Automated Telemarketing Causes Nuisance (Doug Smith) Official Telco Standards for Phone Service Reliability? (A. E. Siegman) New AT&T Residential Plan (Stan Schwartz) ATT Free Internet Access Status? (Tom Horsley) Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance (Mike Seebeck) Re: Sprint Business Sense (Steve Brack) Re: Sprint: Robin Loyed's Phone Number (Sean Doran) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (Joseph Singer) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (John Fabrega) Re: Questions About the ex-809 Area Code (Mark J. Cuccia) Microsoft Support to Expire in June (TELECOM Digest Editor) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 23:14:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: ATT "True Voice" Patent Survives Reexamination, Mostly Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:29:38 -0400 From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) To: patent-news@world.std.com Subject: PATNEWS: ATT "True Voice" patent survives reexamination, mostly Reply-To: patent-news@facteur.std.com !19960417 ATT "True Voice" patent survives reexamination, mostly Last February, after being petitioned by a third party, the Patent Office reexamined ATT's "True Voice" patent, 5,195,132, titled "Telephone Network Speech Signal Enhancement". The March 19, 1996 Official Gazette, page 1296, reports on the final results of the reexamination. Two claims, 2 and 17, were cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 8, 12, 14, 18, 19, 22 and 24 were determined to be patentable as amended. Claims 4-7, 9-11, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21 and 23, dependent on an amended claim, are determined to be patentable. New claims 25-32 were added and determined to be patentable. The OG printed the amended claim 1, which differed from the original claim mostly by adding a qualifier that the speech processing technique occur ".... being carried out in said communication path between telephone switch circuitry ....". Probably mostly a victory for ATT. I know a fair amount of prior art was submitted as part of the reexamination, so reading the reexamination proceedings would be quite interesting. ==================== On an unrelated matter, the Patent Office held its DNA sequencing hearing yesterday out in San Diego. I heard it wasn't very well attended. In retrospect, this isn't surprising. Too many in too many industries prefer the examiners not to be able to do their jobs thoroughly. Why help the PTO solve its sequencing problems, or in software, build a serious honest prior art database? Fixing these problems means less fees for everyone, even me. Greg Aharonian Internet Patent News Service P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA, 02178 617-489-3727, patents@world.std.com (for info on free subscription, send 'help' to patents@world.std.com ) (for prior art search services info, send 'prior' to patents@world.std.com ) (for WWW patent searching, try http://sunsite.unc.edu/patents/intropat.html ) (for software patent alert service, send 'alert" to patents@world.std.com ) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 01:25:03 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Help Save Telephones on the Internet - Email the FCC Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:09:44 -0400 From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) Subject: PATNEWS: Help save telephones on the Internet - email the FCC Reply-To: patent-news@facteur.std.com !19960416 Help save telephones on the Internet - email the FCC One of the neatest inventions of the last few years has been that of using the Internet as a telephone service. Born out of the classic inventor's motivation of necessity (in this case, a New Jersey firm needing to regularly call its sister facility in Israel), practical economics aside, it is one of those smack-your-head-why-didn't-I- think-of-it ideas. And indeed, it is becoming an industry itself, with at least one firm, VocalTec, already having gone public with an IPO (though sadly as an investment, if Internet phoning takes off and the big boys play, most of these stocks will get pounded). Sales of software and equipment are in the tens of millions of dollars a year, with 15 Internet telephone products already for sale, and with some of the big boys (Microsoft, Netscape, Intel) developing products and arranging services. Sounds too good to be true, but it isn't, except for the 'buggy whip' makers. In this case, it is the America's Carriers Telecommuni- cation Association (ACTA), a trade group representing 130 small regional long distance carriers, who has filed a petition with the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to stop companies from selling software and hardware products that let people use the Internet to make long-distance phone calls. While ACTA claims to be acting in the best interests of the public (and there is an argument about the fact that cheap Internet rates are somewhat derivative from bulk sales of extra long distance bandwidth which might be undermined by massive adoption of Internet telephones, though any statement about Internet macroeconomics is mostly speculation), what the ACTA petition reduces to is one generation of technology clashing with another. Want to get involved? The FCC is seeking public comment on this issue until May 8, 1996. Informal comments can be sent via email to the FCC to the Internet address rm8775@fcc.gov , with formal copies (an original plus four copies) sent to the Office of Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street NW, Room 222, Washington, DC, 20554. Copies should also be sent to Wanda Harris, Common Carrier Bureau, FCC, Room 518, 1919 M Street NW, Washington, DC, 20554, and to the Commission's contractor for public service records duplication, ITS Inc., 2100 M Street NW, Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037 (these mailings being a good example of how the computer revolution isn't leading to a reduction in paperwork :-). A group has been formed to fight ACTA's efforts, Voice on the Net (VON), and includes Internet telephone, audio and video conferencing companies. VON has a Web page at http://www.von.org/ , which includes the ACTA petition udnerneath at http://www.von.org/actapet1.htm , while the FCC has its concerns at http://www.fcc.gov/ccb.html . Cutting edge technology and cutting edge politics. Get involved, just don't get cut. Greg Aharonian Internet Patent News Service P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA, 02178 617-489-3727, patents@world.std.com (for info on free subscription, send 'help' to patents@world.std.com ) (for prior art search services info, send 'prior' to patents@world.std.com ) (for WWW patent searching, try http://sunsite.unc.edu/patents/intropat.html ) (for software patent alert service, send 'alert' to patents@world.std.com ) ------------------------------ From: Dale.Robinson@DWNPLAZA.NCOM.nt.gov.au Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 17:44:43 +0930 Subject: Telephone Bill Paying, by Phone, in Australia I usually pay my telephone account, by telephone and Visa card, by using my phone company's 'pay-by-telephone' service. It used to be a 1-800 "Freecall" service. I note with my latest bill, that: "For the cost of a local call (mobiles excluded), please call Priority 1300 xxx xxx and have your credit details ready." Even though I am saving the telco money by paying by telephone, they have made a decision to stiff me further, by charging me a local call. They own the equipment, why charge me for doing them a favour? The alternative long-distance carrier sure is looking good ... Regards, Dale [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, but you really are not saving them money, you are causing them a little expense since they have to pay the merchant fee to VISA when you pay in that method. Yes, they also would have to pay to process your check, but I think those costs are less than what the credit card companies make them pay. The main reason for allowing you to pay by phone using credit card is to encourage you to pay promptly with such an easy (for yourself) method to use. Their assumption is if you have to write a check then find an envelope and stamp to mail it, you might be more inclined to stall. So really, it is a sort of trade off, but they are not saving money by accepting credit cards over the phone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dougs@mcs.com (Doug Smith) Subject: Automated Telemarketing Causes Nuisance Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:45:18 +0100 Organization: MCSNet Internet Services I've been receiving calls from an automated telemarketing machine. It calls me up and plays a recording for a product called "Septic Saftey". It's quite annoying because I can't even tell them not to call me again. Anyone know if this is legal (in Illinois) or if I have any recourse. Doug Smith * dougs@mcs.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You may need to actually sit and listen to the entire presentation in order to get a name and address to contact. It should go without saying they are going to provide that at some point in the message; else what would be the purpose of the call? When you get the name and address, you will have something to go by. What does your caller-ID say about these calls? Have you tried using automatic callback on them? PAT] ------------------------------ From: siegman@ee.stanford.edu (A. E. Siegman) Subject: Official Telco Standards for Phone Service Reliability? Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 17:58:00 -0700 Organization: Stanford University I'd appreciate any information on explicit standards that now exist, or once existed, for target reliability of residential phone service. I have a vague memory that the Bell System, before breakup, had some kind of official standard for maximum number of minutes/year that any residential line should out of service due to telco failures (equipment failure, telephone lines down, whatever). Was there/is there any such standard? (Reason for inquiry: I live in a suburban area -- NOT way out in the boonies -- that in recent years has had terribly unreliable residential electrical service: out for three full days in the first winter rainstorm a year ago, out four days this past December, at least five shorter outages since then. Questioning discloses that PG&E has NO official standard or target number for reliability of its electrical service. I'd like to be able to point out that the telco does, or did.) Thanks much, siegman@ee.stanford.edu ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: New AT&T Residential Plan Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 00:12:22 -0400 After all of the haggling over rates and discounts and checks the last few weeks, an AT&T rep I spoke with tonight clued me into AT&T's new 'Sweet Sense' program. It's 25 cents per minute 7am to 7pm Monday through Friday and 10 cents per minute all other times. No other discounts (True Whatever) apply. Now all of the TD readers who are annoyed about losing their free Fridays can jump ship back to AT&T. I wonder if they'll hire someone else from the 'Murphy Brown' show to be their 'Dime Lady'. Stan Schwartz stan@vnet.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Let us know how it works out, if it actually does. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tom@ssd.hcsc.com (Tom Horsley) Subject: ATT Free Internet Access Status? Date: 23 Apr 1996 18:17:43 GMT Organization: Harris Computer Systems Corporation Reply-To: Tom.Horsley@mail.hcsc.com When AT&T announced their free internet access program, the press releases said people who signed up would start getting their kits in the mail around mid-March. Its now past mid-April, and I still haven't seen anything of my software kit, so I'm just wondering if anyone out there has actually gotten signed up for this and is using it? If there are users out there, can you tell us if it is just a standard PPP connection to a server? Or are there proprietary AT&T protocols involved so you absolutely have to use their software? Or has no one gotten it yet? (Or perhaps they are planning to have "shipping difficulties" for the whole free access year, thus avoiding Sprint's mistake with Free Fridays :-). (You'd think if it was just a PPP connection, they'd let you sign-up online and download just enough info to negotiate the login so you wouldn't have to wait for them to mail out software). Tom.Horsley@mail.hcsc.com Work: Harris Computers, 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. Ft. Lauderdale FL 33309 The 2 most important political web sites: http://www.vote-smart.org (Project Vote Smart), and http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/TomHorsley (Me!) ------------------------------ From: seebeck@lace.colorado.edu (Mike Seebeck) Subject: Re: Six Cent Per Minute Long Distance Date: 22 Apr 1996 22:04:04 GMT Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder John Connors (JOHCON@UEIC.COM) wrote: > In the most recent issue of {Computer Telephony} magazine, there is an > article about long distance pricing. The author indicates that > carriers are making deals for as low as 6c/minute. > Has anyone heard of or seen a deal that comes even close to this? Companies that have a large monthly usage can negotiate rates with LD companies which hover around six cents per minute peak. If your usage is high enough you can get benefits such as no pass through costs for t-1s, free installations, and discounted rates on other services. These rates and benefits often require commitments in the $100K/mth range and higher. The lowest rate is of course the on-net t-1 to t-1 rate. Other types of calls such as on-net to off, off-net to on, and switched, have variously higher rates. ------------------------------ From: stravis@glass.toledolink.com (Steve Brack) Subject: Re: Sprint Business Sense Date: 23 Apr 1996 03:19:16 GMT Organization: Toledo Internet Access, Inc. I was watching CNN this past Saturday, and what did I see but a commercial for Sprint Business Sense, complete with Fridays free and a $50 minimum. I suppose some corporations never learn. Or, maybe they're just going to keep recruiting rafts of new customers and switching them to more expensive plans as they seem to have done with their initial base of customers. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well so far, it has been successful for them hasn't it? Their only real expense thus far other than the advertising has been to send out letters from 'Robin Loyed' notifying the new customers after a short time that they are being converted to more expensive plans and providing a voicemail box to buffer the angry phone calls they knew they would get; a voicemail box which probably is just dumped to /dev/null every day or two. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sean Doran Reply-To: smd@sprint.net Subject: Re: Sprint: Robin Loyed's Phone Number Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 20:40:11 -0400 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You're right, they probably do not know > much about the Internet or Usenet and newsgroups, etc. I'm surprised by this, but perhaps I shouldn't be, as this is pretty much why I read the Digest only cursorily these days. Your biases are interfering with your memory, which is a pity, because even when you were at your nastiest a couple of years ago, you at least were always essentially correct. Sean Doran Lead Engineer, Sprint IP Services [Nasty Moderator's Earthy Reply: #$$$@!& %*&$@&**^ ###@!&^%* !! I'll try to restore your faith in me, Sean! I like having you guys around as regular readers, $$#@&* ! Anytime you see something here which needs correction, you let me know. By the way, if you see that no-good $#@**& Robin Loyed around the office, tell him to start accept- ing or returning phone calls. In the meantime, if there is anything I can do to make your day more miserable after you finish reading an issue of the Digest, please feel free to tell me. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 16:09:05 -0700 From: jsinger@scn.org (Joseph Singer) Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? Reply-To: jsinger@scn.org scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) wrote: > Someone commented to me a few days ago that when placing third-number > billed calls via AT&T, that there appeared to be no verification at > the number to which the call is being billed. > When did LD carriers stop verifying third-number billings? To my knowledge this is not new. Operators have routinely done third number billing without verification unless the third number billing was done from a pay phone. My USWest telephone directory says: "Calls Charged To A Third Number Dial 0+ area code + the number. Tell the operator you want to charge your call to a third number. If you're calling from a public (pay) phone, the operator will call the third number to make sure the charges will be accepted. The call won't go through if the operator can't get approval. Actually, anyone who has telephone service should instruct their local telephone company to put billed number screening on their line so that third number billed calls won't end up on their bills. If people want to be able to bill to their own number the telcos will issue them a calling card at no charge. The rate for a calling card call is also less expensive than a third number billed call usually. JOSEPH SINGER SEATTLE, WASHINGTON USA jsinger@scn.org ------------------------------ From: jfabrega@nettally.com (Fabrega, John) Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:32:54 -0400 In response to Stanley Cline, Mark J. Cuccia wrote: >> Someone commented to me a few days ago that when placing third-number >> billed calls via AT&T, that there appeared to be no verification at >> the number to which the call is being billed. In other words, AT&T >> is completing calls without getting verification from someone at the >> billing number. (snip) > NOT ALWAYS SO! (snip) > AT&T told me that many local telcos offer collect and/or Third-Party > blocking, and to check with South Central Bell on those features. I am > now Third-Party restricted (at *no* additional monthly fee). I can > still make outgoing calls which I can bill (or attempt to bill) to a > Third-Party, but via local (traditional) telcos, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, > and some "legitimate" or "honest" carriers, I am in the national > database as not to bill Third Party. (This database is usually *not* > honored by such companies as ITA, Integretel, etc, as many of us > already know). The service-rep at Bell even told me that "in the > environment" we are in today, many carriers do *not* participate in > this database. (snip) Every month, I make a call to our local telco, Sprint/United/Centel-FL to have various third party and collect calls removed from my bill. I have about 400 DID numbers going into a voice/fax processing system and every month a few get hit either accidentally or fraudulently. I have never had an argument from the telco about removing the charges, but they have never been terribly big. The cost here for blocking those calls is $1.00/number/month! More than I am willing to pay. Seems interesting to pay to NOT be defrauded. I am interested, however in how one gets on the 'national database' referred to above. John Fabrega, Line1 Communications, Inc.