From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed Apr 24 13:17:34 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA15724; Wed, 24 Apr 1996 13:17:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 13:17:34 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604241717.NAA15724@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #201 TELECOM Digest Wed, 24 Apr 96 13:17:30 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 201 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson More on the NANP Caribbean NPA's (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? (Bob Smith) Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? (Bill Kinch) Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? (Basavaraj Patil) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (Zev Rubenstein) Re: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed (Robert Shaw) Re: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong (Linc Madison) Re: Cellular Rates, NYC and Elsewhere (Fred Atkinson) 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 1996 11:01:11 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: More on the NANP Caribbean NPA's Well, I'm "closing in" on the new Caribbean NPA's after some telephone calls and email inquiries directly of the Caribbean local telephone companies: NANP Caribbean recompilation (as of Tuesday 9 April 1996) (with additional information on Wednesday 23 April 1996) Begin End New permissive permissive NPA Location dialing dialing 242 (BHA) Bahamas ................. 01 OCT 96 31 MAR 97 246 --- Barbados ................ 01 JUL 96 15 JAN 97 264 (ANG) Anguilla ................(dates to be announced) 268 (ANT) Antigua/Barbuda ......... 01 APR 96 31 MAR 97 284 (BVI) British Virgin Is. ......(dates to be announced) 340 --- U.S.Virgin Is. ..........(dates to be announced) 345 --- Cayman Is. ..............(dates to be announced) 441 --- Bermuda ................. 01 OCT 95 30 SEP 96 473 (GRE) Grenada/Carricou ........(dates to be announced) 649 **RESERVED** (location and dates to be announced) 664 (MNI) Montserrat Is. .......... 01 JUL 96 01 JUN 97 758 (SLU) St.Lucia ................ 01 JUL 96 01 JAN 97 767 (ROS) Dominica ................(dates to be announced) 784 **RESERVED** (location and dates to be announced) 787 (PUR/PTR) Puerto Rico ........... 01 MAR 96 31 JAN 97 868 (TNT) Trinidad & Tobago .......(dates to be announced) 869 --- St.Kitts/Nevis ..........(dates to be announced) 876 --- Jamaica .................(dates to be announced) (767=ROS for Dominica is probably because the capital of Dominica is a town named Roseau) POSSIBLE assignments of above RESERVED codes [these are *MY* assumptions]: 784 (SVG/SVI) St.Vincent & Grenadines (Bequia, Mustique, Palm, Union) 649 --- Turks & Caicos As to who should be keeping 809, it has been mentioned *many* times that: 809 should remain The Dominican Republic Of those which have "dates to be announced", only the following have "official" Bellcore announcements as to their location (although Bellcore states that the dates are TBA), as per their webpage or by Bellcore IL (Information letter): 284 British Virgin Is. 473 Grenada/Carricou 868 Trinidad & Tobago 869 St.Kitts & Nevis The following which have "dates to be announced" have *not* yet been "officially" announced by Bellcore, but I have determined these from email inquiries or telephone conversations with each local Caribbean telco: 264 Anguilla 340 U.S.Virgin Is. 345 Cayman Is. (I was told about this one by the C&W Cayman rep at the INC) 767 Dominica 876 Jamaica From telephone conversations with the local telcos, I found out that about three years ago, at the annual NANP Caribbean 809 Carrier's meeting, most of the non-US telcos voted that Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Is. "leave" 809 and be assigned a new NPA of their own, as Puerto Rico has always had the largest number of NXX Central Office Codes in 809, as well as had the largest growth. It was determined that 340 be assigned to PR/USVI, and the remainder of the Caribbean (non-US) remain 809. Of course, that has since changed. Two years ago, Bermuda elected to leave 809 for various reasons. (Bermuda isn't actually a geographic part of the Caribbean, but rather a "British" island in the Atlantic, well north of Puerto Rico and well east of North/South Carolina). And since, every island country/territory seems to have requested an area code of their own. Last year, before we were informed about 787 being assigned to Puerto Rico, Steve Grandi's (grandi@noao.edu) compilation list of new NPA's indicated that 340 was going to be for Puerto Rico, but that it was an "unconfirmed rumor". Well, the above explains that 340 *was indeed* anticipated at one time for *both* PR/USVI. At the INC meeting, one of the handouts from Bellcore NANPA had a number of "reserved" codes for the Caribbean. One of those "reserved" codes was 340. Please note that those codes which have not (yet) been "officially" announced by Bellcore might *NOT* have been given final approval by the Government or regulatory authority in that Caribbean NANP island country. As for *MY* assumption indicated above for 784 (St.Vincent & the Grenadines) and 649 (Turks & Caicos Is), I make that since 784 spells out SVI or SVG, therefore 649 would "default" as "reserved" for Turks & Caicos Is. But I would have thought that 876 would have been for the US Virgin Islands, as 876 spells out VRN. Of course that turned out to be an erroneous assumption on my part, as 876 is "reserved" for Jamaica, and 340 is "reserved" for the US Virgin Islands as described above. I was also informed that the 1996 annual 809 Carrier's meeting will be held in June. This might be the *last* meeting known as the 809 meeting. My telephone and email contacts with the local Caribbean telcos told me that they would let me know of any additional details! (Bellcore's Numbering and TRA webpage can be reached at http://www.bellcore.com/NANP) 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: BobS Subject: Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? Date: 24 Apr 1996 09:55:18 GMT Organization: DataNet Communications Company - Olympia,WA tom@ssd.hcsc.com (Tom Horsley) wrote: (TEXT DELETED) 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? Yep! I am and have been for sometime now. Its the normal 'stuff' nothing special about it, you can use NS/IE..etc. Fact it evens works with MS new Mail/News software. > (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). They could -- but you get a encrypted login ID/PW and IP. Best to call them and ask where is your copy ... Bob here ... ------------------------------ From: bkinch@ix.netcom.com (Bill Kinch) Subject: Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 11:19:32 GMT Organization: Netcom Reply-To: bkinch@ix.netcom.com tom@ssd.hcsc.com (Tom Horsley) wrote: > 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). Most of the people I know who signed up shortly after it was announced, are now receiving their "Free" software. I installed mine last Sunday. You must install their software to begin. It came on a CD-ROM and there were no problems installing it. You must then go through an on-line registration process to set up your account. The only problems I have heard of concern other instances of 16-bit Netscape on the system including those that may be in Quicken or TurboTax. Once you are registered, you may use their (16-bit) version of Netscape, Eudora etc. or, if you have Windows 95, you may set up a DUN connection (instructions are on their home page) and use whatever 32-bit apps you desire. I am using Agent 32-99 and Netscape 2.01. I am trying out the 5 free hours to start. It seems OK so far, but I've been using it only a few days. I still do most of my work on my old ISP account. Bill Kinch Software Consultant ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 15:14:16 +0000 From: basavaraj patil Subject: Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Richardson, TX Barry Margolius, NYC (bfm@pobox.com) wrote: > 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. I got my software about a month back (3.5" disks). Installation was no problem. However registration is a nightmare. The software dials an 800 number and then starts up a netscape session. The only problem is that it takes forever to complete the registration. I have left my machine running for more than an hour and still failed to complete the registration. I have given up on the worldnet service as it is next to impossible to get registered. :) Raj Patil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 09:40:42 -0500 From: zev@wireless.attmail.com (zev) Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? PAT wrote: > When I say 'national database' I mean that AT&T/Sprint/MCI/Bell telcos/ > LDDS/a few others consult this database and honor it. Some further background on this "database". It is actually a "distributed" database, in that there is not a single one, but many all over the country. Prior to breaking up AT&T (divestiture), the database that kept all of the necessary information was called the Billing Validation Application (BVA). The BVA had two types of information: calling card and Billed Number Screening (BNS). The BNS data included information on the phone to which the call was being billed. So, in the case of collect calls to a payphone, the BVA would indicate that the phone number being billed was not allowed to be billed for collect calls. The BVA was, again, a series of databases around the country that split all of the information by area code. AT&T's operator system switches would process calling card, collect and bill to third (B23) calls by collecting the billing information (either the calling card number or the collect or B23 number) from the calling party, and send a data query to the database via a high-speed packet network using a protocol called Signaling System 6 (SS6), which was a precursor to the current SS7 signaling system. This system uses Signaling Transfer Points (STPs) to route the queries to the appropriate database using the calling card or phone number as a routing destination. Hence, the BVAs could be segmented by area code, since back then all of the calling cards were phone-number based. Usually, only the first three digits of a number were enough to determine which BVA to send the query to. With divestiture, Judge Green required that the database be split up as well. However, the baby bells had no packet network infrastructure. So, he gave them seven years from divestiture to do so, and in the meantime the BVA became a "Shared Network Facility". AT&T managed the hardware and the network connections, and the local exchange companies (LECs) managed the data. Smaller LECs usually paid the larger regional bell company to manage their data for them. AT&T took care of adding new BVA databases as the number of phones and calling cards grew. When the time was up, the LECs (the 7 baby bells plus SNET, GTE) had developed (with Bellcore) their new databases: Line Information Data Bases (LIDBs). In addition, they had built SS7 network infrastructures. Each regional bell offered to store the smaller LEC data in their LIDB, just as they had previously managed that data in the BVA. In addition, the US Intelco company build a LIDB and an SS7 network to supply services to the smaller LECs. AT&T, in the meantime, built their own calling card database, as did Sprint and MCI. With this new infrastructure also came new business arrangements for honoring and billing calling card calls. Today, all of the LECs tend to honor all of the larger LD calling cards and vice versa, and to do so the networks are connected to eachother for sending those queries to the LIDB and card databases. Note, however, that MCI and Sprint implemented their card databases to be accessed via 800 dialing or by access code dialing (10XXX) in order to force the call to their networks. That is, for a local call, if you entered 0+ the called number, you would get the LEC bong tone and could enter either a LEC card or an AT&T card number. Hoever, to make a local call with the MCI or Sprint card, you would need to dial an 800 number or 10XXX to force the call to the MCI or Sprint operator services switch. I would agree with PAT that your serving LEC should agree to mark your numbers for free, but I suspect (groundlessly, I admit) that those many numbers are business numbers, and LECs tend to have a different (read: "higher") pricing structure for business customers vs. residence customers. You might try complaining to your local PUC. Zev Rubenstein zev@attmail.com Independent Telecommunications Consultant ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:37:06 CET From: shaw Subject: Re: FTP Sites With ITU Standards - Answers Needed on Documents > 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. A fair question that comes up often and was somewhat explained by Mark Jefferies' earlier contribution to TELECOM Digest. However, to clarify: that there should be a charge for the standards is a policy set by the ITU's 185 Member governments who also consult with their national commercial and scientific members of the ITU. The ITU is bound by treaty to operate under that collective and consensus policy. If you wish to express your opinion on the policy, it is probably best for you to contact your national representative to the ITU who, probably in this specific case, is the Bureau of International Communications and Information Policy (CIP) at the US Department of State in Washington, D.C. Regards, Robert Shaw ITU [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The ITU has been for over two years a principal supporter and sponsor of this Digest. Their financial assistance along with that of Microsoft has made this journal possible. We all owe them thanks for their contribution. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Re: NYNEX "Time" Number is Wrong Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 01:15:55 -0800 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) wrote: > 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. I don't know if this has changed, but when I was growing up in Dallas with Southwestern Bell, the time number (214-844-xxxx, where any xxxx would work) simply led to a recording stating: "Republic Bank time, 2:47, temperature 59" or what have you. It made no attempt at reporting seconds, so there was no way to tell if it was off unless it was at least a good fraction of a minute. When my parents moved to a suburb in GTE country, the same time number led to a different recording, but still didn't give seconds. I was quite pleasantly surprised to discover POP-CORN when I moved to California. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 13:13:45 CST From: Atkinson, Fred Subject: Re: Cellular Rates, NYC and elsewhere 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'll also disagree with you about a cellular phone being a luxury item. If you doubt my justification of the same, then you missed my story entitled 'intimidating cellular phone and a phony police officer' that ran in TELECOM Digest last week. Basically, the guy panicked and ran away from me when I called the police to come identify the matter solely because he saw I was actually calling them. Additionally, I got his tag number to them for investigation. I could have been calling for help to report a personal injury traffic accident or a felony in progress. You tend to see that more often when you're out driving than you do sitting by your telephone at home. No, I DON'T consider my cellular phone a luxury. Neither did the lady whom I called the police to aid her because she was broken down in I-95 earlier today. She was stranded in the median with two kids and needed help. Additionally, I have a handicapped friend who has one in her car. Imagine a handicapped person being broken down far from home and unable to walk the distance to get help. With a cell phone, she can get the assistance she might need and get it fast. It is definitely not a luxury to her, either. Fred ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #201 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Apr 26 12:36:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA01404; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:36:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 12:36:17 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604261636.MAA01404@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #202 TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Apr 96 12:36:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 202 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Pacific Bell To Consolidate Statewide Bill Processing (Mike King) FCC Proposes 5 GHz Spectrum (Bennett Z. Kobb) Tricked Into Switching (Paul D. Tidwell) Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Junk Mail From Matrix Telecom "10% Savings Off ATT's Rates" (Robert Casey) Long Distance PIC Freeze and Telemarketing Termination (J.D. Craig) Sprint Keeps on Going and Going and Going (Nick Vora) "Heads Up" at Naval Ordnance Center (John B. Rose) S.C. to Get Third Area Code by 1998 (Stan Schwartz) Caller Choice Service in Alltel Carolina Service Area (Stan Schwartz) Need 1950 Telephone Book from California (Loring Fiske-Phillips) Bumper Sticker of the Day (Jack Unger) Last Laugh! Grandma Gets Obscene Phone Call (Richard Keith) 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: Pacific Bell To Consolidate Statewide Bill Processing Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 12:32:49 PDT Forewarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 14:15:00 -0800 From: Marcia.Flint@pactel.com (TELESIS.EA_SF_PO:Marcia Flint) Subject: NEWS: Pacific Bell To Consolidate Statewide Bill Processing Pacific Bell To Consolidate Statewide Bill Processing Services For Release: April 18, 1996 Contact: Dave Miller (Sacramento), (916) 972-2811 John Britton (Orange), (619) 237-2430 SACREMENTO -- Pacific Bell announced plans Thursday to consolidate its two existing bill processing centers into one location to streamline operations, improve efficiencies and expedite output. The consolidation, projected to be completed by the second quarter of 1997, will combine the company's Anaheim and Sacramento bill processing centers into one location in West Sacramento. "This is another example of a continuing company-wide effort to improve efficiencies, reduce costs and improve service," said Dan Hammalian, director of Pacific Bell's Statewide Bill Processing group. Hammalian said the project has been in the planning stages for the last year and is unrelated to the recent announcement of a merger between Pacific Telesis Group and SBC Communications, Inc. Pacific Bell's bill processing group distributes 14 million bills statewide per month. "We have a very large operation," Hammalian said. "We knew we could gain efficiencies and reduce duplication by centralizing in one location." The company plans to purchase new state-of -the art equipment that will streamline and automate many of the current printing and mail distribution processes. For instance, new high-speed printers will speed print processing by approximately 50 percent. And the installation of a conveyor belt system will smooth operations by eliminating the need to bring in envelopes and inserts by palette. Also, new postal qualification software will automatically sort bills into trays by zip code to speed up bill delivery to the U. S. Postal service. Hammalian said final staffing has not been determined, but it is expected that the consolidated center will employ a smaller labor force than the two existing centers. However, he said the regular employees from the two centers will have the opportunity to follow their work to the new West Sacramento site. Currently, Pacific Bell employs 122 employees at its Sacramento bill processing center and 80 in Anaheim. The Anaheim center will remain open up to 18 months after the consolidation with a scaled down staff to provide backup processing. "We've given employees as much advance notice as possible," Hammalian said. "They were told about a year ago that the company was considering a consolidation. Since that time, we've filled job openings with temporary employees so that fewer permanent employees will be affected by the consolidation." Hammalian said new work processes will be used at the new center and are being designed with employee assistance. "Our bill processing employees are helping us design these process improvements," he said. "That's a recognition of the fact that those who actually do the work know best where improvements can be made." The consolidation is the latest in a series of efforts by Pacific Bell's Statewide Bill Processing group to improve efficiencies and service. In June 1994, the group switched to a two-sided bill to lower costs and reduce paper, water and electricity usage. And in November 1995, the unit began using green payment envelopes made from old telephone directories and other recycled materials. Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, a San Francisco-based diversified telecommunications corporation. ---------------- Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am suprised they are only leaving one center open instead of two. The reason is, if anything goes wrong at that center, it really puts the company in a bind as far as cash flow is concerned. I notice they say they are leaving the other site open for 'backup purposes' for about a year. Good thinking! It is an additional, but needed operation. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bkobb@newsignals.com (Bennett Z. Kobb) Subject: FCC Proposes 5 GHz Spectrum Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:35:59 -0400 Organization: Ebullient Nucleus Today the FCC proposed to provide 350 MHz at 5 GHz for unlicensed NII/SUPERNet devices for broadband wireless communications at short distances. The proposal is based on petitions by Apple Computer and by the Wireless Information Networks Forum (WINForum). Importantly, the proposal would not permit longer-range operations as requested by Apple. The FCC appears focused principally on wireless LANs for indoor use. A report including transcripts from the FCC public meeting and press conference is on the New Signals WWW site at: http://home.navisoft.com/nspi Bennett Kobb SpectrumGuide/America's Airwaves ------------------------------ From: eustidw@exu.ericsson.se (Paul D. Tidwell) Subject: Tricked Into Switching Date: 25 Apr 1996 17:03:38 GMT Organization: Ericsson, Inc. Reply-To: eustidw@exu.ericsson.se I was surprised to find that I had been switched to AT&T on may latest GTE phone bill. Apparently since March 19th, I have been using AT&T and didn't even know it. When I called GTE, they agreed to switch me back to my original carrier, but refused to credit my account the $4.48 IXC switching fee. "I would have to talk to AT&T about that," I was told. I called AT&T and asked how I got switched. The agent told me that I had probably entered a drawing at a grocery store somewhere. The fine print on the entry form explained that my IXC would be changed. I personnally have never filled out any type of entry form, but my wife says she has ... however not any regarding AT&T or phone service that she could recall. The agent at AT&T agreed that this was a sneaky way to do business but I would have to complain to the FCC if I wanted anything done about it. Since I don't have the FCC's address handy, I thought I would start by complaining to the general public and the readers of this news group. So be warned: AT&T, and probably others, has found new ways to trick you into switching. As for the $4.48 charge, AT&T is sending me a coupon to apply to my local phone bill. What a pain. Paul D. Tidwell [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is an old, old story, and I have to wonder what even makes it newsworthy any longer. Still, it is important to note that *all* the carriers -- including AT&T -- still seem to be up to their tricks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rishab@nntp1.best.com (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Subject: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! Date: 25 Apr 1996 19:06:45 GMT Organization: Best Internet Communications A report datelined 24 April from Agence France Presse quotes Russian sources as saying that a satellite phone was used for homing in on Chechen separatist leadet Dzhokar Dudayev, who was blown up by rockets on Tuesday. Russian Interior Ministry sources said that Dudayev was tracked as he used a satellite phone; AFP reported unidentified experts as agreeing that the satellite could have tracked Dudayev while he was using the phone even when mobile. Scary if true. But I wonder why the satellite (what service wasn't mentioned -- if it was INMARSAT or some such, under what conditions did the Russians get hold of tracking data?) tracks location at all. If it is to focus the transmission beam (i.e. it doesn't use multiplexing) than I wonder how many phones it could track at a time. Surely it would make more sense to simply broadcast the downlink, or at least not focus it enough to offer a military target, as reception AFAIK need not require any tracking from the satellite. Rishab 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 ------------------------------ From: wa2ise@netcom.com (Robert Casey) Subject: Junk Mail From Matrix Telecom "10% Savings Off ATT's LD" Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:55:05 GMT I recieved some junk mail from Matrix Telecom Inc advertising their "Instant Savings code (10xxx)". "It already exists on your phone line". "Save xx% to xx% on calls and (larger number)% in interna- tional faxes (I deleted the actual numbers to avoid giving this company a free advertisment, also deleted the three last digits of the 10xxx code for same reason). "You'll still get the same monthly phone bill and each LD call placed with your Instant Savings code will be shown on your bill next to the service name "Matrix". Just use the Code." It struck me strange that nowhere in this piece of mail was there a return address (not even a box number). It was postal meter "Fort Worth, TX" They did provide an 800 number though. Their claimed savings were compared with "AT&T FCC Tariff No 1. Does not include special calling plans." The whole thing just seemed to be ever so slightly misleading, but strictly speaking on the legal up and up. That is, they made a big deal out of using what appears to be ordinary 10xxx code usage, and gave it funny names "Instant Savings code". Far as I can tell, this service appears to have reasonable rates, not outragious, but nothing special eighter. Guess that's what advertising is all about, to make your ordinary product look great. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some of those guys are sending out their advertisements in envelopes addressed to 'local telephone customer' and with a thing right on the envelope saying 'new dialing instructions/proceedures for your area enclosed' as though it was a change being made by telco. A tricky bunch of people ... PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 16:47:41 -0400 Subject: Long Distance PIC Freeze and Telemarketing Termination From: century1@usa.pipeline.com (JD Craig) Hello, I have been told that you can e-mail me with information related to how to properly request that AT&T, MCI, etc. stop calling me to switch my long distance telephone service. I would appreciate any help you can give me. Also, do you know about LEC PIC freeze instructions? Thanks in advance for your help. Stephen [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To stop the calls, just hang the receiver in the middle of the call; even in the middle of a sentence. They'll get the idea eventually. To prevent changes in carrier, most telcos offer a thing where if you contact them, they will put a freeze on the line and all carrier changes have to be authorized by you to them in writing. They won't take instructions on this from any carrier. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Neeraj 'Nick' Vora Subject: Sprint Keeps on Going and Going and Going Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:44:33 -0400 Organization: Cambridge Technology Partners I was one of the lucky ones to receive a mailgram informing me that I had to send in a federal tax id, etc. otherwise I would lose my Fridays Free and Business Sense program. So I called and after a few minutes of conversation was hung up on by a supervisor. Anyway, a couple of days later my long distance access was cut off and it asked me to press "1" which of course I did. I put it on speakerphone, had dinner, watched TV (Ok, so maybe a slight exaggeration) but after approximatly 30 minutes got throught to an agent to whom I explained the situation and said "If necessary please switch me over to Sprint Sense, I need long distance regardless of what I have for the time being." She said it'd be on in a couple of hours. Then, just curious, I call residential customer service for rates only to be told that I'm a business customer and was transferred over to business customer service. The agent assured me that everything was fine that I was on Business Sense and Free Fridays. Not wanting to get burnt I explained the receipt of the mailgram and the ensuing conversation and my inability (being a one person business from home) to provide articles of incorporation etc. she assured me, once again, not to worry and to remember that "all your calls on Friday are completely Free even on your FonCard." At this point I thanked her and hung up. Friday rolls around and I call business customer service to verify my status and am assured that everythings okay and that all calls on Friday are Free. So, I make calls. Today I received a letter from Mr. Robin Loyd dated April 17, 1996 via Priority Mail (I know they aren't the quickest, but seven days?!) "confirming that my Business Sense and Free Fridays program has been cancelled effective March 28, 1996" and all calls after that will be billed at Sprint Sense rates including calls on Fridays. HAH!!! Talk about a SCAM!!! OK, So I know I don't want to pay these charges what's the best thing for me to do?!!! HELP, would be most appreciated!? Somebody do something about them ... [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What's being done now by many or most of the customers who have been lied to or defrauded by Sprint is they are simply withholding *all payments* at this time. In other words, they are putting a complete freeze on paying anything to Sprint until the company confirms *in writing* exactly what is going on, and arranges to correct all errors in billing, etc. I cannot stress this enough: if you are a Sprint customer who has been burned by Sprint and its representatives, the company is *never* going to respond to you in a satisfactory way as long as you keep just sending in the money they claim is due. *Stop making all payments to Sprint now* and wait until they get in touch with you, which they will do. Then let them know you have put a hold on them until you are able to contact Robin Loyed who thus far has refused to accept or return phone calls regarding Sprint's unilaterally cancelling out customer contracts; their complete termin- ation of your long distance service (if that occurred), etc. Do not accept their *verbal* assurances on anything. You need it all in writing at this point. It might be a good idea at this point also to send them registered mail letting them know it is imperative that they get in contact with you, in order to clear up misunderstandings and so that you can authorize payment of their invoices *at the earlier agreed upon rate*. If they attempt to hassle you or pressure you into paying their bogus invoices by using a collection agency -- good! Then it goes straight to the Federal Trade Commission. You are not legally required to pay invoices in dispute. At this point I feel there needs to be tremendous pressure applied to Sprint to get them to conform with their own advertising and contracts, etc. We are still trying to establish contact with Robin Loyed are we not, at 214-405-5404? PAT] ------------------------------ From: cables@hamptons.com (John B. Rose) Subject: "Heads Up" at Naval Ordnance Center Date: 26 Apr 1996 03:58:59 GMT Organization: Rose Business Systems Inc. Reply-To: cables@hamptons.com (John B. Rose) Hi, Pat -- The following was forwarded via my cousin, a civilian employee at the Navy Dept in Washington. -Rgds- John Baker Rose (cables@hamptons.com) FOR ALL DIRECTORATE/PEO/DRPM/WC/HRC ADMIN OFFICERS... The following "heads up" was provided to us by the Naval Ordnance Center (NOC) for information. It is noted that our Merlin telephone system does provide protection from the transfer aspect, however, there remains some risk of a recall. Concentration of this telephone scam is going on in Southern Maryland and NCIS is involved in this matter. Please readdress as appropriate. R/Andria Author: SMITH_CATHERINE at P-NAVORDCEN Date: 4/23/96 10:45 AM URGENT.....URGENT.....URGENT.....URGENT.....URGENT.....URGENT If you get requests from anyone saying they are from AT&T, Bell Atlantic, etc., testing the telephone lines and they ask you to transfer to or recall to 900#, DO NOT DO IT. JUST HANG UP. This is a scam that started this past weekend at NSWC IHDiv and NAVORDCEN HQ and has continued into the work week. The 900# transfers the individual to an international operator and then we are charged accordingly with the telephone charges. ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: S.C. to Get Third Area Code by 1998 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:05:05 -0400 This first appeared in December, 1995, yet the NANP site still doesn't show an assignment for the 843 NPA. By KIM CURTIS, Associated Press With South Carolina's second area code, 864, barely in place in Upstate, plans are already in the works to add a third. Fifteen primarily coastal counties would be affected by the change, which would take place in early 1998. With fast-paced growth in areas like Myrtle Beach and Hilton Head Island, another area code will be necessary, said Ed Clement, executive director of the South Carolina Telephone Association. The association made its proposal to the Public Service Commission on Tuesday. Clement said the commission was receptive to the idea, and he expects its approval. Whether the commission approves the plan, Bellcore has the final say. Bellcore is a private company that administers the North American Numbering Plan and assigns new area codes. New area codes use two through nine in the middle digit. This format creates 640 new area codes and five billion telephone numbers. If all goes smoothly, South Carolina's new area code will be 843 and it will go into effect in April 1998 with mandatory use beginning in September of that year. The third area code should provide enough phone numbers to last until 2010, Clement said. Even with the addition of the 864 area code, it's still not enough to cover the growing need for phone lines from equipment like computers and fax machines. The counties affected by the proposed change are Chesterfield, Marlboro, Darlington, Dillon, Marion, Florence, Horry, Georgetown, Williamsburg, Berkeley, Dorchester, Charleston, Colleton, Beaufort and Jasper. ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Caller Choice Service in Alltel Carolina Service Area Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:01:51 -0400 This is from the {Union Observer} in North Carolina. Interesting to note the "Caller Choice" service that ELIMINATES 1+10D dialing for local calls across NPA lines and converts it to 10D only. WHY??? Stan EXPANDED PHONE SERVICE IN WAXHAW GIVES 5,000 CUSTOMERS MORE OPTIONS Friday, March 29, 1996 Section: UNION (North Carolina) OBSERVER Page: 2U By STEVE LYTTLE, Staff Write Officials at Alltel Carolina plan to turn a switch Saturday that will bring a number of new services to about 5,000 Waxhaw-area telephone customers. Alltel will turn on its new digital switch for the Waxhaw area, enabling customers to use Caller ID, Call Return, Repeat Dialing and Call Trace. The customers are those with the 843 exchange. In addition, customers can use Alltel's Message Center voice-mail service. Waxhaw is the last area in Union County to receive these services, which were introduced in the past two years to Alltel customers in the Hemby Bridge-Indian Trail and Marshville-Wingate areas. GTE, which serves the rest of Union County, also has offered the services for several years. "The new system we're installing will be the most advanced in the market today," said Warren Caldwell, Alltel's vice-president of operations. "It will help us identify problems before they become apparent to the customer, as well as improve the quality of their telephone service," Caldwell added. Also available in Waxhaw, starting Saturday, is Caller Choice. This service offers an automatic 50 percent discount on some long-distance calls. With Caller Choice, customers in the Waxhaw area no longer will need to dial a 1 when calling phone exchanges near Waxhaw in South Carolina. They only need to dial the area code (803) and the seven-digit phone number. Alltel Carolina serves more than 162,000 customers in North Carolina. Its service area in Union County includes Waxhaw, Indian Trail, Hemby Bridge, Wingate and Marshville. ------------------------------ From: loring@pobox.com (Loring Fiske-Phillips) Subject: Need 1950 Telephone Book From California Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:47:24 -0700 Organization: Me, Myself and I I am working on a scavenger hunt and one of the items I need is a telephone book from the year 1950. It can be for any city in California, and the front cover needs to be intact. I realize that anyone who still has such a thing probably has a sentimental attachment to it. I only need to borrow it for a few days, and I'll pay postage both ways (insured if you wish). I'll even pick it up if you live in Southern California. If you can help with this odd request, please let me know at loring@pobox.com. Thank you! Loring Fiske-Phillips ------------------------------ From: junger@netcom.com (Jack Unger) Subject: Bumper Sticker of the Day Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:29:41 GMT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD AUCTION OFF ALL WIRELESS FREQUENCIES TO THE BIG TELEPHONE COMPANIES Jack Unger K6XS (junger@netcom.com) Advertisement: Wireless InfoNet designs, installs, and supports wireless WANs, and high-speed wireless Internet access. (408) 335-2439 Social Comment: A gun, in a moment of anger, turns a "law-abiding" citizen into a criminal. ------------------------------ From: LNUSTC1.ZZ7HLW@gmeds.com Subject: Last Laugh! Grandma Gets Obscene Phone Call Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 22:05:05 -0400 Several years ago my 85 year old mother received a random obscene phone call. As she tells it the caller made several lewd sexual suggestions which caused my mother to laugh responding to the caller with, "Boy has it been a long time since I've tried anything like THAT!" she told the caller that she was quite flattered being 85 years old she didn't get propositioned like that anymore. Being a Sunday school teacher she has an interest in children so she asked this youngster how old he was. He told her he was 25 but after some more conversation he admitted to being only 12. He then went on to tell her that he was lonely because his mother was always working and he did these phone calls for something to do. She talked with this young man for several more minutes, and he apologized for making the call. My mother told him that when he got lonely to call her and she would be glad to visit with him whenever he wanted. He did call back on several occaisions after this. Richard Keith lnustc1.zz7hlw@gmeds.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #202 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri Apr 26 14:07:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA09805; Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:07:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:07:14 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604261807.OAA09805@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #203 TELECOM Digest Fri, 26 Apr 96 14:07:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 203 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Alan Toscano) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Michael D. Adams) Operations and Maintainence Philosophies for NBST (Anthony Spiering) Need Help With Internetmci.com (Barry Mishkind) MCI Offers $500.00 For Free LD Usage (bradbs@aol.com) Can I Cash This Check From LD Company? (Henoch Duboff) Re: CompuServe Called "Indecent" by Family Association (Declan McCullagh) Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? (Rich Greenberg) Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? (Lynne Gregg) Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? (Henry Baker) Last Laugh! Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestitures (USA Today via readers) 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, 26 Apr 1996 15:26:15 GMT From: Alan Toscano Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 What appears to be happening is that one or more (or maybe all) of the Mutual Honoring Agreements between AT&T and LECs regarding Calling Card verification and billing, expire on 4/30/96. As a result, calls dialed 0+ may no longer be able to be charged to an AT&T card. To keep things simple, AT&T is instructing its customers to always dial through 800-CALL-ATT, but many other methods will continue to work. Notwithstanding illegal interception/splashing, blocking, and other COCOT/AOS tricks, you should be able to continue to place 10288-0+ calls as always. On the other hand, if you've been using an LEC calling card to place calls over the AT&T network, you might soon be out-of-luck! Alan Toscano 5090 Richmond Ave, Box 212 Houston, TX 77056-7402 Phone: 1 500 HI-ALAN-T ------------------------------ From: mda@triskele.com (Michael D. Adams) Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Date: 25 Apr 1996 19:35:25 GMT Organization: nil turner7@pacsibm.org (TUrner-7) writes: > 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. An interesting twist on this ... When I received my Sprint bill a day or two ago, included was this notice: Sprint wants to protect you from fradulent international calls on your FONCARD. Beginning in April 1996, your card will be restricted from international calling. If you plan to make international FONCARD calls, call Customer Service. Michael D. Adams Baltimore, MD mda@triskele.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 20:05:20 +1000 From: Anthony Spiering Subject: Operation and Maintainence Philosophies for NBST Hello Pat, I am after some general information on the structure of operations and maintenance of narrowband switching technology. I am not after specifics or confidential information but I would like to know the general trends and philosophies driving narrow band switching maintenance for telco's who are full service providers in the USA. My questions are: Q1 Is the maintenance trend moving towards centralised structure or decentralised structure? Q2 What would be the average number of lines per maintenance centre (eg 1 million)? Q3 What would be the average number of staff for such a centre? Q4 How are software changes implemented (major/minor)? Are they done remotely or locally? What is the level of vendor participation in software changes? (Does the vendor supply and install the package or does the vendor supply and the telco test and install) Q5 Do maintenance staff have expertise across various switching technologies? Q6 What would be the average number of lines per node for digital switched, what would be the maximum number of lines for any one node? Q7 What is that ratio of analog switched (ie cross bar) verses digital switched (AXC)? Q8 How are routing data changes implemented in the network (ie are they generated by hand or machine) and how are the loaded? Any comment on the effectiveness on how they feel they operate currently. Regards, Anthony Spierings as029@powerup.gov.au (Play) as029@seqeb.gov.au (Work) ------------------------------ From: Barry Mishkind Subject: Need Help With Internetmci.com Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 23:29:28 -0700 Organization: The Eclectic Engineer It seems that MCI's efforts to be important in the internet game continue to fall very short of that to which I would want to subscribe. Not too long ago, I wrote to relate how postmaster@mcimail.com was essentially directed to /dev/nul -- not answered -- regardless of the claims of supervisors whom you could reach. In the end, I did get a nice note from a "real supervisor" who acknowledged the problems, and suggested they were in process of being fixed. (In fact, during the current trouble, I actually got a reply from postmaster@mcimail.com, although the content was: "internetmci.com is another division.") In any event, this MCI division is following the same path. I have been receiving (as many folk with mailing lists have been) a lot of bounce messages from internetmci. However, I don't see anything there to identify the account that is bouncing. The message is barely English, and contains this extremely informative sort of gibberish: > Delivery attempt history for your mail: > > Mon, 22 Apr 1996 07:35:59 EDT > 109L8GEJCVEL: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output > -RMS-E-CRE, ACP file create failed > -SYSTEM-F-EXDISKQUOTA, disk quota exceeded > > Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:23:13 EST > 109L8GEJCVEL: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output > > Sat, 20 Apr 1996 01:10:10 EST > 109L8GEJCVEL: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output > > Fri, 19 Apr 1996 20:05:23 EST > 109L8GEJCVEL: %MAIL-E-OPENOUT, error opening !AS as output You'll notice there is nothing to indicate who sent the mail. There is only the header from the mailing list prepended to this stuff. I've tried calling MCI. I've tried their press office, where a nice person actually tried to help, giving me a phone number in VA where the "supervisor for internetmci" had his office. Unfortunately, he is no longer in that position. The press lady did get me to the next chairholder, a John Scarborough, but the best I could get there is voice mail (maybe this guy is doing vacation relief for Robin Loyed?). After more than two days, there has not been a return call nor email message. Email to MCI's comments section of their web page returns this cheery note: "MCI's Electronic Customer Service has received your request. We will respond shortly with an E-Mail summary of the actions taken on your request." Unfortunately, there is apparently no one home there. Again, well over two days have passed without further contact. Email to postmaster@internetmci.com is apparently ignored. In fact, this afternoon, I got this wonderful item: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 22:38:20 -0400 (EDT) From: PMDF Mail Server Subject: Undeliverable mail: Processing failure To: barry@broadcast.net These addresses were rejected: postmaster@internetmci.com not found in directory Return-path: barry@broadcast.net .... So, apparently, the solution to my two week-long requests for help (escalating in verbal intensity, I must admit) was for internetmci to simply unplug "postmaster"... I'd hate to have to delete all mailing list users who have internetmci.com as their domain, but does anyone else have an alternative solution to my receiving several dozen useless bounce messages from internetmci??? Thanks much, Barry Mishkind Tucson, AZ http://www.broadcast.net/~barry [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There really is not much you can do short of taking the action you described and removing all the names. Then, you let the ones who are alive and active and still interested in getting your publication write back to you and complain when they are not seeing anything. At that point you ask them if they can possibly receive your mail via some other location. I did the same thing, and got rid of them all at one point. Now I have only two names on my list from there. Bear in mind also, its not like they were as cooperative and friendly as (for example) Compuserve or even AOL where internet e-journal moderators/list maintainers have been able at times to cut deals of their own with the administration as I have done. Both of those services receive *huge* amounts of mail from me for their subscribers, all of whom are required to pay CIS/AOHELL good sums of money each month. That being the case, that I effectively generate some money for those services means I want a small piece of the action. If you charge, then I charge. End of discussion. I am not referring to the small ISPs getting $15 per month for unlimited use and all that. I mean the big guys. MCI on the other hand has never done anything for me; to the contrary over the years it has been difficult at times to work with them. Remember a few years ago when mcimail.com used to take any letter with multiple addresses and if any single address was bad, they would junk it all and not deliver to the other addressees either? When InternetMCI had that press conference at the time of their start up and announced how they would be including all the Usenet news groups and mailing lists, etc for their subsribers I tried to call in and ask Vint Cerf what did they plan to do for the moderators whose work they were in effect ripping off and reselling ... I got no answer then and still have none now; so unlike yourself with some concern about what to do other than remove all the names at that site, I am not quite so concerned. I just flow with the tide. If it ever gets as bad as it was with mcimail.com prior to them upgrading their system, then I'll just alias-out the site and forget it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bradbs@aol.com (Bradbs) Subject: MCI Offers $500.00 For Free LD Usage Date: 25 Apr 1996 18:09:18 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: bradbs@aol.com (Bradbs) MCI has called my office and offered us up to $500 to switch. The $500 is in the form of a certificate and can be used on any month I choose. Has anyone heard of this offer? What are the draw backs? Can I use the free long distance and then switch to another carrier afterward? Please email any information to Bradbs@aol.com Thanks, Brad [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Read the contract terms carefully as printed on the certificate or anything you are expected to sign. If there is no time limit on the certificate then I guess you can, but watch your bills closely for any sign of deceptiveness by MCI. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hd@chai.com (Henoch Duboff) Subject: Can I Cash This Check From LD Company? Date: 25 Apr 1996 23:20:34 GMT Organization: CHAI.COM Hello. I had switched from one long-distance company to another a little while back. Since then, I have received a "check" from the old company, which appears to be a real check, except that: 1. I must call a 1-800 number to obtain a code to be written on the face of the check to validate it, and 2. The back reads "VOID IF ALTERED." There is a statement on the back which indicates that by my endorsing this check, I authorize my local telco to switch my LD company. My question is, first of all, is this legal, given banking regulations? Can I cross out that stuff and still cash the check, even though the check indicates I must have a validation # written on it and it is void if altered? (Is this a legitimate restriction to place on a check?) Thanks, Henoch Duboff hd@chai.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is legal, and whether you call that phone number or make any changes on the back side of the check as soon as you cash it you WILL be converted to 'that carrier'. However if the check is 'improperly endorsed' the carrier might decide to refuse to pay on it and it would be returned to your bank as 'stop payment' or 'refer to maker'. Furthermore, tampering with the indicia on any negotiable instrument is a rather grey area legally. If the check was large enough, the carrier might decide to make a stink. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 22:53:06 EDT From: Declan B. McCullagh Subject: Re: CompuServe Called "Indecent" by Family Association Excerpts from netnews.comp.dcom.telecom: 24-Apr-96 CompuServe Called "Indecent.. by John Shaver EMETF@huachu > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ... 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] One of the many problems with the CDA is that its "indecency" standard doesn't take into account if the material, taken as a whole, has redeeming social, literary, artistic, or political value. In fact, material that courts have held to be "indecent" includes some of the best poetry of this century: Allen Ginsberg's "Howl." This is what the CDA will criminalize, if Pat posts such "indecent" material publicly here in the TELECOM Digest. In the case the {San Jose Mercury News} covered, the American Family Association (AFA) is posturing for publicity, and nothing more. Thanks entirely to the efforts of the ACLU, the DoJ is prevented from enforcing either the "indecent" or "patently offensive" provisions of the CDA until the Philadelphia court decides. No matter what the AFA would like, the DoJ ain't investigating nobody right now. It's interesting to consider the history of the AFA, which is the most virulent "family values" organization involved in the fight for the CDA. Less than a week after Clinton signed the bill into law, the AFA screamed that the CDA "will never work" unless ISPs are subject to additional liability for "indecent" content. Some background: The AFA, headed by the Reverend Donald Wildmon, is based in Tupelo, Mississippi. Wildmon started out as a morality crusader in 1977 by founding the National Federation for Decency and attacking local video stores. Nearly twenty years later, he's still at it, but the AFA has transformed into a $5 million/year powerhouse with a claimed 425,000 members in 560 local branches. Now his biggest campaign is against Disney, though he's taken on Holiday Inn and Blockbuster Video at times. Along the way, Wildmon sparked many a "cultural war," starting in 1989 by attacking the National Endowment for the Arts -- adopting Robert Mapplethorpe as the AFA poster boy, of sorts. Wildmon also attacked Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ and is affiliated with (as a former Steering Committee member) the Coalition on Revivial, a fundamentalist reconstructionist group. Reconstructionists advocate the death penalty for abortionists and practicing homosexuals -- by stoning, if possible. The CDA is just the latest gambit by the theocratic right groups who want desperately to impose their own social agenda on the rest of the country. Declan Harvey Silverglate on Allen Ginsberg and indecency: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=390 American Family Association cries for more ISP liability: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=1337 Excerpts from outbox: 24-Apr-96 Re: CompuServe Called "Inde.. by => O. News@andrew.cmu > Mississippi. Wildmon started out as a morality crusader in 1977 by > founding the National Federation for Decency and attacking local video > stores. Whoops! My mistake. Wildmon started out by attacking _network TV_, especially pornographic programs like "Charlie's Angels" and "Three's Company." Declan ------------------------------ From: richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 03:42:42 GMT In article , Jon Krueger wrote: > 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. [snip] Here in Los Angeles, I see the same ad in the {LA Times} two or three times a week. Also on the radio ad nausium. As Jon says, the ads do seem to be encouraging blocking. Apparently, either the print and radio ads were written by the CPUC or were a joint PacTel/GTE effort. The ones from GTE and Pa Bell are identical except for the company name in bottom corner of the print ads or the end of the radio ad, with a different 800 number to be called to ask for blocking. I don't know about TV ads, I hardly ever turn mine on. Rich Greenberg N6LRT TinselTown, USA Play: richgr@netcom.com 310-649-0238 Pacific time. I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67 Canines: Val(Chinook,CGC), Red(Husky,(RIP)), Shasta(Husky) ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? Date: Fri, 26 Apr 96 02:37:00 PDT jpk@ns.incog.com (Jon Krueger) wrote: > My inference is that PacBell is trying to get enough people to block > that most numbers will be blocked, thus rendering CallerID service > unattractive. > What difference does it make to PacBell? It will make a BIG difference in customer satisfaction to PacBell, since they intend to sell Caller ID service. My guess is that those ads had to pass CPUC scrutiny. I think what CPUC and PacBell are trying to do (ok, maybe OVER-do) is make the option to block number presentation very OBVIOUS to all California consumers. I agree with you, Jon, this emphasis will undoubtedly encourage many more consumers to go ahead and opt for Per Line Blocking, thus impairing the Caller ID service that is ultimately sold. Caller ID is a great service. The people who pay for it and receive many inbound calls appreciate it as a tool for call screening and prioritization. Customers are paying to see a number, not "ANONYMOUS" or "OUT of AREA" appear on their displays. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:33:07 GMT In article , jpk@ns.incog.com (Jon Krueger) wrote: > 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? Perhaps PacBell is just as tired of government/regulatory mandates as everyone else. Perhaps PacBell agrees that 'complete blocking' should have been the default, and that anyone wanting to change could then change at their option, instead of being railroaded. The major problem with caller ID, IMHO, is that the benefits for the consumer are extremely slight, while the advantages for telemarketers and other time-wasters are very great. If only some small fraction of this effort could be redirected towards something useful -- e.g., ISDN or HDSL for each of our subscriber lines. www/ftp directory: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html ------------------------------ From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 07:51:56 EDT Subject: Last Laugh! Mergers, Acquisitions and Divestitures [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I got a dozen copies of this in the mail over the past few days. PAT] Allen's Telephone & Tool Belt >From USA TODAY, DATE: 04/19/96 By Kevin Maney Sometime in 1999: ``Hello. This is Bell Atlantic-Nynex-MCI-TCI-America Online customer service. May I help you?'' ``Yes, I'd like to report a problem with my telephone.'' ``Our records show you don't have local phone service through us.'' ``How'd you know who I am? I didn't give you my name.'' ``We have ways.'' ``Well, I'm pretty sure you have my phone service.'' ``Our records show you have long-distance, cellular, satellite TV, Internet access and your MasterCard through us. Your phone service must be through one of the other three big communications companies. Have you looked at your bill?'' ``My bill is 134 pages long.'' ``Oh, you're one of our light users. But we'd be happy to become your local phone provider. If you sign up, you get one-third off long-distance calls made on your cellular phone to friends and family members who have an Internet home page.'' ``It's tempting, but I just want my phone fixed.'' ``Fine, sir. Just a reminder: Next time you need to contact us, try our Internet site. And when you get there, you can sign up for a free showing, through your satellite TV system, of Hamlet starring Bell Atlantic-Nynex-MCI-TCI-America Online CEO Ray Smith.'' ``Thanks. Goodbye.'' Click. Dial. Ring. ``Good morning! This is SBC-Pacific Telesis-Sprint-GTE-Little Caesars.'' ``Little Caesars? You do pizza?'' ``You buy it over phone lines. It's content. Would you like one? You get a medium with two toppings when you order HBO on cable.'' ``Uh, no. I called because my phone line isn't working right.'' ``I see. Do you have your phone over your cable line or do you have your phone over a phone line.'' ``A phone line, I think.'' ``OK, then that's not SBC-Pacific Telesis-Sprint-GTE-Little Caesars. My file shows that you get cable TV and video games on demand from us, but in your area, we only offer phone service over cable lines. If you use a phone line, it must be one of the other companies.'' ``Thanks. I'll call them.'' ``And sir? We're testing some new products in your area. We're offering electric service and natural gas service for 10% less than the public utilities. One-stop shopping. We want to provide you with everything that comes into your house and connects to a device or appliance.'' ``No, thanks. Bye.'' Click. Dial. Ring. ``Hello. Endorphin Enterprises.'' ``I'm sorry. I must have dialed the wrong number.'' ``You're probably in the right place. We just changed our name. We used to be US West-UUNet-Universal Pictures-Ameritech, but that got pretty cumbersome. I guess they wanted to call it UUUUSA, but then decided to start fresh. So we're Endorphin Enterprises.'' ``Clever.'' ``Personally, I thought we should call ourselves Youse Guys. Get it?'' ``Yeah, that's good. Um, I was calling because my phone line doesn't seem to work right.'' ``Ohhhhh. What services do you have with us?'' ``I'm not sure.'' ``We offer everything: local, long-distance, cellular, cable TV, satellite TV, Internet access, music on demand and so on. But so does everybody else these days.'' ``Yes, well, it's gotten a little confusing. I've already called those two other companies with long names.'' ``Oh, right. OK, see, it looks like you don't have anything at all with us. Now, we could make your life easier by giving you all the services so you'd know who to call. Except in your area, we only offer movies on demand over the Internet, so that could be a problem.'' ``No, really, I just want to get my phone fixed.'' ``My guess is you must have your local phone service through AT&T. That's the only other company left in the business.'' ``OK, I'll try AT&T.'' Click. Dial. Ring. ``Hello. AT&T. Bob Allen speaking.'' ``Bob Allen? The chairman? I'm sorry. I wanted customer service.'' ``No problem. Hold on a moment.'' Pause. Rustling sounds.