* Tallahassee, FL (Voice Mail, Fax Mail, Fax-On-Demand, Long Distance) e-mail: jfabrega@nettally.com voice:904/668-6666 fax:904/668-5307 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It appears Sprint (when functioning as local telco) is charging for admission to the database. The one they are trying to see you for a dollar per line/month is the so-called 'national database' which, so far as I know, the Bell Companies will put you on for free. I originally heard of this feature a few years ago when John Higdon wrote about it here, and he had gotten his various numbers installed in the database via PacBell. I did so at that time via a single call to Illinois Bell. Now, regardless of the (mainline) carrier used, whether local or long distance, attempts to call 'collect' to my numbers or bill me for third number calls are automatically rejected at the time the call is attempted. I test it occassionally by dialing zero plus my number and telling the 'automated operator system' that I wish to call collect or bill a call to my number. The computer immediatly responds that 'at the customers request, calls may not be billed to this number. Please select another billing option or hang up at this time.' When I say 'national database' I mean that AT&T/Sprint/MCI/Bell telcos/ LDDS/a few others consult this database and honor it. Integratel runs its own 'negative listing' for the clients it represents, and you do need to call Integratel directly to get on theirs, as they do not consult the one used by the Big Three (or Four, depending on how you interpret things). If you get listed on the database, you are about ninety percent assured that you won't get bills like that. You still have to contend with the private COCOT operators -- the private payphones with their own intelligence and logic built in to them -- but many or most of those subscribe to the Integratel negative listing. So if you get Integratel to add you to theirs also, your likelyhood of never seeing third number or collect calls on your bill again goes to about 98 percent. All the telcos stress there is no hundred percent guarentee against this since a few small independent operators do not subscribe to either database and/or choose to ignore it. Under the law, if they submit their billing tapes to your telco, then you get billed. Of course you still have the usual method of disputing the charges, etc. Likewise, not all telcos use an 'automated operator system'; live operators do handle many collect and third-number calls and can make errors in copying down the number to be billed, etc. Those could possibly slip through. You might try appealing on that dollar per line/month charge. I have never heard of a telco charging for the service before. Or if you have service through some other telco in a different city, you might try to use a 'backdoor' approach and get the telco in that city to include all your numbers and not just the ones under their immediate jurisdiction. It might work; it might not. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:05:04 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: Questions About the ex-809 Area Code David Esan wrote: > The area codes and exchanges for the US and Canada are stored in FCC > #10. But the information for the Caribbean area codes is not stored > there. In fact, they list only Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, > and then all the Puerto Rico exchanges are listed as San Juan. Billing from the US to Canada (and in the reverse) is based on mileage calculated from the V&H co-ordinates of the originating and terminating ratecenters and/or wirecenters (NPA-NXX). It isn't the same "rate-step" as domestic calls, but not as high as "international". Alaska and Hawaii, while not continental, are parts of the US (actually states in their own right). Rates to AK and HI are also based on mileage and use the domestic rate-step. While Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands are not "states", they are part of the US and as such rates for calls to and from them are regulated by the FCC. They too have rates to/from the (continental) US based on mileage using a domestic rate-step. A call from Miami to the US Virgin Islands is less expensive than a call from Seattle to the US Virgin Islands, if the call is in the same "time" or "day" rate period. V&H co-ordinates have been assigned to the NPA-NXX locations (ratecenters and wirecenters) in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. But since the physical size of PR & USVI are rather small, I don't think that the V&H calculated mileage from a point in the (continental) US to two different somewhat geographically separated locations in PR or USVI are that great for billing purposes. So I would guess that the FCC Tarriff #10 "defaults" all PR locations as the same "ratecenter", San Juan. Mexico interfaces with the (continental) US on a "direct" basis. Calls to and from Mexico are also based on mileage using V&H calculations. The ratesteps are not domestic, but still not billed the same as "interna- tional". While Mexico (ITU Country Code +52) is not really part of the NANP, for a number of years, (automated/dialable) parts of Mexico have been identified using pseudo NANP area codes of the form 52X (but not 520). City codes in Mexico begin any digit 1 through 9. So, 52X-NXX-XXXX makes a ten-digit number using 52X-NXX as a psuedo (+1) NPA-NXX for six-digit translation for billing purposes, particularly needed with cellular-roaming along the US-Mexican border corridor. If I remember right, FCC #10 listed Mexican cities alphabetically with a V&H co-ordinate. The "non-US" NANP Caribbean are billed on a "fixed" rate -- it matters not from where in the (continental) US the call originates, the per-minute rates will be the same. This is similar to billing when calling other country codes from the NANP as 011/01+. Time-of-day discounts do apply to non-US NANP Caribbean calls, though. Therefore, V&H co-ordinates aren't necessary to call these locations. Calls to the Caribbean (US NANP, non-US NANP and non-NANP) usually route through special "international" trunks and circuits, sometimes owned by or in conjunction with an "international (record) carrier", such as Cable & Wireless or ITT's All-America Cables & Radio or ITT's Globe-McKay, etc. But since PR/USVI are "US" regulated by the FCC, the rates are regulated as "domestic" mileage based rate-steps. The above doesn't *necessarily* apply on calls from Canada or from outside of the NANP. (Canada's "international" carrier is Teleglobe, which for the present time is more-or-less a monopoly). It also didn't always apply on calls from Alaska/Hawaii (both non-continental US, since calls to/from there also route thru special "international carrier" type circuits, but over the past ten to twelve years, there have been changes in how rates to/from AK/HI are calculated when calling other NANP US points and non-US points (both NANP and 011/01+). > With the split of the area code, each island is going to be > responsible for their own tiny area code. Is there presently a > central clearinghouse for Caribbean area codes? Is there a > publication that lists the actual locations of each exchange? Do we > have to contact each individual island? No to the last question, unless *you* choose to contact each "British" island (mostly Cable & Wirless or an affiliate) and GTE's Codetel in the Dominican Republic. (I recently gave some URL's for Cable & Wireless, but GTE's Codetel in the Dominican Republic is http://www.codetel.net.do) As to the other questions -- Bellcore TRA (Traffic Routing Administration) maintains the NANP NPA-NXX databases. They can be reached thru http://www.bellcore.com/NANP andhttp://www.bellcore.com/NANP/tracat.html. TRA can mail you a free catalog of products, all available for a fee, on paper, fiche, diskette, CD-Rom, Data-Transfer, etc. Such documents known as the LERG (Local Exchange Routing Guide), INPG Fiche (Industry Numbering Plan Guide), V&H Co-Ordinates diskettes, NPA-NXX Active Code List, monthly NPA-NXX Activity Guide, etc. are all available *for a fee* to ANY interested parties. Some materials are "routing" or "network" documents, while others are "rating", "billing" or "accounting" documents. TRA can also be contacted at tra@cc.bellcore.com and +1-908-699-6700. The (traditional) 809 NPA entries in the Bellcore TRA materials only shows V&H entries for Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. The non-US NANP Caribbean have a blank entry for V&H. In the "routing" or "network" materials, the last time I purchased TRA products, the "equipment type" field identifying the type of switch equipment, and the "CLLI" switch name for *US* Caribbean 809-NXX's was identified, but a "generic" or "default" entry was used for *NON* US 809-NXX's. The new NPA's for the Caribbean are supposed to be indicated in Bellcore's TRA products, with their internal NXX assignments. And whenever the US Pacific locations of Marianna Islands (+670), Guam (+671) and American Samoa (+684) become an actual part of the NANP, their existing country codes are to be returned to the ITU within a year, and the numericals of their present ITU country code will become their NPA in +1. Those numericals have been reserved for them. I would assume that Bellcore TRA documents would also include the 670-NXX's, 671-NXX's, and 684-NXX's. I've been told that these US Pacific island locations *do* have CLLI codes, V&H co-ordinates, wirecenter and ratecenter names, RAO codes, etc. They *might* even have been assigned psuedo LATA codes! But I don't yet have any "official" detailed listings of these US Pacific island numbering, routing or billing codes, etc. MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:04:25 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Microsoft Support to Expire in June I received notice today from Digest supporters at Microsoft that they will be unable to provide additional corporate support to the Digest after the current period of funding expires in June. They made a commitment last June to assist for a year and have done so, but their own internal policies do not allow for ongoing support. First I want to say I think they are owed a tremendous amount of thanks for the help they gave me over the past year. They literally kept the Digest alive. Had they not supplied the funds they did, it would have been very difficult to continue. Second, this now leaves the Digest with a need for corporate sponsor- ship during the next year and onward into the future. I will be looking seriously into this over the next couple months and hope that if you have suggestions you will bring them to my attention. If *your* company would like a prominent place in the masthead of each issue of the Digest and the goodwill of many thousands of daily readers of this journal, then I hope you will contact me soon. Again to Microsoft: a big thanks! PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #195 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 23 15:58:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA08208; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:58:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:58:10 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604231958.PAA08208@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #196 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Apr 96 15:58:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 196 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Lizanne Hurst) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Mark J. Cuccia) Business Online Services, Change, and the Internet (Tara D. Mahon) Re: SLC-96 Problem With Local C.O. (Stephen Balbach) Re: SLC-96 Problem With Local C.O. (Dave O'Shea) Re: SLC-96 Problem With Local C.O. (Terry Kennedy) Re: 408 (and 510, 209) to be Split (John Cropper) Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone (Robert Virzi) Using NTP (was: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number) (Robert McMillin) Re: Using USNO to set Macintosh Clocks (Jeffrey Carl) Re: Single Rings Disturb Household (Bob Izenberg) Re: Single Rings Disturb Household (Dan Pearl) Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement (Nicholas Scott) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:01:37 EDT From: lh00@lehigh.edu (Lizanne Hurst) Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 In article , weltyrc@mail.auburn. edu (Ryan W elty - KR4OQ) writes: > Just got my AT&T bill, and it says now to dial calling card calls only > by dialing 1 800 CALL ATT. It was my understanding that the 10 + three > digits LD carrier codes were to be replaced with 101 + four digits. Is > this not so? Can someone post a list of the new four digit codes? I've been seeing this on our AT&T bill for the past couple of months: the text of the message is "Beginning April 30, 1996, the way you use your AT&T card is changing. To avoid being blocked and to ensure you reach the AT&T Network, you must dial 1 800 CALL ATT for all of your calling card calls, both local toll and long distance." This made me nervous because our 200+ corporate card users are finally in the habit of dialing 10288 + 0. So I called the AT&T corporate card center and spoke to a representative, Kim. She said they're encouraging callers to use the 800 access number for several reasons. First, despite the Operator Services Act of 1990, 10XXX is still blocked in many places. Second, they're "phasing out" 10288. I asked whether they were planning to replace it with a different access code; she was not aware of any plans to do so, and repeated that the 800 number would be the method of access to AT&T's network. I got the party line that there are "more features built into this access method, and users can more easily get an operator." I also verified that there will be no additional surcharge or access charge for using the 800 number; the cost will be "exactly the same" no matter which access method you use. Lizanne Hurst Lehigh University Senior Analyst Bethlehem, PA Telecommunications 610.758.5014 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:22:16 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Ryan Welty (weltyrc@mail.auburn.edu) wrote: > Just got my AT&T bill, and it says now to dial calling card calls only > by dialing 1 800 CALL ATT. It was my understanding that the 10 + three > digits LD carrier codes were to be replaced with 101 + four digits. Is > this not so? Can someone post a list of the new four digit codes? I haven't seen this notice yet. Was it part of your local telephone company's bill for AT&T charges? Was it with a separate AT&T bill for residential long distance (as many carriers are now doing more separate billing)? Was it a calling card "only" account billing from AT&T? or maybe with an AT&T billing for long distance cellular? Could it be the type of card you have from AT&T where they are changing access to *only* 800-CALL-ATT? I think that elimiating 10-ATT-0 or 10-ATT-0+ access would be a violation of whatever federal statute deals with Operator and Calling Card access from about five years ago. *Existing* 10-XXX Feature Group D codes are going to be expanding to 101-0XXX. Presently, many areas are already in permissive dialing where you can dial either 10-XXX or the expanded 101-0XXX code. (AT&T's will be 101-0288). I don't know when the permissive dialing period will end, however. And there are already some working *new* 101-5XXX and 101-6XXX assignments! As for 1-800-CALL-ATT (800-225-5288), I remember a few years back that AT&T had a special promotional discount which only worked if you placed a card call using this 800 number of theirs. You wouldn't get the additional discount if you used 10-288-0+ or even 1-800-32-10-ATT (800-321-0288) access. I prefer using 800-321-0288 to access AT&T since you go directly to a bong-tone prompt for the called number and then your card number. If you use 800-CALL-ATT, you usually have to wade thru some menus. And I remember some years back that I heard conflicting reports from AT&T that 800-CALL-ATT was being discontinued for Card or Operator access in favor of 800-3210-ATT and I also heard the reverse! By the way, I called Jamaica earlier this morning to inquire about a possible new NPA for them. I was here at work (on our toll-restricted PBX), and this wasn't a "company" related toll call. So I dialed 9-1-800-321-0288. I entered 809-9NX-XXXX of the Jamaican number. I received the second prompt and entered my card number. Instead of hearing "Thank you for using AT&T", I was connected to an OSPS operator who said that she had to get an International Verification Operator to verify some personal information when using a Calling Card to call certain international points. It seems that due to fraudulent use of calling cards (and other scams), they "intercept" and get personal information verification when calling (billed to Card) Jamaica, some other Caribbean points, and possibly even such third-world countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia! I've *never* had an intercept like this when calling (billed to Card) +44 (UK) or +61 (Australia)! I asked about Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands and was told that AT&T usually doesn't intercept like this on Card calls there. I wonder which "new" Caribbean NPA's will be intercepted like this when 809 has completely split apart? MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 13:07:33 -0400 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Business Online Services, Change, and the Internet BUSINESSES PAY, CONSUMERS JUST PLAY ONLINE, SAYS INSIGHT RESEARCH LIVINGSTON, NJ. April 22, 1996: While at-home use of the Internet and consumer online services gain headline attention, the fact remains that business users generate the bulk of online information revenue, says a new report from Insight Research. Providing businesses with information online is nearly a $12 billion market, compared to the $800 million being spent by consumers for online information. According to "Business Online Services, Change, and the Internet," the Internet is changing the dynamics of the various players in the business online information food chain and thus has important implications for widening the potential base of business online users. But the Internet will not overwhelm the online business information provider anytime soon. As an information access medium, the Internet has its drawbacks; it provides vast access potential but delivers very little in the way of normalized data. Hence, Insight sees a continued role for the online information service vendor in the business segment because they offer access to important data in an organized, easy-to-use format. "Online business information providers are basically content brokers," explains Insight's president Robert Rosenberg. "To a big information broker, the Internet subverts their traditional business model -- brokers fear that the Internet gives the content developer a direct pipe to the end user and thus holds the potential to bypass the online service. But we think such fears are overblown. Our research found that business online users demand database access to a variety of sources within a single, searchable interface -- something the Internet can't provide yet -- so we are predicting continued strong growth for online business information services." "Business Online Services, Change, and the Internet" reports that the fastest growing business online user group is the work-at-home audience, who are predicted to spend over $500 million for business online services in the year 2001. In 2001, the work-at-home user will be spending $425 for online information compared to the average office user's $1,062 bill, but the number of work-at-home users is expected to surpass the business end-user population by about 35 percent. Extensive projections and analyses for business online services in the financial, credit reporting, media research, business news, legal, and construction segments are published in Business Online Services, Change, and the Internet, now available from Insight Research for $3,495. Insight Research, based in Livingston, NJ, is a leading provider of telecom market research and competitive analysis. An excerpt of this study can be read at Insight's World Wide Web site: http://www.wcom.com/Insight/insight.html (exact page is bonline.html). For more information on this study, please contact: Tara D. Mahon, The Insight Research Corporation, 354 Eisenhower Parkway, Livingston, NJ 07039, phone 201-605-1400, fax 201-605-1440, internet: tara@insight-corp.com ------------------------------ From: stephen@clark.net (Stephen Balbach) Subject: Re: SLC-96 Problem With Local C.O. Date: 22 Apr 1996 17:56:44 -0400 Organization: Clark Internet Services, Balt/DC, mail all-info@clark.net SLC-96's are perhaps your worst option for analog modems. The cards used in the cabinet are not designed for the higher ranges required to achieve 28.8 conections. You need near 4000Hz but the SLC-96's will cut it off around 3400Hz -- about the maximum range for 26.4 -- this is according to the design specs from many years ago when the cards were made and modems were doing 300 baud at best. Copper is analog all the way back to the switch and therefore you can stretch the full 4000Hz range out of it. If you have copper lines count yourself lucky, and if Bell Atlantic (hehe) offers you the slick, just say "no". Stephen Balbach "Driving the Internet to Work" VP, ClarkNet due to the high volume of mail I receive please quote info@clark.net the full original message in your reply. ------------------------------ From: dos@panix.com (Dave O'Shea) Subject: Re: SLC-96 Problem With Local C.O. Date: 23 Apr 1996 12:18:59 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Drew Morone (drew@j51.com) wrote: > Now I'm dealing with five lines with a pronounced 60 cycle hum, and no > decent copper pairs in the area to move to. What could be the problem > at the central office switch that would cause problems with the hunt > off the SLCs? I have -NO- idea what kind of hardware they are using at > the C.O. Has anyone had any dealings like this or any similar > situations with NYNEX? It might be economical for you to have them bring out the lines on a T1, instead of copper. I'd take a rough guess at $300-400 a month for each of the T1 loops you'd need, each of which would carry 24 lines. You could either terminated them into a channel bank, preserving your existing modems, or go with one of the serveral "direct to T1" terminal servers now on the market. ------------------------------ From: terry@spcvxa.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr.) Subject: Re: SLC-96 Problem With Local C.O. Organization: St. Peter's College, US Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 06:23:08 GMT In article , drew@j51.com (Drew Morone) writes: > [...] have scrimped to fill the order. They say they can't because if > they have more than three lines hunting per shelf (on the SLC96) it causes > problems with the switch back at the Central Office. > Now I'm dealing with five lines with a pronounced 60 cycle hum, and no > decent copper pairs in the area to move to. What could be the problem > at the central office switch that would cause problems with the hunt > off the SLCs? I have -NO- idea what kind of hardware they are using at > the C.O. Has anyone had any dealings like this or any similar > situations with NYNEX? If the SLC is provisioned back to analog ports on the CO switch, you shouldn't have any hunting problems - the CO switch doesn't know anything about the SLC. Of course, you may get reduced maximum V.34 connect speeds. If the SLC is going back to a digital switch, there *could* be a prob- lem. However, it's the telco's problem, not yours. You could try asking for "series completion" or "call forward busy" instead of hunting -- some- times this sort of problem only shows up in one feature set. Note that CFBY may incur per-minute charges -- check carefully. Note that what you heard from the telco may not be what is really going on -- a non-Mode 1 SLC will have contention problems during hunting because Mode 2 and so on don't provision enough T1's to support all the analog ports in use at the same time. Assuming you have business lines in a building that's in an area zoned for business, it's the telco's responsibility to get you the service you need. If you don't get satisfaction with the telco reps, escalate inside the telco and then if needed go outside. If your lines are residential or business in a residential area, the telco may try to zing you for the costs of upgrading their facilities. It depends on how well you know the telco people as well as how much money they think they'll make on the lines. Incoming-only lines such as ISP's have don't really interest the telco. OTOH, I did get Bell Atlantic to install 96 strands of fiber and 200 pairs direct back to the CO for one of my friends (I do a lot of business with BA/NJ). Lastly, remember that your telco is paying a large amount of money to the switch vendor for software support and updates -- they can lobby to have a specialist from the vendor come out and look at the problem and install a fix. The problem is that "patches" scare telco's because they don't want to have something nonstandard and risk a switch failure. Again, it all depends on how much they think your business matters to them. If you don't get anywhere, try to get the CO switch type and generic (anybody who's competent to answer this question will know what you mean) as well as the exact SLC type (AT&T SLC-96, Reliance DISC*S, etc.) and operating mode) and mail that info to me and I'll see what I can do for you. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.spc.edu St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA +1 201 915 9381 (voice) +1 201 435-3662 (FAX) ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: 408 (and 510, 209) to be Split Date: 22 Apr 1996 23:32:49 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On Apr 22, 1996 18.08.33 in article , 'Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)' wrote: > That just leaves 707, "California's only non-splitting area code!" I > can just see the ads now. Of course, even 707 has a population of > about a million, and there's a lot of growth around Vallejo, Napa, and > Santa Rosa. If you checked 707's NPA/NXX usage as of early April, you'll see that despite the accelerating growth, 707 should last into early 2003, give or take six quarters. > The other northern California area code, 619, is splitting in March > 1997. (San Diego is northern California?? No, but the current 619 > extends about as far north as the middle of 415, 510, and 209.) The > new NPA is 760. All of the other southern California area codes (213, > 310, 818, 805, 714, and 909) will be splitting in the next one to > three years. At least once each, perhaps twice in certain cases... :-) > Silly note: I just noticed a subtle error on the map for area code > 619/760 that was enclosed with my bill last month. They show area > code 562 (the split of 310 in Los Angeles), but they still label 310 > as "Long Beach," even though most of Long Beach is moving into 562. They can barely keep track of NXX usage; you expect them to be cartographers, and experts in geography as well? Shame on you... :-) John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: rv01@gte.com (Robert Virzi) Subject: Re: "WordNumbers" on the Phone Date: 23 Apr 1996 15:12:30 GMT Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA Someone asked: >> Is there any reasonably well-accepted standard for the letters on a >> telephone? And recieved this response: > Here is a compilation of information that was posted the last time > this question came up. Thanks are due to Jani Poij{rvi > and Bo Holst-Christensen > , who collected most of the data. > (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) > AMERICAN: --- --- ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO PRS TUV WXY > Used in: USA, Canada > Manufacturers: Everyone in the US/CA market Not exactly. Look at a US cellular phone and you are likely to find the 1 key bearing the letters Q and Z. And Now all ATT phones put the Q and Z on the 7 and 9 keys respectively, in direct contradiction to the existing banking standard which places Q and Z one the 1 (i.e., on ATMs). The problem with standards? Too damn many of 'em! Bob rvirzi@gte.com Just another ascii character... +1(617)466-2881 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 08:26:59 -0700 From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Using NTP (was: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number) Organization: Charlie Don't CERF On 22 Apr 1996 17:27:15 PDT, gordon@sneaky.lerctr.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote about the US Naval Observatory's Internet timeservers tick.usno.navy.mil and tock.usno.navy.mil running slow by 12.4 minutes. Pat responded: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Gordon, perhaps you would be so kind > as to write again with a summary of *how* to use 'tick' and 'tock' > for time setting purposes. [...] PAT] Do you *really* want to get into NTP? I had to do it for a fairly small and heterogenous site, and what a nightmare it was ... I threw up my hands and eventually used timed and rdate. NTP, the Network Time Protocol, is a very complex bit of software. Basically the way it works (from my woefully limited understanding of it) is there are multiple levels (or strata) of machines, starting with one as the most trusted timeservers (i.e., tick and tock). Higher numbers represent less trusted clocks. After that, I get lost. Actual operational details are written up in RFC 1305, but don't try to read it unless you have a fairly broad knowledge of routing protocols and timekeeping. You can find administrative information on how to connect your clock at http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ntp.html, as well as links on how to actually run NTP. Based on what I've read, it looks like the Navy really would prefer you use a regional timeserver, and there are also links to those. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com WWW: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/rl/rlm/home.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had thought there was a command similar to this: 'telnet tick.usno.navy.mil ntp' where 'ntp' is the argument saying which socket to use and that this would then return the correct time from the master clock. I do know at one point there was a BBS run by NAVOBS one could login to that had as a feature on it a direct link into the 202-653-0351 phone number. That phone number by the way, if you dial it direct at 300/1200 baud will present a one minute display of the correct time on your screen. I guess some of you already know I dearly love old clocks; watching them operate and cleaning them up, etc. Is there anyone left who wrote to Jim Hill in Lompoc, California requesting a Western Union clock who has not received it or is not happy with it? A couple people wrote me last week saying they had just recently sent him money to get one and he was trying to find 'a few more'. Assuming that everyone who wanted one got it and that it is in basic working order (forget the condition of some of the cases after 30 years in storage!), I hope you have as much fun with yours as I do with mine. With some patience, you have no need of any regular connection to the NAVOBS clock, but you have to take the time to regulate the old clock properly. With the latest addition to my family of WUTCO clocks (the one I personally got from Jim Hill over a month ago) I now have one of each of the styles the Self Winding Clock Company produced for WUTCO early in this century. I'll give more details in another message. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 23 Apr 96 13:15:04 EDT From: Jeffrey Carl <73523.136@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Using USNO to set Macintosh Clocks FYI: For Macintosh users interested in setting their computer's clocks to the U S Naval Observatory standard, there is an excellent freeware program available called SetClock. Once you select one of three clocks nearest to you (USNO in Washington, D.C.; the Canadian National Research Council in Ottawa; or the National Institute for Standards and Technology in Boulder, CO), it will make a ten-second call via modem at a 300 baud connection to the number for the appropriate clock and set your system clock to within one second of the 'Big' clock's time. The program was written by Jim Leitch, who gives his e-mail address as 70416.1532@CompuServe.com ... it should also be readily downloadable on most online services. Jeffrey Carl Columnist, The RICHMOND STATE [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By the way, the number to call for an ASCII display on your computer screen of the correct time from NAVOBS is 202-653-0351 at 300/1200 baud. There is also a program written for DOS called 'timeset' which sets your computer clock automatically via the same phone numbers. But where setting old mechanical clocks is concerned, to limit the number of calls you need to make to get the correct time, follow these hints: 1) Make certain the clock is hung on the wall *absolutely level*. Use a carpenter's leveling device to make sure the clock is both straight up and down -and- flush against the wall; not sloping outward even very slightly. Flat against the wall, straight up and down! You want to hear the clock go 'tick-tock' not 'ta-tick, ta-tick'. You want to see the pendulum move an equal distance in both directions off of center; not even a slight bit further one way than the other. Use the carpenter's leveling tool to accomplish this. 2) Install the hands squarely at 12:00 with the one directly underneath the other. Make certain the 'minute hand' is on the correct ninety degree angle; that is, it should stop and not go backward any further as of the 12 rather than as of the 3, 6 or 9 position. 3) Start the pendulum rocking, ever so slightly. Just tip it gently with your finger. Try to avoid having it 'bounce around'. Set the hands to precisely the exact time using a good source, such as your previously adjusted nineteen dollar quartz Timex watch. ... Do not put the case on yet; further adjustments will be needed. Each time you put the case on or take it off, the pendulum gets disturbed a little, and it takes maybe an hour for the pendulum to 'calm down' and get back on its own to a gentle, slow rocking. 4) Go away and come back in a couple hours. If the clock is grossly out of adjustment (by that I mean more than five to fifteen seconds off the correct time) then stop the pendulum, adjust the setting screw and start again. On the old WUTCO clocks, one complete revolution of the setting screw equals 100 beats per 24 hours, or nearly two minutes per day. Partial revolutions yield appropriate results, so you do the math. A clock that is even five seconds per hour out of synch is going to be out two minutes per day. 5) Come back the next day and check it again. If you were successful in moving the set screw just the tiny amount needed, you should note the clock is just a second or two out of synch. If the clock does not have a sweep-second hand, the difference should not be discernable at all to your eyes. If it does have a sweep-second hand and you see that it is five or ten seconds out after 24-48 hours, you can again change the set screw, but this time by an ever-so-tiny tweak; literally maybe one-sixteenth of an inch or so. After about a week or so of this observation and miniscule tweaking of the set screw, you'll have the clock to the point where its accuracy will stay within five to ten seconds per month. Now you can put the case on, carefully, slowly and gently. Try to avoid banging the movement or disturbing the pendulum more than necessary. Avoid taking the case off in the future unless repairs/cleaning are needed. The pendulum needs to be left alone to rock gently back and forth; the clock spring pulling it one way and the earth's gravity pulling it the other. Because of things you have no control over such as the climate and room temperature, and minute particles of dust getting into the works, it is virtually impossible to keep the clock absolutely in synch forever. But you can get it to the point that a manual adjustment of several seconds or less every couple months is possible. It is fun to see just how close you can get to the correct time over a period of a month or so, and the old WUTCO clocks are an example of very fine workmanship. Even a quartz movement is out by a few seconds per month, and I have had my WUTCOs to within five seconds per month on several occassions, and then someone admiring them got too close and breathed on the pendulum , getting it disturbed. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Single Rings Disturb Household Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 03:00:28 CDT From: Bob Izenberg Reply-To: bei@sig.net In TELECOM Digest Volume 16, Issue 191, Ron Elkayam wrote: > You could try hitting *69. Even if you're not subscribed > to the service (Call Return), the feature will work and > you'll pay on a per-use basis. I've seen that *69 is working less and less, partly because the single-ringers are either on their line(s) all the time or they block call-return. A friend of mine used to tap those three digits out after each callerless call: When she started getting more apologetic recordings than successful call returns, she dropped call return in favor of anonymous call rejection. Bob bob izenberg phone: +1 (512) 306-0700 sig.net network operations bei@sig.net ------------------------------ From: pearl@alta.sw.stratus.com (Dan Pearl) Subject: Re: Single Rings Disturb Household Date: 23 Apr 1996 16:03:04 GMT Organization: Stratus Computer, Marlboro MA This happened to me a couple of weeks ago. In my case, the Call Forwarding feature on my line happened to spontaneously activate to a number that it had been forwarded to a week or so earlier. When a line is forwarded, you'll get a single ring (and you can't answer the call, no matter how quick you are!) as a reminder that the line is forwarded. There is no explaination as to why the feature activated itself. There were power outages in the area the day before this started happening. Perhaps they went to an old backup tape to restore the state of the switch. Dan Pearl ** Stratus Computer, Inc. ** pearl@sw.stratus.com I represent the views of my employer. [*WHAP!*] NO HE DOESN'T ------------------------------ From: object@interlog.com (Nicholas Scott) Subject: Re: Digital Age Spawns Neo-Luddite Movement Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 21:46:14 GMT Organization: The Object Group Neo-Luddite is an oxymoron. Free the bytes! WWW bandwidth now! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are oxymorons, sir, and then there are the common variety of morons. I have been told on a few occassions that I represent the common variety, in the proudest tradition of the net. I am reluctant however to accept this honor, for I believe there are others far more qualified than myself. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #196 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 23 19:09:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA26620; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 19:09:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 19:09:08 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604232309.TAA26620@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #197 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Apr 96 19:09:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 197 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson One Stop Government Inquiry (Pete Goss) AT&T WorldNet Services (Joshua Fenton) Data Mailbox With Modem (Mark van der Aalst) "Phony" 800 Numbers (was Re: Last Laugh) (Mark J. Cuccia) Call From AT&T Representative for LD Carrier Switching ( Wrong Facts in the Newspaper (John W. Shaver) Re: Don't Change the PIC Yourself! (Bill Richter) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (Richard Harris) Re: Single Rings Disturb Household (Tony Harminc) Re: Single Rings Disturb Household (Michael D. Corbett) VARBusiness -- For Hire (Hillary Rettig) Modem Through Cordless Phone (Victor Diaz) Re: Last Laugh! Recent Telecomics Summary (Geoffrey Welsh) Re: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX (Wes Leatherock) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Pete Goss Subject: One Stop Government Inquiry Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 13:15:53 -0700 Organization: Service to the Citizen, Colorado You are either receiving this message because of a past inquiry that you made regarding the Service to the Citizen Summit in Denver, Colorado, or because you belong to a group which might be interested in applying technology to community affairs. The Government Technology Program at the University of Colorado, Denver, has recently undertaken research for the G7 Nations. We are interested in identifying Government "One-Stop Shopping" service initiatives around the world that seek to consolidate the delivery of government services by offering more than one service in one place. ("Place" may be a physical location or an electronic locale.) If you are involved in or know of such efforts, please forward a brief description to rschremp@csn.net, or telephone 303-640-5076. ------------------------------ From: Joshua Fenton Organization: Augustana College - Rock Island IL Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 14:53:07 CST Subject: AT&T WorldNet Services Another reader wrote: > Its now past mid-April, and I still haven't seen anything of my > software kit, so I'm just wondering if anyone out there has actually > gotten signed up for this and is using it? {Consumer Reports}' current issue rates a variety of services, and I _believe_ (don't quote me) it states that the WorldNet services is Netscape and EMail only primarily, but is essentially a PPP connection. Regarding the software delay, I called to sign up in the first few days after it was announced. I used their MESA forms IVR system, recording my name and details after each 'beep'. When I called this past Monday and spoke with an EXTREMELY helpful rep, I was quickly escalated to a 'duty manager' who explained that in the first weeks of the promotion, they had a problem with their IVR system, and lost several thousand requests. He then took my request on an expedited bases, and stated I should have the software and materials in about a week. ccjf@augustana.edu Joshua G. Fenton, Augustana College Microcomputer Support and Telecommunications Coordinator Phone +1.309.794.7309, Fax +1.309.794.7431 639-38th Street, Rock Island IL 61201-2296 USA ------------------------------ From: flux@stack.urc.tue.nl (Mark van der Aalst) Subject: Data Mailbox With Modem Date: 23 Apr 1996 20:33:35 +0200 Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands My father has this problem: He's currently using SuperVoice, a Windows program wich allows the user to setup his own databank, He's also using one of those newer modems, a 1414HQ dynalink modem (with a cirrus logic chip), wich is able to detect wether the incoming call is either voice or data (of fax for that matter). Now what he wants is a piece of software (in usage identically to SuperVoice) wich allows him to run an external program once a data-call is incoming. Adaptive answering is perfect using this combination (SuperVoice and Modem). Voice is registered (stored on harddisk) and a fax is also stored, but, what he wants to do is that *at* the moment a data-call is incoming his modem (= the software) switches to this external program (wich is FrontDoor) and the external program furtherly handles the incoming data ... am I making myself sorta clear here? Let's clarify it with a little graph ... | | (The incoming call) | \|/ +--------+ +------| IN |--------+ (1200Hz data tone) | +--------+ | | | | \|/ | \|/ +--------+ | +--------+ | FAX | | | DATA | +--------+ | +--------+ | +---------+ | MESSAGE | (i.e. 'press 1 for this, 2 for that ...') +---------+ (1) (2) (3) | +------+---------+-----------+-----+---------------+ | | | | | | | | | | (...) | +-----+ +------+ +--------+ +---------------+ | | Joe | | Jack | | Peter | | FAX on DEMAND | | +-----+ +------+ +--------+ +---------------+ | | +-----------------+ | *** D A T A *** | +-----------------+ So most of this stuff is hardware handled (i.e. the modem does it all for us), but the last and final step to the data 'box' is handled by the software (now SuperVoice), so what my dad wants is either a program wich does the same as SuperVoice but is more 'user-configurable' or some sort of patch or cool idea to do it within SuperVoice. If somebody knows of the existence of such an application or knows a way how to do this my dad would be helped a lot! Please mail me, since I'm cross-posting this to various newsgroups. Thanx in advance! flux@stack.urc.tue.nl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:40:02 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: "Phony" 800 Numbers (was Re: Last Laugh) aerostar@ccia.com wrote: > Heard this today on WKBN (radio) Youngstown, Ohio: > "Residents of Talmadge, Ohio have convinced the city to take action to > remove two advertising billboards for a high sugar/caffeine beverage. > Apparently, the billboards included a non-working 800 number: > 800-BITE-ME." I read this in the local paper. It also mentioned that the number after the 800 was *less* than seven digits! I pity those who have any of the ten possible 800-248-363X combinations, as there are going to be people who see that the number is *less* than seven (ten) digits and try to dial it with an extra digit perpended! About ten years ago, the Zulu parade organization at Mardi Gras was told not to hand out their highly prized decorated coconuts or else they would lose their insurance policy for their parade. This caused a lot of anger and bitterness on the part of the Zulu organization, the city officials, and the parade-going public. At the parade, many Zulu float riders held up signs which read something like: "Angry, call our insurance company, 800-COCONUT" I wonder if 800-262-6688 received any calls? Since this was about ten years ago, there might have been an intrastate 800-262 exchange with a valid number assigned -6688! Saturday Nite Live used to do satirical "commercials" and display a fictitious 800 number at the end. This was about ten years ago as well, when there were not as many (supposed) 800 numbers as today. (Sometimes, I'd see a 700-555-XXXX number quoted at the end of these SNL fictitious commercials). But with the 800 numbers, they usually used an 800-NNX or 800-NXX which had never been assigned in the old Bell System days, when 800-NNX codes had *rigid* geographic meaning. One Saturday night in late 1986, they had 800-999 and whatever "line" number. At that time, the 504-24X #1AESS switch had non-existent 800-NXX's blocked out, as there was soon to be 800 competition based on 800-NXX codes assigned to long-distance carriers. I dialed 800-999-xxxx expecting to be clicked to "call cannot be completed as dialed" recording from my own switch. However I received a slight delay before clicking to an *MCI* recording stating that the call couldn't be completed! During the late 1980's and early 90's prior to "full" portability, 800-999 was assigned to MCI. With 800-555 being assigned to regular working numbers now, based in the 800 and 888 portability database, I wonder what fictitious 800 numbers are available now. The 555-01XX range of fictitious numbers only applies to 555 in *geographic* NPA's since those NPA's 555 prefix are now being assigned to new "info-line" type services. Judith, any help here? MARK J. CUCCIA PHONE/WRITE/WIRE: HOME: (USA) Tel: CHestnut 1-2497 WORK: mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu |4710 Wright Road| (+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity 5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New Orleans 28 |fwds on no-answr to Fax:UNiversity 5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:18:21 -0600 From: srb@transposon.LANL.GOV (srb) Subject: Call From AT&T Representative For LD Carrier Switching Hi, I got a call from a rep from AT&T for switching to AT&T. I don't recall the exact conversation, but here is what I can recall. He: I am from AT&T... He: Where do you call most? I: India He then tried to ask some questions about my current plan, why I switch over from AT&T, etc. I answered few, but got irritated with questions like 'What did they offer you?' and told him 'What can you offer?' He: 40% off to all the calls to India. I: How much will it cost me in economy time? He didn't know that off hand, then he tried to plug in a sample number to see the rate. Surprisingly, he didn't even know how to plug in a international number. Then I had to tell him 01191 ... he finally told it is $1.5 in economy time and told me 'sorry I can't help you today', since it was costing double to what I am currently paying. My question is, who are these people? Are they AT&T employees or some marketing people contracted by AT&T? Thanks for your time. Sam ------------------------------ From: Shaver, John W. Subject: Wrong Facts in the Newspaper Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 08:44:00 PDT The publisher of our local six-days-week paper about ten years ago funded a student center for journalism students at his alma mater. He does not pay more than minimum wage for his reporters. I have no idea what he pays his editors. As a result, the inexperienced personnel that he has as reporters do not understand the local power structure in the community, don't understand, much less write cogent language, and their most popular feature is a call-in line which is reported on the editorial page of the paper verbatim. I suspect that our local radio announcers are similarly underpaid. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Most of the larger papers pay a little better than that, however they still frequently use reporters who are new in the community with very little practical knowledge of local politics, etc. As a result, sometimes the stories are hilarious due to the inadvertent ignorance of the writer. I have noticed lately that many of the graphics in the {Chicago Sun-Times} are full of errors. One day recently they ran a graphic showing the downtown streets and their numbers. Beginning at a certain location going north all the streets were off by one number. When calling to ask about it the answer was 'well that was done by a new person who did not know the way the streets are numbered.' But you know I bet those people all think they are really hot stuff and wrote home to their parents to tell them proudly how they gat a job working for the newspaper in the big city. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Richter Subject: Re: Don't Change the PIC Yourself! Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:40:32 -0700 Organization: CCnet.com Jason Fetterolf wrote: > On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Michael J. Wengler (mwengler@qualcomm.com) wrote: > My understandings of the provisioning (of a PIC change) process are > that some, but perhaps, not all, of the LD carriers need to input > certain types of data, and perform coding that may be specific to a > particular billing plan for a new account BEFORE it is provisioned > onto the carrier's network. My understanding is that the PIC code merely points to which outbound trunk the LEC should use for routing the call. All accounting charges, rates are known only to the Long Distance company. The LEC doesn't/wouldn't care. The LEC knows when the call started, when it ends and who called and from where and other nifty stuff, but hasn't a clue if Bob is getting 6 cents a minute or 35 cents. What may happen is the billing records on the PIC'ed carrier may not have been updated, hence, billing at the default rate. Oops. Like they always say, confirm you're on the plan before you call India. > IF one would call the LEC and change the PIC himself, it could occur > I heard of a case where an impatient LD agent switched the PIC Facts please, not Internet rumor. > Has anyone else experinced this, and familiar with which carriers are I switched my own preference with the LEC, painless, quick and problem free. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? From: richard@jyacc.com (Richard Harris) Organization: JYACC, Inc. Date: Mon, 22 Apr 96 19:30:26 PST Stanley Cline asks: > When did LD carriers stop verifying third-number billings? This is > clearly an opportunity for fraud, since no PIN or other code is > required. (I assume if the third-number activity became excessive, that > the carrier would step in to do something, but still, not checking the > identity of the caller is a bit ridiculous.) Sounds like you called from your home phone number, as opposed to a pay phone (or prison, univerity, hospital, etc.) Most phone companies don't bother verifying third party calls from regular residence or business lines, other than doing a BVS check (which makes sure the third number is not a payphone/prison/hospital phone, and that the owner of the line hasn't requested automatic denial of collect/third number calls). The cost of gaining acceptance from the owner of the third number on every call would be much more than the loss due to fraud. Besides, if they can't collect from the third number, their next legal stop is to get money from the caller -- which is you. Richard [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Illinois Bell used to frequently say they were willing to bill for calls in a variety of ways for the convenience of their customers, however in any case when billing was unsuccessful, they always went back to the owner of the phone where the call was made, under the tariff which states that the subscriber is always responsible for the use of the instruments. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 18:52:15 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Single Rings Disturb Household relkay01@fiu.edu (Ron Elkayam) wrote: > You could try hitting *69. Even if you're not subscribed to the > service (Call Return), the feature will work and you'll pay on a > per-use basis. In my case (Bell South Land) the charge is 75c per > call. This is something new they started April 1st (per-use *69 and > *66). > Oh, incidentally. I called the rep to ask if I'll be charged 75c per > call even after I exceed $4 (which is the normal monthly fee for Call > Return) and she said "yeah, you pay 75c per call with no limits". I > heard that in Canada, you also pay a per-usage fee, but they set up a > limit (which is basically the flat monthly rate) after which all usage > of the feature is free. Actually in Bell Canada territory the cap on per-use charges for things like Call Return is *twice* the subscription amount. If it was capped at the monthly amount, why would anyone ever subscribe? Tony Harminc ------------------------------ From: Michael D. Corbett Subject: Re: Single Rings Disturb Household Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:55:18 -0700 Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, Mark Smith wrote: > The reason that more calls are made than people can handle is that > many of them will be busy or no answer. > Occasionally, more calls than expected will connect, and the dialer > will hang up on somebody. Where I work this is logged automatically, > and used to change the number of calls being made. The callee is also > scheduled to be first to be called when a representative is free, > normally a minute or two later. > Any respectable telemarketer will configure their system to minimize > the number of dropped calls, because it makes no sense to pay for them > if they will go unconnected. However, I could see an unscrupulous > company not minimizing these calls to keep the representatives > constantly busy. I too was the victim of many days worth of these one ring calls. I finally called my local carrier, US West in my case, and I was given a "call trace" code to dial after each of the hangups. Each time I dialed the trace code (*57 or some such) I was informed by an electronic voice if the trace was successful or not. After three successful traces, I was given an 800 number to dial where I spoke to an actual representative that had access to my tracing activities. They could not tell me *who* was dialing my number, but said it was a telemarketer "well known to them" :) The circumstances were exactly as described above by Mr. Smith. A predictive call system making too many calls, I answer the phone, there is *no* operator available, so they disconnect. Annoying as all get out. The telemarketer was sent a very "strongly worded" letter by the legal department of US West asking that my number be removed from their dialer, and surprise, in about two days, the calls stopped completely. :) The only thing that sort of angered me, was that each time I traced a call, it cost *ME* money. Not much mind you, but it seems to me that *I* should not have to pay the trace fees to stop the harassment. Some nights there would be as many as six or seven of the calls. No question however that the money was well spent, for the peace of mind if nothing else. Mike Corbett Fax: +1.206.556.8059 BEST Consulting Voice: +1.206.556.8008 x2089 At: Digital Systems International Internet: mcorbett@halcyon.com 6464 185th. Ave. N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Alter-Internet: mikec@dgtl.com #include [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, I think there are ways around having to pay the fee for call tracing. The fee applies if you use the automated *57 service, however you can go directly to the Annoying Call (or Call Annoyance) Bureau at some telcos and get assistance. Telco has the legal obligation to provide you with peaceful use of your service. Generally I think *57 is mostly for 'casual' type prank calls rather than hard-core repeated obscene or threatening callers. Five years ago someone latched on to one of my numbers and gave us a bunch (like a couple dozen per day) hang up calls. Our 'hello' would be followed by their silence and eventual disconnection. In that case the Call Annoyance people simply put a 'trap' on our line and gathered the information for themselves. One thing they warned me about was *never, ever* tell -ANYONE- that you have a trap on your line when that sort of investigation is going on. Why? Well, it seems time and again most people who are harassed on the phone know the harasser and talk to them otherwise. It is not that common for a purely random person to call some other purely random person and harass them by ringing their phone. Never tell anyone, because you might just accidentally tell the 'wrong' person ... The second thing they mentioned was that before putting a trap on the line, or in conjunction with doing it, I had to sign a document for them which stated that I agreed the results of the trap would be turned over only to the police and that *regardless of who was responsible I agreed to prosecute*. As the lady in the Security Department said to me, 'We are not your private detective service. If you have problems with telephone calls you receive, we will assist police officers who have been specially trained to deal with this sort of crime. If you do not agree to this, then the person calling you could claim we are violating *his* privacy by noting his calls.' I signed off and sent the form back to them. The calls continued off and on for a few days, and sure enough about two weeks later I got a call from a Chicago Police detective. He and a couple others dealt with this situation all over the city regardless of police district. I went to his office and signed the complaint. Then and only then he said, 'here is the name and address of the person making the calls.' A court date was set and as I recall the judge gave them a fine and a couple months probation since it was their first offense. The awkward part is, the anonymous caller could be a co-worker, a former lover, a relative ... as apparently ninety percent of them are. Telco gets all the details, the cops write up the complaint and warrant, and then you say, 'oh, I don't want to prosecute my former lover, etc' ... uh, uh ... it doesn't work that way. If you are alleging a crime was committed, then prosecute or else live with it. In our case it was a downstairs neighbor who was angry at my brother about something personal between them. Between the date the cops gave the lady the criminal summons and the court date itself, she was at our door a couple times making further threats. The same police officer came back out to see her and told her if he had any more complaints she would get locked up until the time of the trial, and that cooled her enthusiasm for hell-raising quite a bit. Generally, I would use *57 for routine nuisances only, which is perhaps why telco charges for it, to cut down on petty complaints. For life threatening and really *sick* people calling you, it is best to go direct to the annoyance call people for help. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hrettig@cmp.com (Rettig Hillary) Organization: CMP Publications, Inc. Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:46:17 -0400 Subject: VARBusiness -- For Hire VARBusiness Magazine is pleased to announce that the For Hire section of its Web site (www. techweb.cmp.com/var/current) now offers a substantial resource for computer resellers, interconnects, developers, and others looking for employees, employers, or partners. It includes: *an area to post notices for open positions or partnership opportunities; *an area to post resumes; *a Campus Career Center with links to the computer science, electrical engineering, and other departments at major U.S. universities. These links bring you directly to *thousands* of student resumes. All this, in addition to our usual industry buzz, product notes, bug alerts, market research, etc. Hillary Rettig Technology Editor VARBusiness hrettig@cmp.com ------------------------------ From: Victor Diaz Subject: Modem Through Cordless Phone Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 08:24:53 +0200 Organization: Alcatel Hello, Does anybody know how could I connect a modem to the handset of a cordless phone (Panasonic)? I don't mind openind the handset as far as I can avoid running wires through the house. Thanks in advance, Victor Manuel Diaz Phone: + 33 1 3067 4074 ALCATEL CIT/DSB Fax: + 33 1 3067 3584 10, rue Latecoere e-mail: victormanuel.diaz@vz.cit.alcatel.fr BP 57 +------v------+ 78140 Velizy CEDEX |A L C A T E L| FRANCE +-------------+ ------------------------------ From: crs0794@inforamp.net (Geoffrey Welsh) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Recent Telecomics Summary Date: 23 Apr 1996 05:30:47 GMT Organization: InfoRamp Inc., Toronto, Ontario (416) 363-9100 In article , Dave.Leibold@superctl. tor250.org (Dave Leibold) wrote: > Doonesbury (27 Nov 1995): Bernie tries to get Mike to get a web > site going. Mike then cell-phones Alex to ask what a web site is. Today I heard a radio ad for an unrelated business but which used the complexity of computers to emphasize their simplicity. One comment was "If you really feel the need to interface with a web site, try nosing around the attic for a spell." Geoffrey Welsh, Developer, InSystems Technologies Inc. Temporary: crs0794@inforamp.net; At work: insystem@pathcom.com At home: geoff@zswamp.uucp or [xenitec.on.ca|m2xenix.psg.com]!zswamp!geoff [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not sure I understand this entirely unless they are referring to cobwebs as one might find created by spiders in a seldom-visited area. In any event, I do not think it is funny. Am I humor-impaired? PAT] ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 03:18:00 GMT Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong Monty Solomon writes: > The NYNEX "Time" number (+1 617 637 1234) is reporting the incorrect > time. It is fast by about 20 seconds. How do the phone companies set > this time? Is this the same time used by the billing computers? In most places in Southwestern Bell territory now, the time service, being sponsored, now is on the premises of the sponsoring customer and no longer under the direct control of SWBT. When it was in SWBT offices, the time was represented as being correct within two minutes. Of course, the Audichron machine had no connection with the time used for billing. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@baremetl.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #197 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 23 21:28:08 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id VAA11495; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 21:28:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 21:28:08 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604240128.VAA11495@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #198 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Apr 96 21:28:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 198 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New Markets Opening Up For BellSouth (Mike King) Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? (Jon Krueger) Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? (W. Halverson) Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? (Barry Margolius) Re: Using NTP (was: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number) (Michael Shields) Need Software For Converting To/From ADPCM (Rick Barton) Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Documents (Ed Ellers) Local Time and Phone Number Mapping (Stephane Allegret) How to Protest Local ISDN Tariffs (Monty Solomon) Re: NPA 604/250 Split List With Place Name Details (Melvin Klassen) Iwatsu Key System Equipment For Sale (William R. Somerville) Re: Intimidating Cellular Phone and a Phony Police Officer (apu@spfld.com) Re: Intimidating Cellular Phone and a Phony Police Officer (Steve Bagdon) Re: Intimidating Cellular Phone and a Phony Police Officer (Bill Walker) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike King Subject: New Markets Opening Up for BellSouth Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:22:37 PDT Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 15:43:44 -0400 From: BellSouth Subject: New Markets Opening Up for BellSouth Reply-To: info@corp.bellsouth.com New Markets Opening Up for BellSouth, Shareholders Told at Company's Annual Meeting ATLANTA -- BellSouth Corporation's (NYSE: BLS) marketing success story is a result of the company's effectively providing quality services that customers need and use, BellSouth Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John L. Clendenin told shareholders in Atlanta at the company's annual meeting today. Highlighting achievements of the last year, Clendenin pointed out that as the premier communications company of the Southeast, BellSouth has two significant advantages: The region is experiencing the highest growth in the country, and BellSouth employees are capitalizing on that growth by offering products and services that benefit customers. "BellSouth has the largest customer base among U.S. telcos," said Clendenin. "We now have over 21 million access lines in service. We sold over 900,000 new access lines in 1995. That's 2,500 new lines a day. "And we expect to add nearly one million lines in 1996," continued Clendenin. "A big driver to our growth has been our ability to sell additional lines to our customers. In fact, thanks to the success of our marketing programs, over 40 percent of the residential access lines we sell are additional lines." Among BellSouth's 1995 highlights Clendenin noted were: * The company added more customers and sold more services than ever before. * The stock increased by nearly 61 percent, the best performance by any major U.S. telecommunications company. * shareholders' total return including dividends was 67.7 percent, a return that was 30 percentage points greater than the Standard & Poor 500. * The company board of directors raised the dividend and split the stock two-for-one. "Our record performance last year didn't just happen," remarked Clendenin. "At BellSouth, we've been intent on creating shareholder value and growing this business since our beginning in 1984." BellSouth is creating shareholder value by focusing on three key strategies that combine the company's dedication to customer service with its commitment to grow value for the shareholder, he said. With the first business strategy to strengthen the company's leadership position as the premier communications company in the Southeast, BellSouth has demonstrated its strong marketing capabilities while being able to control costs and benefit from positive changes in industry regulation. "We also flexed our marketing muscles through the huge success of our value added services like MemoryCall and Caller ID," said Clendenin. "These are great services and one our customers find convenient and easy to use." BellSouth's second strategy is continuing to profitably grow the company's domestic wireless business, and the third is to focus on international business by growing existing operations and expanding into new markets, Clendenin said. "From Atlanta to Auckland, from Berlin to Buenos Aires, we can truly say that BellSouth is a world-wide, world-class communications company," he said. "Every 15 seconds somewhere in the world a new customer is choosing the BellSouth Brand." F. Duane Ackerman, BellSouth Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer who will succeed Clendenin in 1997, told shareholders new legislation in the form of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has presented the company with new marketing opportunities. "With new markets, we are remaking BellSouth into a new kind of communications company," Ackerman said. "(Our) customers will be able to get the full range of communications services from us wireline and wireless, local and long distance, video and new services associated with the Internet." Of all the new markets open to BellSouth, the company will start with long distance. Ackerman said the company expects to be attain 20 percent of the market in five years and will not be required to make major new investments to accomplish that target. BellSouth is a $17.9 billion communications services company. It provides telecommunications, wireless communications, directory advertising and publishing, and information services to more than 25 million customers in 17 countries worldwide. # # # For Information Contact: Tim Klein (404)249-4135 Al Schweitzer (404)249-2832 ------------------ Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: jpk@ns.incog.com (Jon Krueger) Subject: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? Date: 23 Apr 1996 22:00:08 GMT Organization: Internet Commerce Group Unless I very much miss my guess, the ads that PacBell is taking out, while mandated by the CPUC, are designed and intended by PacBell to get people to enable blocking. Their ads are all the scare hot buttons, e.g. "Your phone, your choice, your privacy." They run big scare headlines e.g. "your phone number will be given out automatically each time you make a call -- unless you block it." They make the case against callerID ("you may not want sales people saving or selling your number") but present nothing of the case for it. The words "harassing" or "annoying" call, for instance, appear nowhere in the ad. Nor is a single instance of a positive use of CallerID given. They portray the caller's point of view, never that of the person getting the call. They never mention that blocking won't block to 800 or 900 numbers, never has, and never will. (This from yesterday's SF Chron full page ad; I think they had enough space to talk about it :-) The aim is not to inform, but to advocate. CPUC made them warn people about the brave new world, but again, unless I miss my guess, the slant in the ads was exclusively a decision of PacBell. My inference is that PacBell is trying to get enough people to block that most numbers will be blocked, thus rendering CallerID service unattractive. If this is the case, the mystery is why? What difference does it make to PacBell? It's just another add-on for a fee. If anything, you'd think they'd want to sell it, since they don't charge for blocking, but do charge for CallerID. So why are they trying to torpedo it? I'm sorry, but I don't think PacBell has become a privacy crusader all of a sudden. What's really going on here? Jon ------------------------------ From: bkron@netcom.com (W Halverson) Subject: Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 22:10:50 GMT tom@ssd.hcsc.com (Tom Horsley) writes: > When AT&T announced their free internet access program, the press > releases said people who signed up would start getting their kits in > the mail around mid-March. Its now past mid-April, and I still haven't > seen anything of my software kit, so I'm just wondering if anyone out > there has actually gotten signed up for this and is using it? I've asked the same question myself with mysterious results. I ordered the software twice. The second order was made because the first order seemed to go into the bit bucket. Nevertheless, after almost two months, still nothing. Some people I've talked to said they were actually cold-called by AT&T about the service! They claim they received their software just a couple of days after such a cold call. And some people on Usenet claim to have the software, and go on to claim that they are "encouraged" to pass the software around, since its primary purpose is to establish an account. However, the mysterious part is that, when asked to simply post the software somewhere so we can all have it, the bizarre excuses emerge. "I haven't got time," "I lost the disk," etc. At least one person claimed that they were "forbidden" to post it, despite the earlier claim that they were "encouraged to pass it around." AT&T's own homepage about the service hasn't been updated since its creation on February 28th. There have been no press releases about the service since its announcement. I'm beginning to think this is vaporware, with the occasional perfunctory post claiming how "great" the service is in terms of throughput. These posts are probably being made by shills on the AT&T payroll! I have stopped recommending to my clients that they call AT&T about the service until I'm convinced that it really exists. ------------------------------ From: bfm@pobox.com (Barry Margolius, NYC) Subject: Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 22:13:41 GMT I just received my AT&T Worldnet CDROM: I installed it last night. There is a proprietary installation routine that uses a highly stripped down version of Netscape to call what I believe is an AT&T private Intranet purely for registration (thus avoiding exposing your credit card on the public Internet). After that it installs a rather normal version of Netscape 1.1 and Eudora. I'm told they use standard PPP to connect, thought I've not had time to test this out yet. Their install program creates a REG.INI file that has all the necessary TCP/IP and login info. I had to call twice for my software. There seems to be considerable variability as to delivery of the software: some folks get it in a week or two, while others take several weeks/months. Barry F Margolius, New York City bfm@pobox.com For PGP Key, finger bfm@panix.com ------------------------------ From: shields@crosslink.net (Michael Shields) Subject: Re: Using NTP (was: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number) Date: 23 Apr 1996 21:50:04 -0000 Organization: CrossLink Internet Access and Networking Services In article , Robert McMillin wrote: > Do you *really* want to get into NTP? I had to do it for a fairly > small and heterogenous site, and what a nightmare it was ... I threw > up my hands and eventually used timed and rdate. Actually, it's not so complicated once you get it working. My configuration file for xntpd looks like this: server ntp1.crosslink.net server ntp2.crosslink.net server ntp3.crosslink.net driftfile /var/lib/ntp.drift You just need to point each machine to the upstream servers, and let it run, recording the clock skew on disk so it can read it back after a reboot. It works very well. The underlying protocol is complicated, but life is filled with complicated things you don't need to understand in order to use them. > You can find administrative information on how to connect your clock at > http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ntp.html, as well as links on how to actually > run NTP. Based on what I've read, it looks like the Navy really would > prefer you use a regional timeserver, and there are also links to those. Try for a fairly complete set of pointers. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had thought there was a command similar > to this: 'telnet tick.usno.navy.mil ntp' where 'ntp' is the argument > saying which socket to use and that this would then return the correct > time from the master clock. That's port 13, the daytime port. I don't know of servers other than tick and tock that support it in the way they do. Shields, CrossLink. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For a good time then, either call to 202-653-0351 at 300/1200 baud or do 'telnet tick.usno.navy.mil 13'. You can use it to set all your clocks whenever you want. It will automatically disconnect after one minute. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rick@metronet.com (Rick Barton) Subject: Need Software For Converting To/From ADPCM Date: 23 Apr 1996 02:35:52 GMT Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/488-2590 - 817/571-0400)) Reply-To: rbarton@metronet.com I am in desperate need of sources to convert to/from OKI32 and ADPCM. If you have any leads, please e-mail to me at: rbarton@metronet.com Thanks, rick rbarton@metronet.com ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Documents Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 21:21:00 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) shaw writes: > Thanks to Mark Jefferey of Microsoft for his very good summary of the > situation of online access to ITU Standards in Telecom Digest #156. A > FAQ on our subscription service to ITU Recommendations is available at > http://www.itu.ch/special/faqpub-a.html. An annual subscription to all > electronic ITU-T Recommendations is around $US 2700.