``Hello. Customer service. Bob Allen speaking.'' ``Mr. Allen, I really just wanted customer service.'' ``This is it. We spun off everything but my office. It goes totally against the megamerger trend. Our shareholders love it. I'm getting paid $55 billion this year.'' ``Well, sir, my phone line doesn't work right, and I think I need someone to come fix it.'' ``Be right there, as soon as I can find my tool belt.'' ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #203 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 29 10:57:32 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id KAA09087; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:57:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:57:32 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604291457.KAA09087@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #204 TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Apr 96 10:57:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 204 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Russian Dial; Other International Items (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! (Linc Madison) Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! (Leonard Erickson) Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! (Alistair Knox) Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! (Gary Breuckman) Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! (Marvin Kurtti) Supercomm '96 Approaching - Plan to Attend (Gordon Ray) Opinion Poll: Online Censorship (Arun Sharma) Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? (Phil Stanley) US 1-800 Number Access From Japan (Collin Park) 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, 28 Apr 1996 19:34:33 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: Russian Dial; Other International Items I found copies of several articles from {Bell Laboratories Record} magazine from the 1960's and 70's regarding International and Overseas Telephony. They are as follows: Overseas Dialing - a Step Toward Worldwide Telephony, July 1961, by O. Myers and C. A. Dahlbom Switching International Calls via Submarine Cable, July/Aug. 1964, by J. Becker and R. D. Deming Signaling Systems - an International Concern, Jan. 1970, by G. H. Johannessen Overseas Dialing - Yesterday, Today and Tommorrow, May 1970, by L. J. Scott International Dialing - No Longer a Novelty, Jan. 1979, by R. J. Keevers The 1961 and May 1970 articles give some examples of dial layouts used in various countries. An article on international signaling formats in the {Bell System Technical Journal} circa 1960 also gives similar dialface examples. In the dialface layouts in these articles, the old Danish dial shows a single letter 'C' on the 'one' digit, nothing on the 'zero', and two symbols on the 'nine' digit. The 'AE' as a "single combined" symbol was one of the two letters on the 'nine' digit and the "slashed 'O'" was the other. I'm not all that familiar with Germanic and Scandinavian dialects, etc., so I'm not sure if the "slashed 'O'" and the "single combined" 'OE' have the same use. A sketch of the old Russian dialface using letters of the "Cyrillic" alphabet was shown in the May 1970 article. Since I am typing in US ASCII, it might be a bit difficult to more precisely describe or represent the Cyrillic lettering here. (Please read the following in a "fixed-font" mode). 1 - A ("ah"); 'alpha' _ 2 - b ("beh"); looks like lower-case 'b' with horizontal bar on top; 'beta' 3 - B ("veh"); another 'beta' _ 4 - | ("geh"); 'gamma' _ 5 - / | ("deh"); similar to 'delta' --- ' ` 6 - E ("yeh"); 'epsilon' 7 - >|< ("jeh"); similar to 'psi' 8 - |/| ("ee"); similar to 'eta'; looks like an 'N' reversed or flipped 9 - K ("kah"); 'kappa' _ 0 - / | ("el"); similar to 'lambda' There was also a picture of a Chinese dial at the beginning of this 1970 article. It had standard Arabic numbering running from one thru nine, and then zero (at ten dialpulses), but also had some Chinese symbols -- single symbols associated with each of the ten numericals. I don't know whether these symbols were Chinese numericals or alphabetical/pictoral symbols from the Chinese alphabet. The Arabian and Persian dials were also shown. They didn't have any type of letters, but the numericals were more of the origianl Arabian or Persian numbers, and both the Arabian and Persian dials were quite similar. Also, both of them had the numbers (and dialpulses) in the more familar way- one thru nine, and then zero (at ten dialpulses). All of these {Bell Labs Record} articles also dealt with various technical and interconnection standards of international and overseas telephony. The 1979 article also had a picture of an Operator's position at the Bell System (AT&T Long Lines) "International Operating Center" in Pittsburgh PA. The particular operator position shown had *BOTH* a cordboard and keyshelf *AND* TOPS-like equipment. There were *two* TOPS-like Video Display Terminals associated with each position- both display screens were at each side of the operator's position flush with the bottom of the cordboard, angled-in somewhat to the operator. A TOPS-like keyboard was close by the operator, in front of the old toggle keyswitches area. TOPS keyboards have been *quite* similar to standard computer keyboards. The numerical keypad is to the right of the "alpha/symbol" keyboard on TOPS, just like most computer keyboards. On TOPS, the keyboard portion had *operator functions* associated with the keys rather than alphabetical letters and symbols, although I think that the keyboard can be changed when needed for the operator to type in alphabetical letters/symbols. *TSPS*, on the other hand, had a rather *large* board with large square buttons/lamps (some buttons were opaque, others had lamps underneath; some were just lamps with a flush square color shield) for operator functions, and also a wide rectangular display area with "nixie" lamps to represent numerical information. TSPS also had a numerical keypad located to the right of the operator funcation keyboard area. OSPS and TOPS are both based on digital switches. OSPS is based on an AT&T/ Western Electric (Lucent) #5ESS, while TOPS is based on a Northern Electric (Northern Telecom or Nortel) DMS switch. TSPS is based on a non-digital ESS, but there is also an earlier "TSP" developed and used in the mid 1960's, based on a Crossbar Tandem. Its terminals and operation procedures were *almost identical* to the later 1970's-on TSPS, except for the type of switch they each were based on. 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: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:46:22 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , rishab@nntp1.best.com (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) wrote: > Scary if true. But I wonder why the satellite (what service wasn't > mentioned -- if it was INMARSAT or some such, under what conditions > did the Russians get hold of tracking data?) tracks location at all. > If it is to focus the transmission beam (i.e. it doesn't use > multiplexing) than I wonder how many phones it could track at a time. > Surely it would make more sense to simply broadcast the downlink, or > at least not focus it enough to offer a military target, as reception > AFAIK need not require any tracking from the satellite. Much simpler (but still hypothetical) scenario: Russian military knows that Dudayev is using a satellite phone with fair frequency (several times a day, perhaps). It is trivial to establish the frequency bands in which the satellite phone operates; that's public information. Probably not a whole lot of people in Chechnya have satellite phones, particularly not many people who aren't involved in the rebellion. Thus, you have your Russian satellites watch for transmissions in the given frequency band in the Chechnya area, or you can use aircraft and ground-based equipment to triangulate. You just wait until he makes a call and then try to pinpoint his location. No cooperation from the satellite phone provider is required, except the disclosure of the frequency bands used by the telephone. It also doesn't matter if the signal is encrypted or scrambled, since you're only using it as a homing beacon, not to intercept the message content. Of course, if CNN is on hand, transmitting field reports over a satellite phone (or other equipment in the same band), you could have a very embarrassing international incident, but the Russians probably have a good idea of where the CNN reporters are, and can filter out that data. Any other country could use the same scheme, just as long as the density of satellite phones in the target zone is very low. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 20:48:26 PST Organization: Shadownet rishab@nntp1.best.com (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) writes: > A report datelined 24 April from Agence France Presse quotes Russian > sources as saying that a satellite phone was used for homing in on > Chechen separatist leadet Dzhokar Dudayev, who was blown up by rockets > on Tuesday. Russian Interior Ministry sources said that Dudayev was > tracked as he used a satellite phone; AFP reported unidentified > experts as agreeing that the satellite could have tracked Dudayev > while he was using the phone even when mobile. > Scary if true. But I wonder why the satellite (what service wasn't > mentioned -- if it was INMARSAT or some such, under what conditions > did the Russians get hold of tracking data?) tracks location at all. > If it is to focus the transmission beam (i.e. it doesn't use > multiplexing) than I wonder how many phones it could track at a time. > Surely it would make more sense to simply broadcast the downlink, or > at least not focus it enough to offer a military target, as reception > AFAIK need not require any tracking from the satellite. There's a fundamental misunderstanding here. The satellite *tracking* him was not the satellite providing the service! The US and Russia both have *many* Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) satellites. These monitor radio signals in other countries, partly for the info being transmitted, and partly for the info on *where* the signals are coming from. While the details on just *how* good these satellites are is classified, it is pretty much *assumed* that they can pick up an ordinary cellular phone, or a military walkie talkie. Thus, receieving and tracking something as powerful as a satellite phone is going to be *easy*. Remember, radio signals can be received by *anyone*, not just the intended recipient. This sort of thing is why it's standard practice to have *several* antennas for any sort of command post, with none of them especially close to it. And they place them fairly randomly too. Would be revolutionaries, take note. If a major government *really* wants to nail you, don't use radios. At least not except in *short* transmissions. Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 13:26:10 +0100 From: Alistair Knox Subject: Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! Organization: Macrovision UK Ltd. In article , Rishab Aiyer Ghosh writes: > But I wonder why the satellite (what service wasn't mentioned -- if > it was INMARSAT or some such, under what conditions did the Russians > get hold of tracking data?) tracks location at all. Did anyone actually confirm that the *communications satellite* was tracking the phone? I assumed that the Russians had a high-flying electronic reconnaissance aircraft searching for ground-originated transmissions in the satellite band and then used this information to target air-launched missiles/bombs. I suppose they could alternatively have used one of their own specialist satellites (much higher than an aircraft and almost impossible to detect) for the same purpose. Alistair Knox ------------------------------ From: puma@netcom.com (Gary Breuckman) Subject: Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 02:21:58 GMT I doubt the satellite provided the location, they likely just tracked down the transmitter. It's not like cellular traffic where there are MANY signals to try and separate, he probably had the only transmitter on that frequency in the area. puma@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Marvin Kurtti Subject: Re: Russians Killed Dudayev Through Satellite Phone! Date: 29 Apr 1996 14:03:16 GMT You don't use the satellite transmission, you just have a missile lock on to the up-link frequency. The technology for knocking out radar, ground control transmitters, etc is well known. Marv ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 16:57:12 -0600 Organization: IEC From: Gordon Ray Subject: SUPERCOMM '96 Approaching - Plan to Attend Pat, many of your readers surely are interested in the "new" SUPERCOMM taking place June 23-27 at the Dallas Convention Center. SUPERCOMM '96 will be biggest and best version of the trade show and conference. Look to SUPERCOMM '96 to find the extensive breadth of companies and organizations that are shaping the future of communications. The expanded show floor has more than 600 exhibitors and special pavilions devoted to fiber, multimedia, wireless and software products and services, and a zone for end users. Plentiful education sessions at SUPERCOMM about business, operations, technology and applications surround hands-on show floor experiences and unequaled peer networking opportunities. The theme, "Explore the Whole World of Communications," is a harbinger for the industry's best annual event. Free Plenary Sessions enable all attendees to see leading authorities examine critical issues facing the industry. And a free program by Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprise (MWBE) looks at "Participating in the Information Age." In all, SUPERCOMM '96 presents about 225 education sessions with leaders and experts in all facets of the industry. The sessions are presented by SUPERCOMM and by three internationally renown organizations: the International Communications Association (ICA), for end-user needs; the International Conference on Communications (ICC), sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society; and the International Engineering Consortium (IEC), which provides executive-level programming as well as sessions devoted to business, marketing, and governmental subjects. Mark your calendar now to attend SUPERCOMM '96, June 23-27 in Dallas. For more information, call toll-free 1-800-278-7372, or visit the SUPERCOMM website at http://www.super-comm.com You can register on the web, too. Registration is free until May 24, $50 thereafter, so hurry! Learn more about the education organizers through the following avenues: International Communications Association (ICA) telephone: 1-800-422-4636, ext. 122 e-mail: intlcoma@onramp.net web: http://www.icanet.com/ica International Conference on Communications (ICC) telephone: 1-800-422-6648 web: http://www-ee.uta.edu/organizations/commsoc/icc96home.html International Engineering Consortium (IEC) telephone: 1-312-559-3725 e-mail: SUPERCOMM@iec.org web: http://www.iec.org As a brief list of the more than 500 speakers and executives expected to converge at SUPERCOMM: U.S. Congress Jack Fields U.S. Representative, R-Texas Alcatel Network Systems David E. Orr President & CEO Ameritech Joel S. Engel Vice President, Technology Bell Atlantic John Seazholtz Chief Technical Officer Bellcore George C. Via Corporate VP, Customer Solutions BellSouth Telecommunications John R. Gunter Vice President, Network Broadband Technologies Salim Bhatia President & CEO Concert Management Services Michael H. Reeve Vice President, Technology Emory University Jagdish N. Sheth Kellstadt Professor Ericsson Network Systems Michael L. Margolis Executive VP, General Manager General Instrument Geoffery S. Roman Senior VP, Technology GTE Corp. Charles R. Lee Chairman & CEO Hewlett-Packard Robert E. Stringer General Manager, Telecom, Media Hughes Network Systems Rajendra Patel Senior VP, General Manager, Wireless Intel Steve McGeady Vice President/General Manager Liberty Cable Television Peter O. Price President LRA Gil Lee President & CEO Lucent Technologies Gerry Butters President MCI Fred M. Briggs Chief Engineering Officer Microsoft Craig Mundie Senior Vice President NEC America James P. Carpenter Senior Vice President Newbridge Networks Paul J. Trautman Director Nortel Jean Monty President & CEO O'Reilly & Associates Dick Peck Vice President Pacific Bell Jerald R. Sinn VP, Communications Mgmt Services SBC Communications Edward E. Whitacre Jr. Chairman & CEO Scientific-Atlanta Allen Ecker Senior Vice President Siemens Stromberg-Carlson E. Van Cullens Sr. VP, Mktg. & Business Sprint Terry J. Yake Vice President, Applied Research Spyglass Tim Krauskopf Vice President, R&D Stentor Resource Centre Carol M. Stephenson President & CEO Tandem Telecom C. Bruce Hill Vice President, Marketing TDS Telecom James Barr President & CEO Time Warner Steve Pearse Senior Vice President TV/COM International Robert A. Luff President & CEO Vocal Tec Elon Ganor CEO Yankee Group Howard Anderson President ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 20:08:15 -0700 From: Arun Sharma Organization: Arun Sharma Subject: Opinion Poll: Online Censorship The following survey on government purposed censorship of the online service is being conducted as a project for our Business Research Course. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. Rajeev Sharma Tendai Tevera Please E-Mail your Responses to asharma@erols.com 1. Which of the following statements most closely corresponds to your opinion concerning online censorship ? A. I believe that online services should be completely free of censorship. The individual should have the right to decide what he/ she views in his or her home. B. I believe that online services are adequately governed by existing laws, that these laws make further legislation unnecessary. C. I believe there should be some limited censorship to ban certain extremes. D. I believe there should be blanket censorship of the On-line services. 2. Listed below are four approaches to censorship of online materials. After each statement, please indicate how the approach described satisfies the following conditions: EFFECTIVENESS, ENFORCEABILITY, and your personal opinion of the DESIRABILITY of this approach: 1= completely satisfactory 2= very satisfactory 3= somewhat satisfactory 4= somewhat unsatisfactory 5= very unsatisfactory 6= no opinion A. Use a rating scale similar to that used for movies (e.g., "G", "PG", "R", etc.) The ability to access material with "R" and other "adult" ratings could require the use of a password or other restrictive means of access. Effective_____________ Enforceability__________ Desirability____________ B. Services providers (Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe, etc.) would be required to monitor the contents of all materials displayed or uploaded to their particular electronic environment. Effective_____________ Enforceability__________ Desirability____________ C. Both service providers (Prodigy, AOL, CompuServe, etc.) and Web site owners of specific sites would be held accountable for material broadcast. Effective_____________ Enforceability__________ Desirability____________ D. The existing laws and restrictions as they presently stand. Effective_____________ Enforceability__________ Desirability____________ 3. Would you be willing to pay for accessing a site you previously accessed, if due to censorship that site was only available on a "Pay per View" basis. Yes__________ No__________ 4. How effective do you feel "blocking software" is or will be in preventing under age access to certain sites ? ............Examples: surfwatch, net nanny Very Effective __________ Quite Effective__________ Little Effective_________ In-Effective______________ Q 05. What on-line services do you currently access Prodigy_______ America online_______ Internet_______ CompuServe _______ Others _______ 6. What is the purpose of your on-line use. Check all that apply. _______Business _______Entertainment _______Educational 7. Gender: _______Male _______Female 8. What is your marital status ____Single(never married)____Married ____Divorced/Separated/Widowed 9. What year were you born 19__________ 10. Do you have any children below the age of 15 living in your house _______Yes _______No 11. What is the highest level of education you have attained. _______High School _______College _______Post Graduate All comments, good or bad, and suggestions for improvement, that do not have spaces on this form, can be e-mailed to: asharma@erols.com ------------------------------ From: Phil Stanley Subject: Re: ATT Free Internet Access Status? Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 02:40:56 -0300 Organization: MagicNet, Inc. basavaraj patil wrote: > Barry Margolius, NYC (bfm@pobox.com) wrote: >> 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. > I got my software about a month back (3.5" disks). Installation was > no problem. However registration is a nightmare. The software dials an > 800 number and then starts up a netscape session. The only problem is > that it takes forever to complete the registration. I have left my > machine running for more than an hour and still failed to complete the > registration. I have given up on the worldnet service as it is next to > impossible to get registered. You know the old saying! You get what you pay for!! or is it! Know the code! Phil Stanley|travlr@magicnet.net Excel Telecommunications|http://www.magicnet.net/~travlr/ Independent Representative|407-870-2526 ------------------------------ From: Collin Park Subject: US 1-800 Number Access From Japan Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 16:11:19 JST When we moved here to Japan about three years ago, we knew of only one way to get at 1-800 numbers -- via an AT&T calling card, very expensive. Some time after that, we heard about callback services -- but they couldn't reach "800" numbers either. [At least they couldn't reach *some* 800 numbers, because it seems that it worked a few times -- to different numbers, maybe. Or maybe the callback carrier somehow "found" and then lost this capability??] But I wanted to tell you that at least one local carriers, IDC, is now able to reach U.S. "1-800" numbers with no problem. Instead of a Japanese recording of "You can't do that!" we now get an apparently US-originated message: "This is not a toll-free call; it will be billed at usual IDDD rates. If you don't like it, please hang up now." After a few seconds' timeout, the call completes. I believe the local carrier charges me from the moment I pick up the phone, so I'm paying about 40 cents for the "this is not free" notification and timeout. So if you come to Japan and need to dial a 1-800 number in the US, you aren't forced any more to use your AT&T (Sprint, MCI ...) calling card; you can just use the local carrier, at a somewhat lower cost. But don't leave your US calling card at home! If you can't find a gold- faceplate (international capable) public phone, you may be stuck using your US calling card anyway, as they seem to work [at least AT&T does] even from [some] "domestic-only" pay phones. And if you're staying in a hotel and have to make calls from your room ... you're probably better off with your US calling card for any US-bound call. Cheers, collin ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #204 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon Apr 29 17:32:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA12172; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 17:32:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 17:32:11 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604292132.RAA12172@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #205 TELECOM Digest Mon, 29 Apr 96 17:32:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 205 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson New Jersey Area Code Split (Philadelphia Inquirer via Tad Cook) Slamming Dunked (Long Island Newsday via Stan Schwartz) Bits Don't Go High to Some 800s (Antilles Engineering) New GAO Telecom Report and Testimony Online (Danny Burstein) Fire in PDX US West Office Kills Phone Service (Elana Beach) AT&T, Softkey Giving Free Software to Switch (Stanley Cline) Is NYNEX Deceptively Advertising *66? (Michael J. Kuras) An Old Stromberg Stepper (Paul Cook) Bury Your Loved Ones Via Your Touchtone Phone (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: Tad Cook Subject: New Jersey Area Code Split Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 18:31:13 PDT Bell Atlantic Plans Third, 'Overlay' Area Code in Northern New Jersey By Cynthia Mayer, The Philadelphia Inquirer Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News NEWARK, N.J.--Apr. 27--Northern New Jersey is fast running out of telephone numbers and may become a test case for what telephone officials say is the entire region's future -- the 10-digit phone number. Numbers in the 201 and 908 area codes are being devoured by new fax machines, cellular phones, pagers and modems. If something isn't done in the next two years, telephone executives say, all the numbers will be used up by the summer of 1997. The solution proposed by Bell Atlantic Corp. in New Jersey is to give new lines assigned in the 201 and 908 area codes a second area code. Known as a "number overlay," the change would mean towns would have two different area codes, and in many cases, so would single households. New neighbors would probably have different area codes from older residents. Fax machines installed in peoples' houses would probably have new area codes. So would a new beeper or second phone line. (The cost of the calls would remain the same, and no one would have to dial 1.) Not everyone wants to move boldly into this future. "An overlay will create permanant confusion," says Jim Laskey, a lawyer who lives just north of Princeton and represented the Somerset Chamber of Commerce at a public forum on the issue. "At least right now," he said, "there is a certain geographic association with an area code." Bell Atlantic officials say the system isn't ideal, but it's superior to continually splitting and resplitting area codes. The 908 area code put into effect five years ago was supposed to last until the year 2005, but fell far short. Splitting the North Jersey area codes again would only be a stopgap solution that would need to be changed in another six to eight years, said Tim Ireland, a Bell Atlantic spokesman. "You end up with teeny tiny area codes," he said. "And each time you have to make everyone change their area codes." Ten-digit dialing is inevitable for the area from New York to Washington in the next 10 to 20 years, he said: "It's not just "whether" you get 10-digit dialing, but "when." Maryland already has taken the step, and will begin assigning customers who ask for new lines new area codes in May, said Bell Atlantic officials. Southern New Jersey is also facing a number crunch and will run out of telephone lines in 1999 unless it gets a new area code, said Ireland. Telecommunications companies will begin debating an overlay for the 609 area code later this year, said Jeffrey Lahm, senior manager for regulatory policy at Bell Atlantic in New Jersey. The Philadelphia area isn't facing a crisis, he said. But its growth in phone numbers is phenomenal too. "You can't put it off forever," he said. Not all cities are signing on. Houston and Dallas considered an overlay in February, but the Public Utility Commission of Texas nixed the idea. One solution -- number portability, in which customers take their numbers with them from state to state and to different carriers -- is still three to five years away from development, say consumer advocates. Meanwhile, competition in the telecommunications industry is also shaping the debate. Long-distance carries such as AT&T and MCI plan to compete in offering local telephone service in New Jersey and other locales soon. They argue that if Bell Atlantic adopts an overlay it will have an unfair competitive advantage. Why? Bell Atlantic customers who want to switch to another carrier, they argue, would be forced to adopt a number with the new, less desirable area code and Bell Atlantic would be able to hand out the last few 201 and 908 numbers to "its" new customers. Bell Atlantic says that's nonsense. Customers who want to switch to AT&T or another new local carrier could keep their old number, said Ireland. Bell Atlantic would just electronically link them to their old telephone number. Despite such assurances, disagreements among telecommunications companies have made it impossible to reach an industry consensus. As a result, the issue has landed in the lap of New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities. The Board held two public meetings this week and is inviting public written comment until May 1. If the board approves an overlay this spring, Bell Atlantic would start putting in the new numbers in the summer. But judging by the attendance at the two meetings, the issue of adding two new area codes hasn't quite sunk in in New Jersey yet. "Everyone who was testifying there was either a president of Bell Atlantic or a senior manager or a district manager or a member of a chamber of commerce," complained one speaker, David DeNotaris, who works training disabled people to find employment. "But this affects everyone. And after the fact, it's going to be too late to change." Like most of those who spoke, DeNotaris favors an overlay because he said it would allow most people to keep their old phone numbers, would not split towns or force businesses to redo their advertising logos. Dialing the extra three digits will be hard on the disabled, "But so what?" he said. "We're going to have to do that anyway." Other telephone customers reached at random said they had not heard of the plan. "That's something I was totally unaware of," said Marcia Rapp, who manages the Jewish Federation apartment building for seniors in Paterson, N.J. "I think that for many of the tenants it will be burdensome situation to remember the extra numbers," she said. One consumer group in New Jersey, the Ratepayer, testified in favor of the overlay but called for more extensive hearings. Meanwhile, there is the open question of whether telephone callers will be able to memorize an extra three digits. One professor of psychology, Gordon Bowers of Stanford University, predicts problems: "That'll produce a fair number of screw-ups. The number of people who forget the number and have to look it up again will increase, and so will misdialings." ----- ON THE INTERNET: Visit Philadelphia Online, the World Wide Web site of The Philadelphia Inquirer. Point your browser to http://www.phillynews.com ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Slamming Dunked Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 14:47:13 -0400 From {Long Island Newsday} Online (www.newsday.com), forwarded FYI to the Digest: Slamming Dunked By Henry Gilgoff Staff Writer (4/28/96) WHEN LaVERNE BRIMER of Commack realized that a company she never heard of was handling her long distance calls, she wanted to know why. When she called, she was told that her son, 11 years old at the time, had authorized the switch when he entered a sweepstakes. Her son, Andrew, now 12, said he doesn't remember signing the contest form and "long distance application," but he does enter sweepstakes, and the signature seems to be his own, he said. "This was driving my mother crazy," Andrew said. Indeed, his mother said she compared Long Distance Services, the Michigan company she had been switched to, and AT&T, which she had before the change. AT&T, she said, was lower-priced for her calls, most of them to Florida. On a monthly bill dated Feb. 19, she was charged $66.39 for out-of- state calls, excluding surcharges and taxes. The cost of the calls at AT&T, she said, would have been $35.66, including discounts. Now the matter is under review by the office of state Attorney General Dennis Vacco. "We are giving serious attention to this," said Charlie Donaldson, an assistant attorney general. Andrew couldn't authorize a switch in his parent's service, he said. Donaldson is a veteran in the war against what is known as slamming, the practice of switching customers from one long distance company to another without their authorization. Complaints to the Federal Communications Commission last year alleged that authorization in many cases is obtained fraudulently or deceptively. The FCC received more than 10,000 complaints about slamming in 1995. Even the biggest companies have been accused of slamming. The FCC in January cited AT&T, among others. The FCC reported that its staff found no similarity between the signature on a consumer's authorization form for a switch to AT&T and a signature submitted to the FCC by the consumer. A finding of "apparent liability" was issued, and a $40,000 penalty was assessed. AT&T spokeswoman Virginia Gold said AT&T filed comments with the FCC, challenging the finding in the FCC's ongoing review of the case. "We disagree with that assessment," Gold said. Months after Brimer's son signed the form that resulted in her switch to Long Distance Services, new FCC rules took effect in September. They seek to ensure that consumers know if they're authorizing a change in long distance companies when a sweepstakes offer is made. Regulators say using a contest to mask an authorization for a change in long distance companies is a common ploy by slammers, either a long distance company or its marketers. NYNEX, as the regional phone company, receives computer data tapes with the telephone numbers to be switched from one long distance company to another, and carries out the changes without confirming consumer authorization. The volume of changes would make verification onerous, said NYNEX spokesman John Bonomo. Slamming is an unintended product of increased competition in long distance calling -- a market that promises to heat up as NYNEX and other regional phone companies gear up to compete. Companies can buy use of a major long distance carrier's network at volume discount rates and then resell the service. Many resellers are legitimate, said Donaldson, and prices vary, depending on such factors as costs and profit margin. So if you're considering jumping from one company to another, no matter which company, don't make assumptions about price. Compare. LaVerne Brimer never intended to jump. Brimer said a change in the format of NYNEX bills earlier this year gave her reason to read it more carefully and detect what seemed a discrepancy in charges for long distance calls. So, she called NYNEX. She was told that while NYNEX collects her payments for long distance calling as part of her overall bill, it is only a conduit, receiving a fee for its services. The billing data came to NYNEX through another company. She called that company, U.S. Billing Inc., and was told that it, too, was a conduit, providing billing data services for many long distance companies. In a letter last month to "It's Your Money," Brimer said U.S. Billing told her she had not had AT&T for months. "What I did have," she was told, "was a company called Long Distance Services." A representative of that company, Brimer wrote, "advised me that she doesn't know how this application of a minor got past her." Brimer was sent a copy of the form, and she and her son say the signature seemed to be his, but he is not sure he filled out the rest of the form, which lists his birthdate only as July 22. The form authorizes a company called Intercontinental Marketing Associates Inc. to be the agent in providing long distance service. A number listed on the form for that company has been disconnected, and Long Distance Services says it no longer uses it for marketing. Meanwhile, Brimer contacted AT&T to switch her back, and that was done in March this year. She hasn't paid her two last bills from Long Distance Services and wants a refund of the difference between AT&T rates and Long Distance Services' for calls since the first handled by Long Distance Services on March 23, 1995. Allan Barash, an executive at Long Distance Services, said the complaint was unusual for his company. "We process over 20,000 of these orders a week." Each NYNEX bill Brimer received said inquiries can be made to U.S. Billing, Barash added. "This is all nonsense," he said. "The woman got her first bill in 1995, and she's first complaining about the situation in 1996?" He said he would make some accommodation to Brimer but the details were not clear. Asked more questions about the contest form and long distance application, Barash bristled. "You're getting too in-depth," he said, and he soon ended the conversation. The first of the checks will be in the mail in several weeks, he said. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 11:22:59 -0400 From: Antilles Engineering Subject: Bits Don't Go High to Some 800s I'm new to the list but wanted to ask other listers whether the following is "legal." Our firm operates a T-1 - provisioned callback switch for our engineers overseas. (Yes -- we're Section 214 licensed.) We've noted that when our guys overseas call through the switch to some 800 numbers (for example, American Airlines Advantage 1 800 848 4653), the call doesn't "connect" and yet information is being conveyed by AA. You are prompted to enter a DTMF to access a particular branch, then put on hold. *Only* when a live body at that particular AA branch picks up do the signal bits go high and a "connect" actually happens. Technically, I can see how this can be done, but can *we* do it legally, or do you have to have the concurance of your LD carrier, *or* is someone out there being cute without the knowledge of the carrier? Doug Terman Antilles Engineering, Ltd. snail: PO Box 318, VT 05674 voice: (802) 496 3812 fax: (802) 496 3814 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 12:07:13 EDT From: danny burstein Subject: New GAO Telecom Reports and Testimony Online Check out especially the telecom piece in the first report. Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:42:04 -0500 From: Jennifer Boettcher Subject: GAO Daybook - 4/16/96 -Forwarded GAO Daybook ***NEW - FY 95 Annual Index of Reports and Testimony*** See Below for Details April 16, 1996 The General Accounting Office (GAO) today released the following reports and testimony: REPORTS: 1. USDA Telecommunications: More Effort Needed to Address Telephone Abuse and Fraud GAO/AIMD-96-59, Apr. 16. 2. Financial Audit: U.S. Government Printing Office's Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 1995 GAO/AIMD-96-52, Apr. 16. TESTIMONY: 1. Defense Depot Maintenance: Privatization and Debate Over the Public- Private Mix, by David R. Warren, Director of Defense Management Issues, before the Subcommittee on Military Readiness, House Committee on National Security. GAO/T-NSIAD-96-146, Apr. 16. ******************************************** ***NEW*** FY 95 Annual Index of Reports and Testimony Go to GAO's WWW Home Page "What's New" link for details or see FAQ ******************************************** The report(s) listed above will be available *soon* both electronically and in print. For complete details on GAO's INTERNET services, go to GAO's WWW Home Page: http://www.gao.gov or retrieve the GAO FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) automatically, by sending an e-mail message with "info" in the body to: info@www.gao.gov ****************************************************************** Back issues of the GAO Daybook may also be obtained via e-mail. See FAQ for details. To UNSUBSCRIBE to the GAO Daybook, send an e-mail message to: with the message: unsubscribe daybook *************************************************************** Thank you! ------------------------------ From: elana@netcom.com (Elana who?) Subject: Fire in PDX US West Office Kills Phone Service Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 15:34:15 GMT I didn't post this when it happened because I figured someone else would ... Sometime last week, there was a fire in a Portland, Oregon (PDX in airport lingo) US West office ... it burned thru some phone cables and knocked out phone service in most of the northeastern part of the city. The outage lasted about eight hours. One of the ISPs I have an account with, agora.rdrop.com, temporarily lost their Internet connection as well, even though they are physically located rather far south of the outage area. (go figure). The reaction of the locals, according to the paper, seems to be that this is the last straw for a lot of these Portlanders. US West has already angered a lot of people here because of incident upon incident of bad service and too-long waits for new numbers. And now this. Hmmm ... US West has not yet annoyed me at all ... (cautiously fearful emphasis on "yet") I have no idea about this incident other than what I've scanned in the local paper. Perhaps a fellow Webfoot ( that the Oregonian slang for other Oregonians) who more technical than I, *and* knows more about this incident can post more news about it. "Be seeing you..." Elana [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Telcos are notorious for leaving millions of dollars in switching and other sophisticated equipment unattended for days at a time. In their penny-wise and pound-foolish budgets, they would rather have a fire or other disaster every now and then costing them several million dollars and a lot of bad customer relations than to simply hire someone for twenty or thirty thousand dollars per year and have them stay in the CO at night or on weekends who was intelligent enough to 'make rounds' of the building every hour or so; knew how to make emergency decisions regarding fires, floods, and other problems; and could communicate intelligently