--. Concerning > Mark's comment that "Hopefully a system will evolve that allows online > purchase of just the documents you need", we are actively working on > it. Around May or June 1996, you'll be able to purchase individual > electronic ITU standards with a credit card at our web site. This begs the question of why -- since the ITU is an agency of the United Nations, which is funded by the governments of the member states -- there is *any* restriction on the redistribution of ITU documents! This stuff should be free to the public. ------------------------------ From: Stephane Allegret <101350.740@compuserve.com> Subject: Local Time and Phone Number Mapping Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 16:40:42 +0200 Organization: Elan Informatique Given someone's international phone number, is there a way to determine his local time? Sample application: an automatic system may be able to call a person anywhere in the world but should never disturb someone who is sleeping. I suppose that some kind of database with international and regional area codes must be involved but I have no idea of where I can find it. Any help will be strongly appreciated. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I suppose you would examine the phone number to find the country code, and then map that back to a specific country. With the country name you would then map it out to some amount of time plus or minus GMT relevant to your own time. That part should be easy enough to do, but how do you detirmine if the person is sleeping or not? Do you call and ask them 'are you awake?' With the MyLine 800 service, a useful part is the wakeup service. You can tell it to call and wake you at a specified time. Although the machine is in California on Pacific Time, it knows enough that 8:00 am here is 6:00 am there, and I get my wakeup at the time I requested it by my time. You might ask them how they figure it out. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 23:06:46 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: How to Protest Local ISDN Tariffs Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 10:58:21 -0500 (EST) From: James Love Subject: How to protest local ISDN tariffs On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Giorgio Gomelsky wrote: > Am personally very willing to help similar action in New York if there > are other ISDNers in NY to connect to or collaborate with, please instruct. We have hired Todd Paglia, a lawyer, to provide free legal assistance to consumers who want to challenge local ISDN tariffs. His email is tpaglia@tap.org, his phone is 202/387-8030. Basically, if a tariff is pending, its a case of filing comments for the record (as many as possible), and talking with the PUC staff and the local consumer advocate. Things that have been quite effective are giving out copies of the various intel filings, Scott Rafferty's Delaware testimony, the NRRI ISDN cost study, some of our (CPT) pleadings, and the CPT survey of tariffs. The comments also need to make it concrete why ISDN is important to people, and how the high prices hurt consumers and infomation services providers. If there is no tariff pending, then Todd needs to find out the proceedure for petitioning the agency for a review of the tariff. This is quite different from state to state, but we would love to get something going in NYC. It is also important to get industry groups involved. Intel and Compaq have made a huge impact in several US West states, and in New Mexico and Arizona there are broad information industry coalitions involved. This is pretty powerful stuff for the PUCs ... Send Todd a note if you want to proceed. These things work best when the local consumers are truly active and involved, setting up local web pages on the tariff battle, making calls to Commission staff and local newspapers, etc ... James Love / love@tap.org / P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax 202/234-5176 Center for Study of Responsive Law Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.tap.org ------------------------------ From: klassen@UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen) Subject: Re: NPA 604/250 Split List With Place Name Details Date: 23 Apr 1996 17:11:31 -0700 Organization: University of Victoria Dave Leibold writes: > 250/604 area code split for British Columbia: > Area code 250 is activated 19 Oct 1996. Authoritative information can be found on the World Wide Web: http://WWW.BCTEL.COM/checkthisout/newcode.html i.e., lists of exchanges within each area-code, and an interactive "predictor" of the area-code after the split, with a beautiful blue "dogwood" (the provincial flower) background. :-) ------------------------------ From: wsomerville@usa.pipeline.com (William R. Somerville) Subject: Iwatsu Key System Equipment For Sale Date: 23 Apr 1996 19:20:43 GMT Organization: Pipeline The following Iwatsu Key Telephone System equipment is available. Best offer will be accepted: 1- Iwatsu Omega 16/48 KSU w/Expansion unit 28- Iwatsu Omega 824 Key Telphone Sets (6 w/Display) 1- Iwatsu Omega Console If interested, please email to: wsomerville@usa.pipeline.com Thank you :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 06:10:36 EDT From: Apu Subject: Re: Intimidating Cellular Phone and a Phony Police Officer On Tue, 16 Apr 96 17:36:57 CST, "Atkinson" wrote: > For your own safety (and I was told this by an instructor at the > police academy) NEVER assume that someone is a police officer just > because they say they are. Ask to see the badge. No REPUTABLE police > officer will have a problem with that. Also, those red and blue > flashing lights on the dash can be had by persons who are not police > (obviously, in view of my experience). Two things: 1) Don't just see a badge and accept it. Look at it. Anybody can buy a badge from a "real badge" manufacturer, but generally you have to have some good knowledge about the department you are pretending to be a part of to get one that looks authentic. Also, a lot of people have badges; make sure the one you are shown matches the claim of he or she that is trying to prove his/her identity and is not the badge of a bus driver or whoever else. A couple of weeks ago, in my "little" hometown, two guys were having a dispute over a parking space at a local store. One of them (the "troublemaker") was waving a badge claiming to be a "Federal agent." Well, management didn't like the noise outside and called the local police. Turns out the badge he was waving around was authentic looking, but still a fake, for a reserve (auxilliary) police officer in a neighboring town...a far cry from the Federal agent he was claiming to be. Of course, now he's learning all about real police officers from the inside of a jail cell. 2) Regarding the flashing lights. As Atkinson mentioned, always ask to see a badge or, better yet, ask for the officer to call for a uniformed officer in a marked car. Generally, he/she won't mind waiting a few moments so that you feel safe (and at the same time, having backup for them is always a nice thing too). And, if you're in a desolate area, turn on your hazards lights and drive slowly to somewhere where there is at least good lighting if not a good number of people. There are always people who pretend to be police officers, often assaulting and robbing people who they pull over. Every few months the newsmedia covers it and then forgets about it. In fact, I heard just a few days ago that New York Gov. Pataki sent out an executive order banning the use of unmarked police vehicles for routine traffic stops. Seems the "blue light bandits" have been doing particularily well recently. However, one should remember that most people who have flashing lights have them for a reason. Keep yourself safe but also get out of the way (well, not so they can get some food, but I think you know what I mean). If for nothing else than to get the nut away from you, but also because there might be a real need for that light. Unmarked police cars are common, but red/blue/green "courtesy" lights are also common in the fire service and EMS. Those departments that have people in-house will often page out for other members when the need arises, and many departments that have nobody in-house paging out every call for the crew to respond to the station from their homes or businesses.[*] These people need to get where they are needed quickly and the flashing or rotating light is meant to express that need to everybody else. After all, it may be your house that's burning down or your parent/spouse/child that is dying. * - This is more common in volunteer departments and small paid departments, but even big cities sometimes run out of resources and need more help. Apu (A NJ EMT-D who frequently has a blue light revolving on his dash!) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:08:27 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Intimidating Cellular Phone and a Phony Police Officer Atkinson, Fred said: > He had gotten back into his car, but got out again when he saw I > had the cellular to the side of my face. He tried to intimidate me > into hanging up, but I am a lot tougher than that. He asked me why I > had such a problem with this. I told him that he was supposed to go > to the end of the line like everyone else. He suggested we go inside > to talk to the management. I promptly agreed. Suddenly, he decided > he could let me go in front of him. I thanked him (very sarcastically). Which brings up two points (at least for me). 1) This brings up the value of a handsfree kit. 2) What if you *did* hav a handsfree kit, and were able to summon the police? Do you think anything would have happened? He would have been questioned, maybe even detained, *maybe* even charged, and heaven's forbid maybe even convicted of a crime. An individual whow does this action (of impersonating a police office) will probably also become *very* vindicative/vengeful if he has his bluff called by a person *not* in a position of authority. bagdon@rust.net Steve Bagdon http://www.rust.net/~bagdon ------------------------------ From: wwalker@qualcomm.com (Bill Walker) Subject: Re: Intimidating Cellular Phone and a Phony Police Officer Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 10:59:44 -0800 Organization: QUALCOMM, Inc. In article , Atkinson, Fred wrote: [...] > If you suspect you've been approached by a phony police officer, > call you local police station or 911 and report it. I don't know about your state, but in California, 911 (landline or cellular) is for reporting emergencies that threaten life or property. Since the impersonator wasn't threatening you with bodily harm, I submit that a call to the local police station would be more appropriate. Here, cellular 911 calls are routed to a California Highway Patrol dispatcher, and there was a recent story in the papers about these folks pleading with people not to use 911 for non-emergency calls. For example, they often get dozens of calls reporting a single broken-down car parked safely on the shoulder. This ties up a lot of the dispatcher's time, and could make them slower to respond to real emergencies. Bill Walker, QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA USA WWalker@qualcomm.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On the other hand, in the city of Chicago, if you dial the number of a local police precinct to ask them about something or report some incident, they always tellyou dial 911 if you want to speak to a police officer. It seems a shame really. Here in Skokie, 911 brings a *huge* response in the form of manpower and vehicles but a call to the seven- digit number is handled more appropriately as a non-emergency. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #198 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 23 23:19:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA22535; Tue, 23 Apr 1996 23:19:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 23:19:25 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604240319.XAA22535@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #199 TELECOM Digest Tue, 23 Apr 96 23:19:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 199 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Ahern Communications Corporation Announces New Web Site (AhernCorp) Useful Phone Numbers at AT&T (Eric Kammerer) Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere (Michael J. Wengler) Employment Opportunity: Research/Analysis: Broadband Comm (Andy Bottomley) Re: Caller I.D. Blocking Question (Stan Schwartz) Re: Caller I.D. Blocking Question (Derek Balling) Is Caller ID Deadline Still June 1? (Derek J. Tarcza) Reviews of 900 MHz Cordless Telephones Wanted (Wm. Randolph Franklin) Comments Wanted on New Communications Product (mse@ix.netcom.com) Re: Internet Users Gather to Plan Sprint Class Action (lr@access1.digex) Connector For Motorola Flip Phones (John Plattner) Re: Don't Change the PIC Yourself! (Bill Grendel) Re: FCC Universal Service Filing (Tom Watson) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (turner7@pacsibm.org) Re: Advisor Flex References Wanted (Tony Pelliccio) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: aherncorp@aol.com (AhernCorp) Subject: Ahern Communications Corporation Announces a New Web Site Date: 23 Apr 1996 16:09:26 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: aherncorp@aol.com (AhernCorp) Ahern Communications Corporation announces a new web site for telecommunications professionals. The site contains a information on telephone headsets, conference phones and the new Eris videoconferencing system. We are also offering vistitors a free subscription to Sound Advice, a newsletter on new telecommunications products and news (sent out quarterly via US Mail). URL: http://members.aol.com/AhernCorp/ Andy Smith, Director of Marketing Ahern Communications Corporation http://members.aol.com/AhernCorp/ 800-451-5067/Fax 617-328-9070 Business Communications Experts ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 09:15:03 PDT From: erick@sac.airtouch.com (Eric Kammerer at Sac Net) Subject: Useful Phone Numbers at AT&T > Anyone know who to talk to at AT&T (Lucent) about getting a prom for a > ISDN Voice / data set? Don't know where I got this, but it might help: [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, where you got it from was me! I ran this in the Digest some time back, to provide a summary of phone numbers which might be useful. Here is the original article as it appeared before. PAT] ------------------------------------ A very common problem expressed by many people when trying to 'reach out and touch someone' at AT&T who can address a specific problem or assist with technical help is their inability to *actually get through* to anyone who knows anything. Time and again, one will get shunted from one location to another, from one department to another. With that in mind, I've compiled a listing of several numbers at AT&T which you may want to keep as a permanent reference. Any additions or corrections will be welcome. All of these are 800 numbers unless noted **, in which case they are 908 numbers. --------- All are 1-800, then 1A2 Repairs 526-2000 3B2 Messaging Server Help 852-8935 --- A --- Access Electronic News 242-6005 Accessible Comm. Products Center (ACPC) 233-1222 Account Inquiry Center 325-0138 Business LD Accounts Accumaster Network Managment Help 637-0007 Accunet Switched 56 Service 367-7956 Amcom Software Help 852-8935 Anixter Brothers, Inc. 228-7585 --- B --- Business Office (federal accounts) 492-6769 Business Office (non-federal) 247-7000 Business Office (state/local govt) 551-3364 --- C --- Call Aquisition/Fault Management Help 422-6622 Call Center Help 344-9670 Calling Card Calls CALL-ATT (225-5288) Capital Corporation 527-9876 Customer Access Newsletter 242-6005 Customer Information Center (CIC) 432-6600 Customer Maintainence Contact Center 242-2121 Arrange large repairs Customer Service (state/local govt) 551-3364 Customer Service Center (federal) 492-6769 Customer Service Center (non-federal) 247-7000 --- D --- Definity System Help 225-7585 Definity System Repairs 628-2888 Definity Users Group (Global) 847-6871 Definity Users Group (National-USA) 334-6489 Definity Users Group Info Hotline 953-7117 ** Area Code 908 --- E --- Easy Link Email Service 624-5672 --- F --- Fault Management Help 422-6622 Fax Products Repair 628-2888 --- G --- GBCS Buyback Program 953-6900 ** Area Code 908 GBCS Customer Assistance Program 953-2600 ** Area Code 908 GBCS Customer Training and Education 255-8988 GBCS Publications Fulfillment Center 457-1235 Gift Certificates GIFT-ATT (443-8288) Global Information Solutions Hardware 262-7782 Global Information Solutions Safari 531-2222 Global Information Solutions Software 543-9935 -H, I, J, K- Key System Phone Repairs and Help 526-2000 --- L --- Language Line Service 752-6096 Leased Equipment Orders/Repairs 555-8111 Long Distance Repair/Cust. Service 222-3000 Residence LD Accounts --- M --- Megacom Inbound Service 222-1000 Megacom Outbound Service MEGACOM (634-2266) Merlin Legend Repairs 628-2888 --- N --- National Service Assistance Center 628-2888 Merlin repairs Network Integration Center (Federal) 492-6769 Network Sales (Federal and FTS-2000) 253-3846 Network Sales (non-Federal) 222-0400 Network Security Department 821-8235 Non-AT&T Equipment Repair (Small) 628-2888 Non-AT&T Equipment Repair (Large) 242-2121 --- O --- Older Equipment 'standalone' Repairs 526-2000 1A2, ComKey, Horizon --- P --- Paradyne Product Maintainence Support 237-0016 Partner Repairs 628-2888 Passageway Telephony Server Help 344-1096 Payphone Repair (Military/Federal) 533-4543 Payphone Repair (Non-Military) 922-0086 Payphone Service Center 352-4003 Professional Services Help 344-1096 --- Q --- QualNet Enhanced Support Program 342-5677 --- R --- Residential Purchased Equipment Repair 222-3111 Retail Products Sales Locations 222-3111 To locate store near you Russo, Patricia GBCS President 953-8500 ** Area Code 908 --- S --- Satellite (Tridom) Service and Sales 346-1174 Single Line Leased Equipment Service 555-8111 Single Line Purchased Equipment Service 222-3111 Small Business Division Sales Office 247-7000 Sales and leasing Small Business Service and Repair 526-2000 1A2 Horizon repairs Software Solutions (Sales & Service) 462-8146 Sold Equipment Repair 222-3111 1-2 line small businesses Sourcebook Catalog Billing Inquiries 227-3251 8:30-5:30 EST M-F only Sourcebook Catalog Fax Orders 458-2389 Sourcebook Catalog Phone Orders 451-2100 Spirit Repairs 628-2888 System 75 Repairs 628-2888 System Management Help 548-8861 --- T --- T-1 Private Line Service 325-1230 Technical Service Center 242-2121 Teleconferencing Service 544-6363 Toll Fraud Crisis Intervention 242-2121 Training Solutions ATT-LEARN (288-5327) Tridom Sales, Service and Information 346-1174 --- U --- Universal Credit Card Corporation 423-4343 User Groups Fax Information Hotline 854-9123 --- V --- Video Conferencing Systems Repair 242-2121 Video Training, Services and Help VIDEO-GO (843-3646) Voice Messaging Help 56-AUDIX (562-8349) -W, X, Y, Z- Walker, James VP Sales and Service 953-7100 ** Area Code 908 World Wide Web Network Connection www.att.com Worldworx (tm) Solutions Help 828-WORX (828-9679) ---------------------- Eric Kammerer erick@sac.AirTouch.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:51:52 -0800 From: mwengler@qualcomm.com (Michael J. Wengler) Subject: Re: Cellular Rates, NY and Elsewhere Cellular pricing is a regular laugh-riot! The pricing is clearly done on what the market will bear. This stuff about fraud costs being higher in New York is a red herring. Cell costs are higher it seems in all the big markets, but it is only New York that gets cited usually as the fraud capital. Cellular pricing is based on maximizing corporate income. It is not intended to to reflect underlying costs. No matter how cheap cellular is, that's a different part of the business. Pricing's goal is maximize income, period. Look at the amount of marketing done in the New York Metro area and other high-priced areas to try to get cell phones out there. They do everything *but* lower the prices! This is because they have a growth rate which is phenomenal! With that growth rate, why would they want to lower the prices? They'll lower the prices when they have to to keep customers! I.e., when revenue will actually drop unless they do lower prices. This will happen when PCS really gets rolling. The extra capacity, and having up to 7 competing networks per market, will result in much more price competition. Its not a secret that cellular companies are money-making machines at the moment. What is the "cost" of a cellular call, maybe 5 cents/ minute? All the rest of your charge above that goes to 1) expanding the network since this is such a great money making machine, 2) marketing so the ball keeps rolling, 3) corporate profits so the shareholders are happy. I roam in San Diego with a Rochester NY account, and pay less per minute as a roamer than most people I talk to who live here do with there home accounts! And they're monthly rates are higher! It is what the market will bear, pure and simple. IMHO, of course. Michael J. Wengler mwengler@qualcomm.com A-290K7 at QualComm, Inc. Voice: (619) 658-5476 6455 Lusk Blvd Fax: (619) 658-1033 San Diego, CA 92121-2779 Beep: (619) 605-3580 ------------------------------ From: bottomac@mcgraw-hill.com Date: Tue, 23 Apr 96 12:02:10 EST Subject: Employment Opportunity: Research/Analysis; Broadband Communications Vacancies Vacancies in telecoms research with international firm. Variety of positions around the world. We are particularly looking for those with research and analysis experience on broadband communications. Call Andy Bottomley on +44 1628 773277 or fax CV to +44 1626 26865. ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Re: Caller I.D. Blocking Question Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 20:48:46 -0400 In TELECOM Digest V16 #183 rand777@ids.net (Robert Randolph) wrote: > You do not have to pay anything to have caller ID blocked. By law in > every state, just call your phone company and tell them you want it > blocked... That's not the whole story. In NYNEX/NY areas, customers have the option to select per-line blocking (or not) for free within the first 60 days after CID is provided in their area. After the 60 days, NYNEX charges $5.00 for each switch. Per-call switching is provided free. Stan Schwartz stan@vnet.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue 23 Apr 96 14:24:30 -0400 From: Derek Balling Subject: Re: Caller I.D. Blocking Question > You do not have to pay anything to have caller ID blocked. By law in > every state, just call your phone company and tell them you want it > blocked. Some states, Texas is one, requires that you contact > Consumer Affairs Department, Attorney General's Office and get some > kind of form. There may be some effort to intimidate you, by > suggesting that it is hard to understand why anyone, other than one > engaged in criminal activity, should want line blocking ... stay the > course, demand it ... they will do what you want. Caller ID is not a > convenience to the average consumer. Its greatest benefit it to > businesses; by the time they answer their phone, they have identified > you, have your account activity on screen and all at your expense ... > you saved them time and money. Be aware that all 800 numbers provide > caller ID automatically. For the record ... in many states line blocking is NOT available to the general public. That is tariff-specific. Some tariff's offer Per Line Blocking only to law enforcement personell, etc. Per CALL Blocking is, to my knowledge, available to all simply as a by-product of Caller ID being available in an area. Also be aware that 800 numbers do NOT ... DO NOT ... provide CallerID information. They provide ANI information, which is something completely different than Caller ID. You cannot block ANI, because ANI is what the telephone companies use to GENERATE their billing. (i.e. Company X has an 800 number ... company X's 800 provider needs to show Company X where the calls they are paying for CAME from, same as you like to see the itemized long distance calls on your regular outbound phone bill). Hope this clears up any possible confusion that might exist out there. Derek Balling GTE Customer Service Representative [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The fact that you cannot block your number when calling an 800 number has been discussed here many times, but there always seem to be some people unaware of that, and who are very suprised to find out they cannot do so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Derek J. Tarcza Subject: Is Caller ID Deadline Still June 1? Date: 23 Apr 1996 20:59:37 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Are we supposed to see CPN from all LD carriers by June 1, 1996? I know the FCC ruling for Dec. 1995 was sort-of voluntary, but is this for real? I was just wondering because i still see alot of "out of area" messages on my box. Also, has there been any regulation on CID for Centrex/PBX systems? Any information is appreciated. Thanks! Derek J. Tarcza DerekJ609@worldnet.att.net Lawrenceville, NJ (609) 895-0234 ------------------------------ From: wrfuse@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) Subject: Reviews of 900 MHz Cordless Telephones Wanted Date: 23 Apr 1996 00:24:45 GMT Organization: ECSE Dept, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, 12180 USA Reply-To: wrfuse@mab.ecse.rpi.edu (Wm. Randolph U Franklin) I've searched all the obvious places (telecom newsgroups groups, radio groups, altavista, yahoo) w/o any luck. I'll post a collection of any replies emailed me. A typical question that I have is what the sound quality and volume are like, since no stores have demo units hooked up. One thing I've discovered: there is a wide variation in prices. E.g., Lechmere is up to 3/2 the price of Office Max. Thanks, Wm. Randolph Franklin, wrf@ecse.rpi.edu, (518) 276-6077; Fax: -6261 ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180 USA ------------------------------ From: mse@ix.netcom.com (M.S.E.) Subject: Comments Wanted on New Communications Product Date: 23 Apr 1996 05:39:38 GMT Organization: Netcom We have taken interest in a new invention for the Internet and would like to get your comments before investing beyond a WEB page ... Please review : http://www.teleguard.com Thank you in advance for your help. Micro Solutions Enterprises. ------------------------------ From: lr@access1.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: Internet Users Gather to Plan Sprint Class Action Date: 23 Apr 1996 20:32:02 GMT Organization: Intentionally Left Blank Wes Leatherock (wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com) wrote: > There are places in those states where measured service is not > available at all. I don't believe that there are any flat rate options around here for business (if you mean a fixed monthly, unlimitted minutes plan). We do have a rather unique, 9 cents per call, regardless of length of call, plan here in DC. It's great for our slip lines, except when UUNET screws up and we end up placing 5000 calls to them over the weekend. Ron ------------------------------ From: conex@conex-electro.com (John Plattner) Subject: Connector For Motorola Flip Phones Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 16:37:53 +0100 Organization: Conex Electro-Systems, Inc. I am looking for a supplier for the 8 pin connector for the Motorola phones. I could use either the connector or the connector with cable (nothing on the other end). If you know a source for the above, please let me know via e-mail at conex@conex-electro.com. Thanks, John ------------------------------ From: grendel6@ix.netcom.com (Bill) Subject: Re: Don't Change the PIC Yourself! Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:55:00 GMT Organization: Netcom We recently changed LD carriers on one of our two home phone lines from AT&T to Sprint. Since the last change (Sprint to AT&T) took about three weeks to "hit", we called our LEC (Bell Atlantic/PA) to have the change made. They did it that same day, BUT ... AT&T picked up the change as soon as Bell Atlantic made it, and cancelled us out of our discount plan FOR THE ENTIRE MONTH, thus raising our last bill on AT&T by about $15.00. I called and bitched, and they re-rated the calls, but that was nasty of them. AND they gave me a hard time because that line is billed in my wife's name, and they didn't want to talk to me ... Sprint Sense is saving us a bundle, and I still have AT&T on my other line, because I get a 20% break on personal 800 by being in "True Savings". By the way, does anyone know of a carrier offering personal (residential) 800 service for less than about $.18 a minute off peak/out of state ? Last time I checked, both Sprint and MCI were higher. I used to use Alltel, but AT&T is still cheaper with the discount. Thanks. "Good one, Brain!" "They're >all< good ones, Pinky." Bill (Grendel6@ix.netcom.com) ------------------------------ From: tsw@3do.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: FCC Universal Service Filing Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 18:18:11 -0800 Organization: The 3DO Corporation In article , an488465@anon. penet.fi wrote: <<>> Wouldn't be easier for those who "have-not" (their terms, not mine) to go to a library. More and more libraries are getting public on-line connections. If this keeps going, everyone is going to insist on luxury cars, simply because they "have-not". A long social debate could be started on this one!! Tom Watson tsw@3do.com (Home: tsw@johana.com) ------------------------------ From: turner7@pacsibm.org (TUrner-7) Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Date: 24 Apr 1996 01:34:01 GMT Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS Per Mark's post about operator interception of calling card calls ... Calling card fraud is a big problem, especially to certain places. Thieves watch phone booths in busy areas (airports, train stations, esp in places like NYC) and copy down calling card numbers. These numbers are then used to sell calls for poor immigrants. When entering your calling card in a public phone, try to block the view of your dialing to prevent theft of the number. ------------------------------ From: kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com (Tony Pelliccio) Subject: Re: Advisor Flex References Wanted Date: 23 Apr 1996 15:26:30 -0400 Organization: Ideamation, Inc. In article , Greg Abbott wrote: > In my opinion, the Gold Advisor Flex is not as well designed or as > functional as the regular old advisor. I've carried the old style for > about six years and love it. I have a Gold on trial on the new paging > system my carrier (Ameritech) has installed and I've got to say, I > don't like it. The system is fine, I've got great coverage and the > system performs very well. It's just the pager that I don't like. > The primary problems are that it must be removed from the holster to > read it and the read button is in a awkward location which has caused > me to drop it several times when attempting to read my messages. > Other minor problems include the shape, being streamlined, it's hard to > hold onto with one hand (you've got to use both hands to really be > able to use the thing at all) and the tone selection has eliminated > all but one of the original tones. The new tones sound like some kids > toy rather than a professional pager ... they're awful! Here's my take on the Gold Advisor Flex -- I love it. It's infinitely better than the old Advisor I used to carry. The one real gripe I have about it is that the keys take alot more effort to activate than on the Advisor. You really have to dig your finger into the cursor movement keys to get them to do anything. Oh -- and SkyTel -- why did they put these things up on 931MHz??? It's got awful propagation characteristics in a city. Tony Pelliccio, KD1NR As offensive as I wanna be. kd1nr@anomaly.ideamation.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #199 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 24 12:57:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA13437; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:57:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:57:07 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604241657.MAA13437@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #200 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Apr 96 12:57:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 200 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CompuServe Called "Indecent" By Family Association (John Shaver) Man Busted For Transmitting "Organ" Over The Internet (Van Heffner) The Other Shoe Has Fallen - AT&T Files as Ohio LEC (Steve Brack) Newfoundland Telephone Becomes NewTel Communications (Nigel Allen) Bogus Website Claims Cure to AIDS (Van Heffner) Telecom Net Management Positions (borden@gsrc.mv.com) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at mirror.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily represent the views of Microsoft. ------------------------------------------------------------ Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 7:40:03 MST From: John Shaver EMETF Subject: CompuServe Called "Indecent" by Family Association Forwarded to the Digest FYI from these sources: Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 19:05:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Keith Bostic Subject: FLASH: CompuServe Called "Indecent" From: Wendell Craig Baker Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:39:43 -0800 From: telstar@wired.com (--Todd Lappin-->) Subject: FLASH: CompuServe Called "Indecent" To: cda-bulletin-list@hotwired.com Although the courts are still debating the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act, the Cyberporn Witch Hunt of 1996 is already getting underway ... On April 1, 1996, the American Family Association -- a fundamentalist group based in Mississippi -- sent a letter to Attorney General Janet Reno demanding that the Department of Justice launch a criminal investigation of CompuServe. The letter, signed by Patrick A. Trueman, Director of Governmental Affairs for the AFA, reads as follows: "I am writing to urge a criminal investigation of H&R Block, Inc. and Compuserve for potential violations of the Communications Decency Act. CompuServe, a division of H&R Block, Inc., as of Friday, March 29, 1996, is offering pornography and other sexually oriented material on its on-line service to its users, including children... I hope that you will have an investigator review material available to children on CompuServe and take appropriate action." As Barry Steinhardt, Associate Director of the ACLU, explains in the following article, "This just proves what we've maintained all along: This law, this Communications Decency Act, is going to be a vehicle for the radical religious right to impose its brand of morality on the rest of the country." (Many thanks go out to the kind folks at the {San Jose Mercury News} for graciously giving me permission to redistribute the full text of this article to you now.) Read on for details, and of course ... Work the network! --Todd Lappin--> Section Editor WIRED Magazine COMPUSERVE CALLED INDECENT CHRISTIAN GROUP SAYS ON-LINE SERVICE VIOLATES TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT. By RORY J. O'CONNOR Mercury News Washington Bureau April 19, 1996 (Re-distributed by permission from the San Jose Mercury News: http://www.sjmercury.com) WASHINGTON -- A fundamentalist Christian group has demanded a federal criminal investigation of the CompuServe on-line service, alleging that it has violated anti-smut provisions in a recently enacted telecommunications law. The American Family Association, based in Tupelo, Miss., asked the Justice Department to investigate in an April 1 letter to Attorney General Janet Reno. The organization's letter is apparently the first complaint lodged under terms of the Communications Decency Act, a controversial part of the sweeping rewrite of U.S. telecommunications law passed in February. The law makes it a crime to transmit "indecent" material via computer in such a way that children might view it. The act, largely crafted by Sen. James Exon, D-Neb., was bitterly contested by computer users and civil libertarians. Proponents said the law would make cyberspace a safer place for children. Opponents said it would chill free speech on-line, criminalizing material that would be protected under the First Amendment if it were printed on paper. A group of plaintiffs, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the Justice Department in February seeking to overturn the law as unconstitutional. The case is still pending. The department has agreed in court not to conduct formal investigations into violations of the law, or to indict or prosecute anyone under it, while the case is pending, a spokesman said. The AFA maintains the Communications Decency Act is far too weak and was gutted in Congress to placate computer industry interests. In the letter to the Justice Department, the group alleged CompuServe offers "pornography and other sexually oriented materials ... to its users, including children." The group singled out a service called Mac Glamour, an adult forum that, among other things, offers color photos of nude women. The service was promoted on CompuServe's "What's New" screen when subscribers connected at the end of March. CompuServe clearly marks the forum as an adult area and gives instructions to users how they can block the service from their computers. Among the controls provided by CompuServe, the main subscriber in a household, who must be an adult, can block access to adult sites from his or her account. The Mississippi group says that isn't sufficient. In a household that hadn't blocked the adult area, the invitation could have been seen and the images viewed by a minor, it said. "This is exactly the kind of incident that Congress, in drafting the bill, anticipated," said Patrick Trueman, director of government affairs for the AFA in Washington. "The objection we had was that it was available to children. If this isn't prosecutable, I don't know what is." CompuServe did not respond to repeated calls seeking comment. But an industry group representing on-line service providers, the Information Services Association, said the letter to Reno was designed to interfere in the pending court case. "It's clearly a publicity device during an important juncture in the litigation," said Bob Smith, the association's executive director. He called the law's language a "vague and unclear standard that could make a wide range of material, including medical information and certain literature, illegal as well." The Justice Department said it had received the letter but wouldn't act on it until the court case is over. The ACLU called the letter an attempt to coerce commercial services to remove otherwise legal adult material from their computers under threat of the large fines and prison terms spelled out in the act. "This just proves what we've maintained all along: This law, this Communications Decency Act, is going to be a vehicle for the radical religious right to impose its brand of morality on the rest of the country," said Barry Steinhardt, associate director of the ACLU. "They are going after Constitutionally protected images." Trueman readily acknowledged that the AFA considers the law too weak, and if the CompuServe case isn't prosecuted, "it's time for Congress to start from scratch." He said on-line services should have to automatically block all adult material from view unless a subscriber specifically requests access to it. But civil libertarians and privacy advocates reject that approach, which is the subject of a New York court case concerning an adult public access cable TV channel. "It would cause a rather large collection of personal data" about users of adult services, said David Banisar, policy analyst for the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. "It would be a particularly explosive list that CompuServe could sell, with all sorts of ramifications." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Did you ever read something just casually at first and do a double-take when you saw a name you thought you recog- nized in the article? "Patrick A. Trueman" is almost as close as you can get to "Patrick A. Townson", even including the same number of letters in the last name. I hope no one confuses me with that birdbrain. I almost confused myself with him when I first causually and quickly scanned the article. :) Now that is going way to far, to claim that Compuserve is indecent. Admittedly, some of the chat rooms are pretty raunchy, but over all, CIS is *not* an indecent service. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 23:29:26 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Man Busted For Transmitting "Organ" Over The Internet Over the Transom ... ... Thou shalt not solicit sex over the Internet. Police in Tampa, Fla., busted a retired Bible teacher for soliciting oral sex from a teenager via the Internet, UPI reported. But Arthur Garrod, 66, who among other things transmitted a picture of his organ over the Internet, didn't realize he was actually corresponding with an undercover detective "posing" as a 15-year-old girl on the Internet. Garrod is the third person in three weeks to be arrested by Tampa deputies posing as girls on the Internet ... (Note: Is this the first case of someone being arrested for violating the internet indecency act? Does the age of the "teenage girl" really matter in this particular situation? I would think that transmitting a picture of one's "organ" over the internet would probably be considered "indecent" in most parts of the country. It would be pretty hard for this person to claim non-responsibility, with a picture of "himself" in police custody. Still, I wonder just who solicited whom in this situation? You would think that the police would have better things to do with their time than to surf the internet for perverts. If you took all of the perverts off of the internet, just how many of us would be left?!!?) Van Hefner (not a pervert) Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ Van Hefner VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 326 'I' Street, Suite 148 Eureka, California 95501 USA 1-707-444-6686 PHONE 1-707-445-4123 FAX [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It used to be very common years ago for police to deliberatly stir up situations and entrap people into doing and saying things for which they would then be arrested. Of course when it came to court (if it did; if the cops were not just looking for a handout) the role played by the police would be conveniently forgotten. A visit to the courtroom in the Police Headquarters Building here would always find the same 'cast of characters' in front of the judge on a typical morning. A 'bullpen' connected to the court through a side door would be full of prostitutes; women arrested the night before. Anywhere from 75-100 in custody was common. All were very scraggly, in various stages of dress from virtually naked to virtually formal dress. The Court would convene and the Matron would unlock the bullpen. As their names were called the women would form a processional down the center aisle and move forward. Their 'trials' took all of 15-20 seconds each as the prosecutor would mutter something, and the judge would pound his gavel in rythym to the parade and say 'dismissed'. The ladies would say 'thank you, judge' and just keep on moving out the door and into the hallway where they were then released. Following this affair, which took at best about fifteen or twenty minutes, the judge would call a recess to have a cigarette break and when the court resumed, the 'more involved' cases were heard. The same cast of characters were there day after day. The 'complaining witnesses' were always the same two vice cops; or now and then it would be the Lawson YMCA 'house detective'; the stories were always the same, just the defendants changed. Invariably the police were offended by something they had seen. They would tell their side of the story and the defen- dant would tell his or her side of the story. Those who came with lawyers always got off; some of the others got off and some did not. It basically depended on the judge. About half the time he would rule one way and about half the time the other. None of it mattered to the cops; the same two cops would stand there all morning long with a very straight and deadpan look on their faces. If the judge found you inno- cent then you said 'thank you judge' and walked out. If he found you guilty then you got a month's court supervision as 'punishment'. You still walked out, but via the 'probation officer'. The cops would alternate in telling the same story over and over; one cop would tell it one time, and the other cop would tell it the next time. " ... well your honor, me and my partner were having breakfast at the Palmer House Hotel drugstore. When we left, this woman approached us (here a pause for the obligatory identification of the defendant) and offered to commit a sexual act for money. Me and my partner were shocked to hear this and we arrested her." Naturally they have to say for the record in street lingo the type of act to be committed. The woman testifies just the opposite; that she was on her way to her room in the hotel when the cops came up and propositioned her. She was shocked that they would say such a thing and she just kept on walking but they followed her, grabbed her and told her she was under arrest, even though she did nothing. The judge rules, and the next case is called. The two cops from before just stand there as the next one comes up. "well your honor, me and my partner were in Lincoln Park by the Zoo, and I had to go to the men's room to urinate. While I was in there this man was at the urinal next to me (again, pause to identify the defendant) and he looked at me and offered to perform a sex act. (Describe it for the record). Well of course I was very offended. I went outside and got my partner and we arrested him." Of course the defendent tells it the other way around. He was in the men's room when the officer came in, exposed himself and asked the guy to do it. The guy says he refused and turned to leave only to have a second cop grab him and arrest him. The judge decides one side is telling the truth and the other side is lying. Typically a couple dozen of those cases every day, always the same cops with various defendants of either sex. You never saw any two cops whose sensibilities were assualted so often :) especially when they themselves were never doing anything wrong. "Me and my partner were not doing anything wrong your honor ..." Of course not. I do not approve of hassling kids and soliciting them for sex whether it is in real time or on the net, but I would not be surprised if the cops in this case lied through their teeth. Please note that the United States Customs people operated that child porn scam out of South Florida last year to deliberatly stir up trouble on America On Line. So don't put it past them to make trouble like that again. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:52:57 EDT From: Steve Brack Subject: The Other Shoe Has Fallen - AT&T Files as Ohio LEC The following was run as an ad in the Wednesday, 24 April, 1996 edition of the Toledo Blade, a daily morning newspaper published at Toledo, Ohio. LEGAL NOTICE ------------ Notice is given that AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. (the applicant) has filed an application, as amended, with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide facilities-based and non-facilities-based intrastate, local telecommunication services, including switched and non-switched local, toll, and carrier access services. The applicant proposes to offer such services in the exchange areas currently served by Ameritech Ohio and GTE North Incorporated. The application has been given the following case number: 96-190-TP-ACE. The exchange areas currently served by Ameritech Ohio and GTE North Incorporated are located in all or parts of 84 Ohio counties, namely: Adams, Allen, Athens, Ashland, Auglaize, Belmont, Brown, Butler, Carroll, Champaign, Clark, Clermont, Clinton, Columbiana, Coshocton, Crawford, Cuyahoga, Darke, Defiance, Delaware, Erie, Fairfield, Fayette, Franklin, Fulton, Gallia, Geauga, Greene, Guernsey, Hancock, Hardin, Harrison, Henry, Highland, Hocking, Holmes, Huron, Jackson, Jefferson, Lake, Lawrence, Licking, Lorain, Lucas, Madison, Mahoning, Marion, Medina, Meigs, Mercer, Miami, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Noble, Ottawa, Paulding, Perry, Pickaway, Pike, Portage, Preble, Richland, Ross, Sandusky, Scioto, Seneca, Shelby, Stark, Summit, Trumbull, Tuscarawas, Union, Van Wert, Vinton, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Williams, Wood, and Wyandot counties. Any interested person, firm, corporation, or entity wishing to intervene should file with the Commission and serve upon the applicant a motion for intervention and an accompanying memorandum in support on or before May 17, 1996. Unless the Commission receives a written motion to that effect and an accompanying request for an oral hearing in this matter, the case may be decided on the basis of the information contained in the amended application. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, 180 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215-3793. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 08:21:43 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Newfoundland Telephone Becomes NewTel Communications NewTel Enterprises Limited, a holding company based in St. John's, Newfoundland, has decided to rename its largest operating company. Newfoundland Telephone will now be known as NewTel Communications. Since its acquisition of Terra Nova Telecommunications Inc. from Canadian National Railways a few years ago, Newfoundland Telephone has been Newfoundland's only local exchange carrier. NEWS RELEASE TRANSMITTED BY CANADIAN CORPORATE NEWS FOR: NEWTEL ENTERPRISES LIMITED TSE SYMBOL: NEL APRIL 17, 1996 NewTel Launches New Identity ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND--At its Annual General Meeting, held today, NewTel Enterprises Limited introduced a new name for its largest subsidiary, a new look for all of its subsidiaries, and a cautiously optimistic outlook for the year ahead. Speaking to an audience representing more than 74 percent of the Company's ownership, Vince Withers, President and CEO, told shareholders that "while consolidated performance for 1995 fell short of 1994 results, there were strong performances from our non-regulated subsidiaries. This group produced a 37 percent increase over the previous year in aggregate net income contribution. Information technology and advanced communications services are becoming a greater part of NewTel's total business. We are confident that with a stabilization in pricing for long distance services, strengthening markets for new value-add products and services, and continued growth in the Company's non-regulated subsidiaries, NewTel will return to earnings growth in 1996." To signify the radical transformation of its business over the past five years Mr. Withers announced that the Company's largest subsidiary, Newfoundland Telephone Company, is changing its corporate name to NewTel Communications. This change and the adoption of a common new logo for all the NewTel companies represents a repositioning of NewTel and a redefinition of its corporate vision. The Company will focus on telecommunications, information technology and advanced services all brought about by the convergence of computers, communications and entertainment. NewTel is well positioned to take advantage of the opportunities that are presented by this convergence. The new identification will appear on customer billing information within the next month and on the Company's Eastern Region telephone directory in June. Over the next several months the new look will be added to company vehicles and real estate. In conjunction with this change all of the companies in the NewTel group will be adopting a new universal logo. The NewTel wordmark, incorporating an elliptical design element, will be used by all of the NewTel subsidiaries and will replace existing logos. The Shareholders elected 13 members to the board of directors: Rex Anthony, President, Anthony Management Inc., St. John's, Nfld.; Miller Ayre, Publisher and General Manager, The Evening Telegram, St. John's, Nfld.; James Barnes, Professor, Faculty of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Nfld.; Thomas Bourke, President and CEO, BCE Directories Group, Montreal, Que.; James Chalker, Q.C., Senior Partner, Chalker, Green & Rowe, Barristers & Solicitors, St. John's, Nfld.; William Fitzpatrick, President, North Star Cement Limited, Corner Brook, Nfld.; Joesf Fridman, Senior Vice-President, Law and Corporate Secretary BCE Inc., Montreal, Que.; Albert Hickman, President, Hickman Motors Limited, St. John's, Nfld.; Charles Labarge, President and COO, BCE Mobile Communications Inc., Etobicoke, Ont.; Sheilah Mackinnon Drover, Vice-Principal, Botwood Memorial Academy, Botwood, Nfld.; Peter Outerbridge, Chairman, Chelston Investments Limited, St. John's, Nfld.; Charles White, Q.C., Senior Partner, White, Ottenheimer and Baker, Barristers and Solicitors, St. John's, Nfld.; and Vincent Withers, President and CEO , NewTel Enterprises Limited and NewTel Communications Inc., St. John's, Nfld. NewTel Enterprises Limited is a Newfoundland based company which has built a $1 billion advanced telecommunications and information technology infrastructure in the province, highlighted by the second highest penetration of fibre optics among Canadian telecommunications companies. The Company's operating subsidiaries are: NewTel Communications (formerly Newfoundland Telephone) the principal provider of telecommunications and information handling services throughout the Province; NewTel Information Solutions Limited, the eighth largest information technology company in Canada; NewTel Mobility Limited, the pre-eminent provider of cellular and satellite communications in the Province; Paragon Information Systems, the province's major provider of Internet services; and NewTech Instruments Limited, a full service contract manufacturer for the telecommunications, marine, and defence industries. NewTel Enterprises has approximately 6,000 common shareholders, 34 percent of whom live in the province. The Company's shares are traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange - Stock Symbol NEL. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: NewTel Enterprises Limited Gary E. Lane, Investor Relations Officer (709) 739-2108 or 1-800-563-2473 (Toll Free in Canada) forwarded to the TELECOM Digest by Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/ CV available upon request ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 23:03:34 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Bogus Website Claims Cure to AIDS FROM THE NATIONAL FRAUD INFORMATION CENTER Monday, April 22nd, 1996 MEDICAL FRAUD ON THE INTERNET Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger has recently shut down a WebSite which claimed to offer a cure for AIDS. The woman who ran the site made several claims, including the claim that even those in the late stages of a parasitic AIDS related infection were capable of complete recovery using her methods. The concoction of various barks and plant products had not undergone any testing and was not approved by the FDA for medicinal use. The WebSite owner also made the claim that AIDS is caused by a parasitic flatworm. She continues to claim no wrongdoing. If you come across a site on the Internet that sells medicine, beware. Always check with your doctor before you take any medications designed to cure a major illness. There is a good reason why such medications require FDA approval. Frequently they have no value in treating the disease in question, but can cause you a host of other health problems. If you are seriously ill, there is no reason to make matters worse by being swindled by snake-oil salesmen. If you feel you have been a victim, please call the National Fraud Information Center at 1-800-876-7060 and your State Attorney General. The NFIC's Homepage is located at: http://www.nfic.Inter.net/alerts.htm Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 326 'I' Street, Suite 148 Eureka, California 95501 USA 1-707-444-6686 PHONE 1-707-445-4123 FAX ------------------------------ From: borden@gsrc.mv.com Subject: Telecom Net Management Positions Organization: MV Communications, Inc. Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 14:59:09 GMT Granite Systems is seeking to fill both contract and permanent positions in telecommunications network management/network operations support consulting and software development. Two positions we are currently looking to fill: 1. Integrated Network Management Project Consultant The perfect candidate will have: * detailed knowledge of management requirements for NET IDNX, Stratacom IPX, and digital cross connect networks (DS1/DS3 US and ITU hierarchies) in an international environment. * experience with custom development of interfaces to other operations support systems (trouble ticketing, provisioning, service management). * knowledge of SNMP and NMF OMNIPOINT standards for CMIP/CMISE, especially experience in development of mediation systems or proxy agents. * broad experience working with network management platforms from Digital Equipment, Objective Systems Integrators, Bridgeway, Ericsson, and Prism Systems. * excellent skills for managing complex projects involving multi-functional teams. If you have depth of knowledge in at least three of the above, please email Jay at jay@granite.com. 2. Transmission Test Systems Consultant The perfect candidate will have: * extensive experience configuring transmission test systems, both at the hardware and software test head level. * minimum three years of software development experience in the transmission test or transmission network management areas; * experience implementing a transmission test system for DS1 and DS3 US and ITU-T rates. * experience in integrating data from disparate network operations support and network management systems. If you are able to meet at least three of the above requirements, please email Ed at mitchell@granite.com. Both positions require extensive travel. Granite Systems provides expert consultancy and software development services for operators and manufacturers of telecommunications systems in the US and internationally. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #200 ******************************