with company management and civil authorities in the event an emergency arose, etc. It is particularly offensive when they say 'it would cost too much money to staff all our locations at all hours' when you realize much of the expense could be budgeted through various other departments (i.e. the overnight and weekend person could be given data entry work to do in spare time). Now I do not know what the exact circumstances were in Portland and whether the fire was in some unattended location at some 'off-hours' of the night or weekend, etc. It may well have been something which occurred in the middle of the day with a hundred people around. I have to reserve judgment on it. But I do know that Illinois Bell's Hinsdale office on Mother's Day in May, 1988 was such a case. After the fire had been going for *better than an hour* finally some dingbat at the central monitoring place in Springfield, Illinois calls up to someone at home in the Chicago area and said 'when they got a chance' they might want to go over to Hinsdale (a 45 minute drive) and see 'why the alarms have been sounding for 'about an hour'. That person goes to the Hinsdale CO and sees smoke billowing out of all the windows and the roof and decides 'maybe' they should call the Fire Department only to discover by then it was far too late: all the phones were already dead. Recovery took a month, and millions of dollars. For what Hinsdale cost IBT, the company could have staffed every piece of real estate they own for years with a competent person ready to spring into action, marshall the troops and greatly mitigate the damages. Too bad telcos consider it 'too expensive'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:19:08 -0400 From: Stanley Cline Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Subject: AT&T, Softkey Giving Free Software to Switch AT&T is doing something new to get new customers ... A couple of days ago I received an envelope from Softkey advertising "Free Software up to $150 value." I look in the envelope and find what amounts to an LOA: "Switch me to AT&T ... send me the free software." They only allow one "software selection", which is a bit misleading given the "up to $150" on the envelope, and on the reverse side a picture of *several* software packages. What's even stranger is that the name, address, *and* phone number the LOA/offer was sent to is *not* what's on my phone bill! It's what I provided Softkey when I registered some software I ordered from them several months ago. To their credit, they did provide space to make changes to the phone billing name/address/phone number. The fact that this was an LOA "in disguise" was obvious, unlike others I've seen. So it's possible that even *existing* AT&T customers got the sales pitch -- the phone number listed on the LOA has been PICed to LCI for over a year, but those that "churn" LD carriers may have gotten this (number PICed to another carrier when the mailing list was generated, but since changed to AT&T.) Will I take them up on their offer? Probably not; the software offerings aren't really all that good. (If they were giving MS Office or CorelDRAW away, though, then maybe I would.) What's next from AT&T, or MCI, or Sprint? I bet MCI will eventually cook up something relating to their 1-800-Music-Now. Any other ideas? Stanley Cline (dba Catoosa Computing Services), Chattanooga, Tenn. mailto:scline@usit.net -- http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~scline/ IRC Roamer1 :: CIS 74212,44 :: MSN WSCline1 :: Using Atlas PR2 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:55:33 -0400 From: mkuras@ccs.neu.edu (Michael J Kuras) Subject: Is NYNEX Deceptively Advertising *66? Organization: College of Computer Science, Northeastern University I saw a NYNEX TV commercial today that seemed to contradict the discussion which was held in this newsgroup in Dec '95-Jan '96. The commercial went something like this: "The circus tickets went on sale at 9AM. Bob called right at 9, but so did a lot of other people (shot of Bob listening to a busy signal) ... so Bob dialed *66 and got through!" Essentially, the commercial is saying that if you try to call a Ticketmaster-type number, *66 (automatic redial/ringback) will get you through. But from the previous dicussion (attribute omitted, sorry): > [*66 is] pointless for heavily-used busy numbers. By the time you get the > ringing, and pick up the phone, the desired line is busy again (and > you'll be told to hang up and wait some more). It's not as if it > reserves you the right to be the next caller (it doesn't). So is NYNEX onto something new? Or is this merely a *very* carefully worded commercial? michael j kuras www.ccs.neu.edu/~mkuras mkuras@ccs.neu.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: *66 'tests for busy' on the called line and reports back when it finds the line is open and can be reached. There are some flaws. One, there is a 'window' of a few seconds to a minute after it discovers the line is free and calls back the requesting party. During that period of time, some third party can seize the line instead. *66 does not grab the line and hold it for its user, which would prevent that from happening. The second flaw is that so far as I know, *66 has no knowledge of other lines in a hunt group to which it could refer its user. If you (and hundreds of other people) call a company which has a listed number with let's say a couple dozen additional lines in sequence, the only thing *66 knows about is the main, listed, first-in-the-group number that you (and everyone else) dialed. And while yes, that line will become free like the others, it will also be the first one to get seized by other callers in the interim while *66 comes looking for you to make its report and offer to try the connection again. There might be lines in the hunt group available. I am not certain if retries are just dialed again (thus the call might hunt down to a vacancy somewhere) or if it just goes back and looks again first only to report that number XXX has 'become busy again'. For fun sometime, try dialing your own number. You'll get a busy signal of course, and you'll have loaded the *66 buffer by doing so. Now use *66. The recording will tell you that it will be tried from time to time. Hang up your phone. On the first try afterward, naturally your line will be free, and *66 will cheerfully call to advise you of that and offer to make the connection. Guess what? When it tries to do so, your line 'has become busy again' !! If *66 at your telco is set up to try repeatedly for some period of time, you'll get calls every couple minutes from *66 telling you the line is now free, only to try it and find the line has 'become busy again'. You can cancel this loop using *86 or *89 or whatever code is used in your community to 'cancel automatic callback requests'. If the software at your telco is set to only try one time and then give up, you'll get the one bogus callback but no others. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 96 10:32:00 EST From: Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> Subject: An Old Stromberg Stepper Friday I got a call from a small independent telco in NE Ohio, in New Bavaria. As soon as I answered the phone, it was like a blast from the past. I could hear a step-by-step switch clattering away in the foreground. The caller said it was an old Stromberg-Carlson switch. The caller was a contractor who wanted help with E&M leads on a 9-1-1 trunk that we haven't manufactured in a number of years. He was installing basic 9-1-1 service in this little town. It was amazing to hear the clatter of the electromechanical switch as I drug out the old diagrams and tried to remember basic troubleshooting for this old trunk. The telco was Benton Ridge Telephone Company, a 400 line independent in Benton Ridge. This was the 419-653 exchange in New Bavaria. The installer told me that the nearby 419-398 exchange (four miles away) has the last step switch that Stromberg Carlson manufactured! Small telcos in that area are Buckland Telco in Buckland, Wabash Mutual in Celina, Columbus Grove Telco in Columbus Grove, Continental Telco (subsidiary of Telephone & Data Systems, unrelated to Contel,) in Continental, Fort Jennings Telco in Fort Jennings, Glandorf Telco in Glandorf, Kalida Telco in Kalida, Middle Point Home Telco in Middle Point, New Knoxville Telco in New Knoxville, Oakwood Telco in Oakwood, Ottoville Mutual in Ottoville, Vanlue Telco (part of TDS) in Vanlue, Vaughnsville Telco in Vaughnsville and Telephone Service Company in Wapakoneta. All of these little independent telcos are around Findlay and Lima. I remember when there were 1,700 or so independent telcos in the United States back in the 1970s, and a lot of them were farmer CO-OPs and mom and pop outfits. Not many of them around anymore with step switches. Paul Cook 206-881-7000 Proctor & Associates 3991080@mcimail.com 15050 NE 36 St. Redmond, WA 98052-5378 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are still about 1200-1300 totally independent telephone companies in the United States; that is telcos with no affiliation to the old 'Bell System', GTE, or United and Centel, which at least in the 1970-80's were the third and fourth largest consortium of telcos after Bell and GTE. In the early years of this century when Alex Bell's patent on the basic telephone expired and AT&T was no longer able to prevent their manufacture, they plucked up all the telcos they could get (quite literally!) 'one way or the other'. Quite a few of the several thousand telcos back then were very fiercely independent; they hated 'the Bell' and made no bones about it. At the turn of the century, small telcos were like ISPs are today. One or two in every town; all kinds of informal arrangements on exchange of traffic, etc. But AT&T made survival so difficult for the telcos who would not succomb to the treats dangled in front of their nose as members of the newly formed 'Bell System' (i.e. interconnection with the other telcos in the Bell consortium; a piece of the revenue from the baby long distance industry) that they had to band together on their own. Quite a few wanted affiliation with a major telephone network so they jumped in with GTE figuring it was the lesser of two evils when compared with 'the Bell'. Others would have no part of either consortium, and instead formed the group known as USITA -- the United States Independent Telephone Associa- tion, to which many of the telcos in the GTE consortium also belonged. Membership in USITA was absolutely forbidden to the telcos in the Bell System. Historically, an 'independent telco' was always defined as a telco not part of Bell, nor receiving any largesse from AT&T. I am talking of the 1900-1930 era now, and the definition of 'independent' pretty much continued until AT&T's divestiture. The same scenario had played out fifty years earlier when lots of tiny, independent telegraph companies found it in their best interest to form union (or merged and consolidated) agencies and switching facilities. They got gobbled up in the Western Union consortium (or telegraph trust) in 1860-90. Those who did not get into the Western Union network of telegraph agents and network facilities generally joined with other small consortiums which were mostly all merged in WUTCO over the years. 1932 comes, and things *stink* all over the USA. Bread lines and welfare office lines extend out in the street. No one ran 'help wanted' ads in the newspapers because they didn't have to. There was not a single day every company did not have a dozen people at the door asking for employment; any work would do. President Roosevelt hated AT&T, and Ma Bell hated him. He wanted to see *truly* universal phone service, not the bogus 'universal service' Ted Vail had in mind which meant grab up all the juicy little telcos and skim the cream. It was funny watching them accuse MCI of the same thing in the 1970's -- Mister Pot, meet Mister Kettle; Pot says Kettle is dirty. Failing to get his way with AT&T, Roosevelt started a federal agency called the Rural Electrification Administration. REA had the task of bringing electricity to the nation's farmers, along with telephone service. You see, Roosevelt did not like Thomas Edison very much either. Edison and the executives of the companies in his consortium had their own cows to milk and rural America was not part of their agenda either. Roosevelt's REA got hundreds of rural electric systems up and running and hundreds of 'Telephone Cooperative Societies' started. The farmers were given federally-guaranteed loans to build telephone exchanges and power plants. Most of them had twenty year mortgages. But after twenty years, the farmers were getting too old to climb the telephone poles to maintain the wires. Their wives were getting too old to run the switchboard, and their daughters had no interest in staying home on Saturday night to watch the board while mom and dad got a night off. AT&T saw this happening. They saw the telephone cooperative societies having a hard time with their (by then) old, antiquated switchboards and lack of interest by the farmer's daughters and sons in keeping it going. Not only that; the best part of all was now the debt service was over! ... the farmers held those coops free and clear of any debt. AT&T moved in for the kill and grabbed as many as they could for pennies on the dollar. About 1955, it took the United States Supreme Court to rule that AT&T would not be allowed to acquire any more telephone operating companies, subject to one exception: if the telco was for sale and no one else wanted to buy it AND it was on the *verge of bankruptcy and suspending operations or going out of business* then AT&T *HAD* to take it! The Supremes really stuck it to AT&T that time; Judge Greene would have been proud. Don't you wish *you* could have been in on this business in those early days? I would have loved it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 03:45:09 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Bury Your Loved Ones Via Your Touchtone Phone WHEN YOU NEED TO GRIEVE ... IN A HURRY! SEATTLE--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 24, 1996--Would you know what to do if a close relative died out of town and you had to handle the arrangements? A Seattle company has stepped in to solve this problem for America's mobile, spread-out families. Farewell Nationwide Funeral Service has established a toll-free number, 1-800/FAREWELL, to handle long distance funeral arrangements. Daniel Whitehurst, president of Farewell, said: "Many people today don't know a funeral director in their own town, let alone a distant city. But now they can call 1-800/FAREWELL (800/327-3935) and our Family Assistant will make all the connections for them -- and it will generally cost less than if they hired local providers." Farewell is a licensed funeral provider and can handle transportation, preparation and even cremation virtually anywhere in the United States and internationally. The company has a network of licensed local professionals around the country who can respond immediately, 24 hours a day, to a call for service. Farewell also sells caskets and urns and can book bereavement-fare travel arrangements for the family. According to Whitehurst, long distance arrangements are becoming more common as people move to retirement communities and their children follow jobs and families to cities away from the hometown. Baby Boomers have little experience with funerals, said Whitehurst, but are now having to deal with arrangements for their parents. "This generation is accustomed to shopping by phone, fax and online services. They want instant response and direct information. We think 1-800/FAREWELL will be more convenient and less stressful than tracking down a far-away funeral home. With Farewell, they can do everything over the phone from their own home or wherever they are." Whitehurst said the service will usually cost less than going through local providers because Farewell has negotiated rates with sub-contractors around the country. He said using Farewell is similar to calling a travel agent, where the customer pays no more for extra service and convenience as well as better price options. Sample prices (apply in most metropolitan areas): 1. Arranging removal and cremation and shipment of cremated remains, including interim container and shipping charges: $795. 2. Arranging removal, preparation (embalming) and shipment including shipping container but not airline charges: $980. Farewell Nationwide Funeral Service was designed by long-time funeral professionals to make the funeral process easier and less expensive for people. Changing demographics and attitudes about funerals have opened the door to non-mortuary providers like Farewell, according to Whitehurst. CONTACT: Farewell Nationwide Funeral Service Dan Whitehurst, 800/327-3935 FarewellUS@aol.com ++++++++++++++++ (Pat, A few questions spring to mind. Firstly, do you need to call 1-800-FLOWERS for the floral arrangements? Secondly, were they also able to get 1-888-FAREWELL, or is that a ransomed vanity number?!!? Thirdly ... ARE THEY NUTS?!!? It's hard to believe that the "disposal" of a loved one is being marketed to baby boomers (i.e. yuppies) as something that can now be done completely over the phone, no muss, no fuss. All we need now is 1-800-AHIT-MAN, and you can have total body disposal from the covenience of your touch-tone phone! They call making burial arrangements "Similar to calling a travel agent". Is this truly a reflection on today's disposable society, or what?) Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I can see the advantage to a service such as offered. If you had a family member in a distant place and knew no one there, who would *you* contact for assistance? In 1979, an older lady who lived alone in the same building as myself passed away. No one ever came to see her; her son and his wife lived in New York somewhere. I knew little or nothing about her except to say hello in passing every day. When we had not seen her after two days we went to her apartment and found her dead. After calling the Fire Department and the Police Department (the Chicago Police *always* require a paramedic -- if no physician is present -- to pronounce the death from natural causes before they will remove the body) and waiting for their arrival, we examined her personal papers looking for (to us heretofore unknown) relatives. Literature in her apartment lead me to believe she was Jewish, and a call to the son and his wife in New York confirmed that to be the case. They knew nothing about the Chicago area, and I suggested a Jewish undertaker to them. They asked me to call and begin the arrangements; they made plans to be in Chicago the next day. Otherwise she would have gone to Cook County and been buried where the county does its thing. If it were a family member of mine, and my responsibility, I'd want professionals in that location to assume control until I was able to get there. I do not think the company Van is referring to is so cold-hearted. They probably are quite helpful. As it turned out in the case of the old lady I mentioned, the family's religious beliefs dictated burial the next day; the day following discovery of the death. How else could it have been handled that quickly? As it also turned out, the weather the next day was *terrible*. There was severe rain all day. I remember distinctly being at the cemetery in a heavy rainfall. They had waited to start until the rain slowed down to a drizzle. There were less than a dozen people present: the son and his wife, the rabbi employed by the funeral home and two others on the staff, a couple of older people who knew the lady from 'way back when', plus myself and a friend who drove me there in his car. The son and his mother had been on the outs for many years and never communicated, and the lady was a recluse otherwise. In her personal possessions we found letters written to her postmarked in the 1940's addressed to her at the Elgin State Hospital for the Insane from her then teenage son in which he said, 'mom, when you write to us, please don't put your return address on the envelope; we don't want anyone to know where you are at ...' The poor rabbi stood at the gravesite for the ritual and two men stood next to him each holding umbrellas over him to keep him and his prayer book dry. The son stood nearby also with an umbrella. The drizzle was steady and the rest of us just sat in our cars nearby and watched. Afterward I said goodbye to him and he handed me an envelope with power of attorney asking me to dispose of whatever she owned; he wanted none of it. Also enclosed was a bit of money for myself. In the process of cleaning out her apartment we found several boxes of Sterling Silver. Not just forks and spoons for the table, but a sterling turkey platter and pitcher and bowls. That was back at the time the guy in Texas had run the price of silver up to more than a hundred dollars per ounce; remember him? All sorts of pure sterling silver from a time in the 1940's when a rich and elegant family had been together and no doubt eaten dinner together regularly. It all came to an end the next day when we took all the boxes -- save some beutiful and very petite little demitasse cups which I wanted -- to the Evanston smelter. There it all met the Refiner's Fire ... in exchange for a check for a little over a thousand dollars. I offered it to the son but he did not want it, so advanced and long standing the hostility in the family, so I gave it the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago in her name for their mental health counseling service. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #205 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 30 01:31:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA18576; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 01:31:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 01:31:45 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604300531.BAA18576@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #206 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Apr 96 01:31:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 206 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Bay Area Wired (Tad Cook) Status of ACTA's FCC Filing to Stop Internet Phone? (Bill Sohl) BellSouth and The Prudential Bank Introduce BellSouth Visa(R) (Mike King) Employment Opportunity: Telecommunication Positions (Mehdi Ashraf) Mitel SX2000 Lite Voice Mail Integration (Paul Crick) Required PIN Dialing over Cellular Phone (Jeff Rodrigues) CDPD in Los Angeles? (Blair Shellenberg) Information Wanted on Tymnet (Kendall Shaw) What is Turnpike Effect? (Eva Fung) Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? (Rich Chong) Insight Research Online (Tara D. Mahon) Cellular Data Communications (Lynne Gregg) NBC News Search For Show Topic (Deborah Levinson) Canada: ATCI / Telecoms Inter-Cite Info Needed (Rosemary Warren) 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: Bay Area Wired Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 14:08:31 PDT Bay Area's Wired -- it's a hotbed of modem mania By Mike Antonucci Mercury News Staff Writer IN the Bay Area, that screech from next door may not be a reason to call 911. Instead, it's increasingly likely to be the ear-piercing sound of your neighbor's modem. Nationally, only 20 percent of households have a modem, according to a January survey by Odyssey, a San Francisco research firm. But in Santa Clara County, the figure is a staggering 42 percent, according to Mercury News research. That statistic is a dramatic indicator of how Bay Area households have become an extension of Silicon Valley's high-tech business environment. While there's little conclusive data available on home computer and Internet use for regions smaller than a state, the Bay Area is widely believed to have the highest concentration of computer- and Internet-friendly inhabitants in the country. Researchers and others routinely see the Bay Area as being both physically and psychologically wired to innovations in technology and telecommunications. Indeed, some see the region -- particularly San Francisco, the Peninsula, the East Bay and the South Bay -- as the pre-eminent place for testing or introducing services of that nature. "That's where we go for focus groups when we want to look at early adoption. For us, the Bay Area is No. 1," says Tom Miller, a vice president at the FIND/SVP research company. "Early adoption" is industry jargon for the quick acceptance of new activities or products. Studying the reactions of people who are the first to spend time and money in a different way can offer important hints about larger consumer audiences. In other words, the way the Bay Area acts today is how other parts of the country might act tomorrow. Area residents who fret about keeping up with the Joneses electronically may be the best evidence of the Bay Area's preoccupation with computers and cyberspace. At Los Altos Library, for instance, more than 500 people have taken beginning Internet instruction. Head librarian Carol Tefft says she has seen people both eager to learn -- and concerned that they're being left behind. "I think they sometimes feel a sense of standing on the side of the road while everybody is whipping by them," says Tefft. Well, not everybody. But apparently a huge percentage. Nationally, an estimated 35 percent to 40 percent of households have at least one computer. But in the 415 area code, one estimate puts the figure at almost 58 percent; in the 408 area code, the figure is 52 percent. (The New York research firm providing the numbers, IDC/LINK, cautioned that it was working from a very small statistical sample.) The Mercury News research, though, compiled in late 1995, shows even higher figures for Santa Clara County, the heart of Silicon Valley. For instance, approximately 60 percent of the county's households have a computer. Reflecting the region's techno-savvy, Tele-Communications Inc., the cable-TV giant that is expanding into virtually all areas of the video, phone and data businesses, has long targeted the Bay Area as a key territory for rolling out advanced interactive services. "We think there's a natural receptiveness that goes beyond the industries that are prevalent there," says Bob Thomson, TCI's senior vice president for communications and policy. That's one of the major reasons TCI picked Sunnyvale to launch @Home, a venture that hopes to provide high-speed Internet access over cable-TV lines. It's also noteworthy that Pacific Bell's test area in Northern California for a newly wired video-and-phone network is San Jose. "We looked at a pretty long list of factors," says Steve Harris, Pacific Bell's vice president for external affairs. "But certainly, when we looked at the potential for interactive video and high-speed data, there's a strong sense that on average people in the Bay Area are more computer literate and more technology friendly." The Bay Area's reputation as an on-line hotbed can also be seen in the many Internet "commercial domains" in the 415, 408 and 510 area codes. These are Internet addresses ending in ".com" that generally, though not exclusively, represent businesses. According to the Virginia firm Internet Info, the top domain totals as of mid-April were in the 415 and 408 area codes, with 23,703 combined. The 212 area code, which covers the Manhattan borough of New York City, was third with 10,822. No other area code in the New York vicinity appeared in the top 20, but the East Bay's 510 was 10th, at 5,434. Domains don't correlate to individuals users. The more than five million subscribers to the Virginia-based America Online service, for instance, all have a single domain address -- "aol.com" -- for e-mail. But researchers have followed domain patterns as a clue to understanding markets. Miller suggests the Bay Area's fascination with technology may even be carrying over into what keeps people awake at night. He wonders, not entirely tongue-in-cheek, just how much they love their software. On the East Coast, he says, "they may be using the Internet to talk about politics at one in the morning. In the Bay Area, they may be talking about the latest iteration of Netscape." -------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is interesting to watch the migration of users around the world as they log in and out of the net -- particularly the large commercial sites and their chatting services -- as one in the morning becomes two in the morning and then to five and six in the morning, eastern USA time. I'll resist the temptation to say much about the Americans still online on chat at four in the morning except perhaps some of them are getting pretty desparate ... but as time marches on, we see systems like Compuserve go from nearly three thousand people on CB at 1:00 a.m. (10:00 p.m. for California people) to about a hundred users or less by 5:00 a.m. eastern time, and most of them being west coast folks. By 5:00 a.m. eastern, even the hardy Brits who wanted to chat with the Americans and have to stay up all night to do it have pretty much had to get off line and get on with their lives otherwise. The chat services are predominated by the Americans, meaning our 7-8 p.m. through about 3:00 a.m. next morning time period is when the system will be loaded, and even more so on Friday and Saturday night. 5:00 am eastern however is not a great time anywhere in the world regard- less of the time it happens to be locally as far as online chat is concerned, so the systems are pretty quiet. It is mid-day in Europe and the people there are in school or work; in other places, people have not woke up yet, etc. Then an interesting phenomenon occurs. After an hour or so of relative quiet from about 4 to 6 a.m. eastern, with most of the users being from the far east (a lot of Japanese, Hong Kong, Singapore logins making up the bulk of it along with a few from our west coast), about 6:00 a.m. things start to speed up again. Compuserve CB fills with people from Europe, primarily Germany and UK. If you check the user log you'll see almost entirely user-id's of the form 100xxx,xxxx which are the accounts issued in Germany and the UK. You'll hardly see any Americans on there at all until about 9:00 a.m. One day about 8:00 in the morning I logged in and parked on one of the channels where there a dozen or so people chatting, all of the 100xxx variety. Seeing my login, one of them types in a message to the others, 'oh oh! Here come the dumb Yankees; they're getting an early start today.' On a couple channels, several German people were conversing in their own language. An early-rising American logged in and had the nerve to go on the same channel and complain that 'when you are on this CB you are supposed to type in English so everyone can understand what you are talking about ...' The Germans roundly condemned him both in their own language and ours, suggesting if he had no place of employment where he ought to be at that time of day, perhaps he was on the American welfare system, and using his welfare checks to buy his computer. They also asked him if he used drugs regularly or had mugged and killed any tourists from Europe recently. The conversation then dealt with 'the stupid Americans and how they think everything should be in English but they can't even speak or write in that language very well.' There seem to be two varieties of chat users from other countries: those who *do* want to talk to the predominantly American users in chat (and who keep weird schedules by their own clocks to do it), and those wish the 'dumb Yankees' would go away completely. On the Compuserve CB channel for teenagers for example, one would not expect to see any American kids on there at nine or ten in the morning on a weekday. It will have quite a few users, but all kids from Europe where it is mid- to late- afternoon who got home from school and like their American counterparts, logged in with their computers. But always amid the dozens of youthful 100xxx accounts on CB at that hour, a few USA users as well. The British kids will start fights with uncomplimentary remarks about the Americans, saying something like, "Look, one of those Yankee bast--ds logged in. What are you doing home from school, Yankee Doodle? Are you too dumb to go to school; did they toss you out?" Regretably, the American kids who are on CB during the day usually are dropouts or kids playing hookey for the day under guise of 'sickness' or whatever; they're not the future leaders of America. They'll respond in kind with crude remarks of their own. As the morning turns into afternoon here in the USA, the 100xxx kids begin to fade away and CB fills up with American teenagers, and European adults on the 'adult CB' channels. By much past seven or eight in the evening eastern time, most all of the 100xxx'ers are gone and CB is loaded with Americans once again. Not all Europeans are into 'cybersex' by any means however, and one lady in the UK remarked to me one evening that, "I never stay on past midnight my time; that is about when all the American men are coming home from work and logging in looking for sex." She claimed that 'when it gets past midnight here, Compuserve is loaded with American men and all I get are crude instant send messages from them every five minutes or less.' But some like the great American CB party which goes on night after night in USA time zones. Last Saturday night at 11:00 pm here in Chicago I chatted for a few minutes with a fellow in New Zealand where it was about 5:00 pm Sunday afternoon. He said when he first got on the net he quickly learned 'if you want to party with the Americans on line you just remember to start logging in Sunday afternoon when it is Saturday night in the United States ... and my 'fellow perverts' in the UK and Germany know that to get in on the action they have to log in at three in the morning, like it or not.' And those who do not like it just get on when the Americans are all asleep or at work. Time and again they are amused when the 'dumb Yankees' have no concept of time zones and are so amazed to find out it is not 11:00 pm on Saturday night everywhere. They have no concept of geography either. The New Zealand fellow mentioned when he tells an American CB'er where he is from, about half say they never heard of it and ask what state it is located in. I'm being serious. The net never sleeps; the users come and go and the net takes on different characteristics as the hours go by each day. PAT] ------------------------------ From: billsohl@planet.net (Bill Sohl) Subject: Status of ACTA's FCC filing to Stop Internet Phone? Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 22:43:07 GMT Organization: BL Enterprises Pat, et al Anyone know what the latest is on the ACTA filing with the FCC to stop the sale of Internet Phone software? I believe the ACTA was going to be meeting and discussing the issue because there was not a consensus of the ACTA members as to if, and or how, the issue should be pursued. Anyway, an update, if available would be appreciated. Bill Sohl (K2UNK) billsohl@planet.net Internet & Telecommunications Consultant/Instructor Budd Lake, New Jersey [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Maybe a couple of readers who are in that organization can bring us up to date. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike King Subject: BellSouth and The Prudential Bank Introduce BellSouth Visa(R) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 09:01:17 PDT Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 08:54:55 -0400 From: BellSouth Subject: BellSouth and The Prudential Bank Introduce BellSouth Visa(R) Reply-To: info@corp.bellsouth.com BellSouth and The Prudential Bank Introduce the BellSouth VISA(R) Small Business Card ATLANTA -- Small business owners can now carry one card for all their business needs. Jointly introduced by BellSouth Small Business Services and The Prudential Bank, the BellSouth VISA Small Business Card is a combination calling card and credit card designed especially for small business customers. "Tailored to meet the specific and unique demands of the small business customer, the card offers many outstanding advantages," said Scott Studier, manager in BellSouth Small Business Services. "It carries higher available credit limits than most cards available today, offers cash back on phone charges and purchases, has no annual fee and provides a year-end report for financial management." In addition to the standard features of telephone calling cards and VISA credit cards, the BellSouth VISA Small Business Card will pay cash back when it is used as a calling card, as well as when used as a credit card. As a telephone calling card, the BellSouth VISA Small Business Card is accepted virtually anywhere in the world from any phone. By using the card for BellSouth calling card calls, customers will receive 20 percent cash back. If they elect to pay their monthly business phone bills with their card, they will receive an additional two percent cash back based on their total monthly BellSouth phone bill amount. Used as a credit card, the BellSouth VISA Small Business Card will also pay one percent cash back on every purchase made with the card. Customers can also transfer existing credit card balances to the card and earn one percent cash back on the transferred amount. The amount of cash back accrued is shown on the monthly BellSouth VISA Small Business Card statement. A check for the total amount earned will be sent to customers shortly after their card anniversary date. There is a $300 cap on rebates, excluding calling card charges. Small business customers can also enjoy the convenience of cash advances through the Cirrus(R) and VISA(R) ATM networks worldwide, or use the handy Convenience Checks to pay bills or make purchases. As an added benefit, customers will be able to manage their expenses with the annual detailed expense report provided at no additional charge. Small business customers may apply for the BellSouth VISA Small Business Card by calling toll free 1-888-4SB-VISA (1-888-472-8472). As a special introductory offer, the card will feature a low variable annual percentage rate (APR) and no annual fee. In addition to the card's cash-back features, low introductory APR, and an easy-to-remember calling card number (office phone number plus PIN), it also offers: * available credit line up to $25,000 (financial statement required to determine credit lines over $15,000); * emergency medical referral assistance; * lost luggage insurance; * auto rental insurance; * extended warranty protection of up to a full year on purchases. Studier added, "This is just further proof that when it comes to helping small businesses communicate, BellSouth is the only name to remember." The Prudential Bank, a subsidiary of one of the nation's largest financial institutions, is issuing the BellSouth VISA Small Business Card. The Bank also partnered with BellSouth last year in issuing a card for consumers and BellSouth employees. 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. For Information Contact: Karen M. Roughton (404) 330-0188 Pager: 1-800-946-4646 PIN 2776190 Mike King * Oakland, CA, USA * mk@wco.com ------------------------------ From: Mehdi Ashraf Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telecommunication Positions Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 10:45:19 -0400 Organization: Durability, Inc. Integral Technologies, Inc. (ITI) is an Information System (IS) and Telecommunication Consulting firm headquartered in Vienna, VA. We are currently looking for a number of qualified telecommunication engineers familiar with Cellular technologies. A full description of these positions is currently available at our World Wide Web Site at http://www.durability.com/integral. With Best Regards, Niloo Mehrabian V.P. of Business Development Integral Technologies, Inc. http://www.durability.com/integral Tel: (703) 893-4071 Fax: (703) 893-5049 e-mail: Integral@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ From: paulc@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Paul Crick") Subject: Mitel SX2000 Lite Voice Mail Integration Organization: IVC Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 15:13:30 GMT I have a customer who has a Mitel SX2000 Lite system. I'm doing some IVR work for them and they've asked if they could have voicemail within one department. I can do it no worries, but want to know if I can get tight integration with the PABX so they could divert on no reply to the IVR system and the caller get a personalised greeting. Is it possible to designate some extensions as voice mail ports, then have the SX2000 send some DTMF digits on answer corresponding to the original extension number dialled? I'm told it's possible but my guy can't find anything about it in the manual. I suppose you could do it if you had a Dialogic D/42-SX card but we're working on small scale stuff at the minute. Replies here or by mail to paulc@itl.net. Thanks in advance, Paul Crick: paulc@cix.compulink.co.uk -- +44-1534-287213 (24 hours) paulc@bickler.demon.co.uk -- PO Box 783, Jersey JE4 0SH, UK ------------------------------ From: jeff777@netcom.com (Jeff Rodrigues) Subject: Required PIN Dialing Over Cellular Phone Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 21:59:29 GMT Here's a question regarding dialing a PIN number over a cellular service that not only requires a PIN number to be dialed, but also requires the PIN number to be entered after first dialing the phone number and hitting the SEND button. This applies more to cellular carriers in the northeastern U.S. When the PIN number is being sent to the carrier, is the PIN number being transmitted to the carrier via DTMF tones or through a control channel? Whichever way the PIN number is transmitted, is this process consistent with all carriers that require the PIN number to be dialed after sending th phone number first? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jeff Rodrigues (jeff777@netcom.com) jeff777@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: blair@instep.bc.ca Subject: CDPD in Los Angeles? Reply-To: blair@instep.bc.ca Organization: InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 18:53:55 GMT Is there or will there be CDPD coverage in Los Angeles any time soon? If you know the answer to this question, will you please e-mail me at blair@instep.bc.ca. I have found nothing about CDPD coverage in LA, the areas that are covered, to the best of my knowledge are San Fran.-Oakland, San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, Fresno and Bakersfield. Any information on CDPD in L.A. will be appreciated. Sincerely, InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Blair Shellenberg ------------------------------ From: kshaw@plight.lbin.com (kendall shaw) Subject: Information Wanted on Tymnet Date: 29 Apr 1996 11:23:11 -0700 Organization: shwa and squaw There was a company called Tymnet who offered a service which was popular with computer users, whereby you would call in and then be able to call out to internet service providers or other services. I think it was an X.25 network. What has become of that? I thought it became Sprintnet, but when I called sprintnet they said they have no such service and they were never Tymnet. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Beginning about 1970 or maybe in the late 1960's, GTE offered a data network which was quite large called 'Telenet' which should not be confused with the Unix feature 'telnet' (without the /e/ in the middle). The customers were large computer systems in the 'military/industrial complex' and universities. Each comptuer site had a six digit address of the form 312567 where the first three digits were the telephone area code and the last three digits were the site identifier. Computers could connect to this network and call each other. There were also gateways to the data networks in other countries including Canada. Calls over the network were charged to the computer originating the connection however there were provisions to call 'collect' just as in the voice telephone network. Telenet was in fact quite huge; it was to computers what AT&T was/is to voice traffic; i.e. a big central switching system and network. There were numerous 'dialups' or numbers on the voice telephone network which connected to the data network for the early users of modems with computers at home, etc. Those calls were always 'collect' or charged to the site receiving the connection since Telenet had no way of knowing who the originating party was. When you connected with the network either via a telephone 'dialup' or a fixed circuit located at your premises, Telenet answered with this symbol '@' which was essentially analogous to 'computer dial tone'. You then typed in your connection instructions and waited for a response from the system you were calling. Response messages might be that you were connected, or that the other end did not respond, or that the other end was 'busy', i.e. its circuits all in use. A competitive service started around 1970-75 called 'Tymnet' pronounced 'Time Net'. It operated much the same way and it came down basically to a 'do you prefer MCI, Sprint or AT&T' sort of thing. Either one you picked had about the same rates; each served a few slightly differ- points than the other when you got out in the boondocks, etc. Both the services were used heavily in the day, and seldom at night or weekends. They both offered email; in Telenet's case at the @ sign the command @C MAIL (meaning connect to mail) got you into a combination electronic bulletin board/email area. Telnet got the idea of selling their excess capacity all night long and on weekends to 'home computer enthusiasts' as we were sometimes called back about 1980-81. They knew they were getting hacked all night long anyway by people with modems who were just fooling around, so what they were selling all day long for $4-5 per hour to large computer sites they decided to sell for $25 per month for unlimited usage to 'home computer users' via the dialups at night and on weekends. They called their program 'PC Pursuit'. You were specifically NOT authorized to connect with of the large mainframes; their daytime customers got pretty antzy about that. You were only authorized to call through the network to other dialups, which when used from the network side were called 'dialouts'. So if you wanted to call a BBS in Chicago from New York, you called the New York City dialups with your modem and did @C 312 or some similar command. You then reached a modem over here which let you do ATD and the desired local number. For only $25 per month for unlimited use between 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM daily plus all day Saturday and Sunday, it was an excellent deal. Some people literally stayed connected from 6:00 PM Friday through 6:00 AM Monday and because of the extreme amount of use the personal PC users gave Telenet's 'PC Pursuit' program, eventually the rates were changed and the terms were changed. At some point, Tymnet jumped into it with an offering of their own which was quite competitive. I do not recall which company owned Tymnet, although I beleive there are some very old files in the Archives which discusses it and makes a comparison study between it and Telenet's PC Pursuit. Eventually, Sprint bought Telenet from GTE and renamed it SprintNet. They continued to operate the PC Pursuit program for a couple years after that, but the immense popularity of the program led to its downfall. It became so popular the network suffered from extremely slow connections and transmission. The night and weekend thing toward the end had thousands of customers where the original service for which the network was configured and had been in operation for many years never had more than a few hundred large corporate accounts. At some point Tynmet either went out of business or changed its name our was bought out. I know the very same phone numnbers from the Tymnet days are still in service as dialups, and to a large extent by AOL. The fastest baud rate you can get on any of those older dialups is 1200. You get to pick that or 300, your choice ... ... also the PC Pursuit program allowed those two choices of baud rates. I think Tymnet may still be around, but you do not connect with them per se ... you use software from the service you subscribe to which places a call via the dialups and handles all the login (to Tymnet) details transpar- ently. SprintNet is still around, and I notice in the Compuserve phone number listings quite a few of their dialups are shown as ways to connect with @C 614something, the Columbus, Ohio location of CIS. I cannot imagine who would use it at 300/1200/2400 baud when there are now so many other methods of connection at speeds much greater. So the person you talked to at SprintNet was partly right and partly wrong. They did have PC Pursuit when they called their network Telenet. They no longer offer it and have not for a few years. It has nothing to do with Tymnet, which was a competitor with a similar program for small PC users, who I have no idea where they went or when, just that they are not around now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Eva Fung Subject: What is Turnpike Effect? Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 16:35:05 -0500 Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington I read a book talks about network design lately and it mentions that network designers should forecast the data volume of three to five years in the future. Then, it talks about turnpike effect. But it never mention what turnpike effect is ... Can anyone tell me what is turnpike effect please? Thanks, Eva [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think it is a rule which says 'if you give something to people they will use it.' Prior to President Eisenhower putting on a *big* push to build the interstate highway system in the United States, people traveled where they wanted to go on local roads and highways such as the famous 'Route 66' between Chicago and Los Angeles. It took people in automobiles between four and five days to get across the country; Greyhound Bus made the cross country trip in a little over five days. Since airplanes were not yet in real common use by civilians, the train was the way to travel long distances. The New York Central Railroad brought you to Chicago in a day. You changed trains here and the Santa Fe Rail- road got you to the west coast two days later. Eisenhower said let's build big fast roads and they did. I remember as a teenager the grand opening of the Indiana Toll Road and its eventual connection to the Ohio Turnpike on one side and Interstate 55 on the other side. I remember before Interstate 90/94 people going to Milwaukee driving up US 41 with an all-day trip to get there. A street on the far northwest side of Chicago is called 'Northwest Highway'. It is now seldom used but fifty years ago it was the road to the far away suburbs by the Wisconsin border. Back then, certainly you passed cars on Route 66 or Route 54 on your travels, but nothing like now with the highways packed solid at times. Preident Truman had also talked about building a massive highway infrastructure in the USA but Eisenhower accomplished it. They had no concept of just how much traffic there would be on the interstates, or how the new highway system plus the airplanes would effectively put the passenger rail- roads out of business. President Truman scoffed at the idea of immense amounts of traffic on the roads. He once said, "my advisors tell me we need to plan for a time when there will be thousands of machines on the roads, all at one time, mind you! Why, that is ridiculous! Thousands of machines, all going down the road in all directions. That would be insanity. What if one of the machines goes out of control and crashes into another?" But finally he agreed the interstate expressways and turnpikes might be necessary. With the opening of the interstate highways through the late 1950's and into the 1960's, people started traveling by car to all sorts of places they had never visited before. Like the rail- roads, Greyhound got hurt in it but their survival plan included closing about five thousand of the contract agency bus stations which were up and down every rural highway in America and telling many of the remaining three thousand or so to either move to within about a half-mile of the nearest expressway or they would find another agent to provide 'bus station services' who would open up by the interstate, saving precious minutes in station stops so they did not have to drive all the way through town to get to the local bus station. They trimmed their five/six day cross country trips down to three days, but still have only about half the passengers they had forty or fifty years ago. Unlike the passenger railroads, they are still in business however. I think the quote in your book means if you give people lots of virtually unlimited resources, like the interstate highways, they will use them because it is convenient. If you fix it so people can have telephones turned on and off at a minute's notice and the service is dirt cheap, people will make more and more phone calls. Like Truman and his disbelief that there would ever be 'thousands of machines on the road one time driving in all directions and crashing into each other', who fifty years ago could predict what our telephone network would be like today? Who would like to predict fifty years from now? The Turnpike Theory therefore says build your infrastructure with the most extreme forecasts you can design in mind. Chances are likely you will be 'more correct' than with a conservative design. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago, ADN Computer Center Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 06:02:06 CDT From: Rich Chong Subject: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? Let's say I have two lines. A and B. Line A doesn't subscribe to caller-id. Line B does. If line-A busy is set up to hunt to line-B, what caller-id info if any is presented to B? Same question for a call-forwarded line. Oh, lets toss in the same question for cell phones (as line A) immediate, busy, and no-answer call-forwarding. Thanks, Rich [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No information is provided to B since it is only being used as an overflow/alternate for A, and A does not subscribe to the service. The 'decision' in the software as to which custom calling features to extend to a subscriber with an incoming call are made before any 'decision' is made how to dispose of the call if the specifically called line is unavailable for whatever reason. As long as you *never* have incoming calls which were dialed direct into your back lines, you are perfectly safe in having things like caller-id and call screening on your first, main, listed number only. Now if calls come in at some point in your rotary other than the very top -- that is, some people dial the number for your third or fourth or eighty-nine line or whatever -- then you have to equip that line also, but if all those numbers are secret and never given out with customers knowing only your top or main number, then you are covered because telco will always come looking for that line when a call is recieved. It will bring along whatever privileges or services are associated with that line on incoming calls. If it has to hand them off to another line or return a busy signal to the caller or whatever, that does not matter. Obviously you need to have a Caller-ID display box on each line; there still has to be a way to display what telco is presenting; you just don't have to pay the monthly service fee. Service reps are trained to tell you things like Caller-ID and Call Screening 'will not work correctly' on multi-line arrangements unless you buy those services for each line. You can tell them that is not true as long as you have no 'independently delivered' calls into those lines. Now, let your customers/employees/others find out the numbers for those back lines and then all bets are off. Ditto on a call-forwarding situation. The central office 'finds out about' your request to forward the calls after it has already decided what privileges or services are to be provided you on your incoming call. Naturally the final end stopping point still has to have a Caller-ID box. When you want to turn on call screening or turn on call forwarding, you do have to do it from the lead number in your group however, the one which telco always tries first to deliver your calls to before deciding on other ways to handle them, because if it can drop a call on that line, it will do so. Cellular phones usually do not send or receive caller-id, regardless of what features you have on your landline phones. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Apr 96 12:30:57 -0400 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Insight Research Online Dear Pat and the Digest, The new Insight Research Corporation World Wide Web site has been officially launched! Many thanks to our friends LDDS Worldcom for hosting the site.* Please bookmark our address: http://www.wcom.com/Insight/insight.html The site has been reorganized for easier navigation, and we have added excerpts from several research reports, including full tables of contents. A search engine will be operational in early May. Choose the "Insight Reports" link to read report excerpts -- we have included our market research reports from 1994 and 1995, all the way up to our most recent 1996 study, "Business Online Services, Change, and the Internet." You can also find out what reports we have planned for the coming months. As soon as a new report is published, you'll be sure to find the table of contents and further information online at the web site. Our philosophy has remained simple: we prefer sharing information with the Internet community rather than blanketing our pages with advertising. Our site is not full of marketing hype, but examples of the work we do here at Insight -- information we hope will assist you in your quest to understand the rapidly changing telecommunications marketplace. The excerpts we have online are just a small portion of much larger research reports which identify market trends, market shares, business strategies, and five-year projections of equipment and service revenue. We hope if a report is of interest to you, you'll contact us directly at 201-605-1400 to further discuss that study. Our 1996 reports are priced at $3,495 each, but we have discount packages and a comprehensive subscription program to deliver our services at a reduced cost. We welcome your comments, suggestions, and reactions to the new WWW site. Best Regards, The Insight Research Corporation 354 Eisenhower Parkway Livingston, NJ 07039-1023 201-605-1400 tel 201-605-1440 fax reports@insight-corp.com *The Insight Research Corporation is not affiliated with LDDS Worldcom. ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Cellular Data Communications Date: Mon, 29 Apr 96 10:28:00 PDT I know there are many TELECOM Digest readers who use cellular networks for data communications. I'm interested in your use of circuit switched cellular (not CDPD). Specifically: are you using the Cancel Call Waiting (CCW) feature when doing a dial up? I'm trying to determine if there any problems in inconsistency in Feature Code assignments. Specifically, wireline telcos have pretty much standardized on the use of *70 for CCW. However, most cellular carriers do not use that code. Is that a problem? Feel free to post your comments to me directly. Regards, Lynne lynne.gregg@attws.com ------------------------------ From: DeborahLevinson Subject: NBC News Search Date: 27 Apr 1996 18:12:59 GMT Organization: Internet Online Services Have you or someone you know been able to cash in on the phone wars? What are the best deals? $75 checks? $100 checks? Beepers? Frequent flyer miles? Please contact Jack Styczynski at jstyczyn@nbc.com or 1-800-NBC-NEWS ext. 5308 if you would like to participate in a story we are doing. If you are comfortable e-mailing your phone number (to the above address, NOT the one this message was posted from), that will speed up the participation process. Thank you. ------------------------------ From: ra_warr@alcor.concordia.ca (Rosemary from Montreal) Subject: Canada: ATCI / Telecoms Inter-Cite Info Needed Date: 30 Apr 1996 01:59:36 GMT Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Canada Greetings to all readers, I write the Canadian column for Moneycard Collector Magazine, an American publication which deals with the North American prepaid phonecard industry. The magazine is preparing a catalog of all American and Canadian phonecards ever issued, and I am researching the Canadian portion. I am looking for some information regarding a Canadian telecom company. I have some information but I need assistance to fill in some holes. ATCI was based in Etobicoke, Ontario and not only produced debit cards but offered various long distance services under the Econocall and Teleconomie brands. An affiliate was Telecommunications Inter-Cite of Brossard, Quebec, producers of the Telesphere debit card. Both of these companies have gone out of business, and I am looking for someone who might know something about their cards. I own one Telesphere card, 10 mil plastic, pale blue with red writing. It had a horrid prompting system, using whines instead of voices, which led me to believe it may have been a test card. I have been told a total of 15 different designs were issued -- the key for me is to find out about them, the release dates and mintages to include in the catalog. Please contact me at the email address above, or by phone at the numbers below, with any pertinent information. I will be going to the magazine's offices in Sidney, Ohio in May to work on the catalog. I only wish to hear from USA/Canadian readers on this. 514-725-4826 before May 17 (evenings eastern time) - or - 800-645-7456 option 3 (touch tone needed) between May 18 and May 31 Thank you, Rosemary Warren Canadian Columnist, Moneycard Collector Magazine ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #206 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue Apr 30 15:51:41 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA10908; Tue, 30 Apr 1996 15:51:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 15:51:41 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199604301951.PAA10908@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #207 TELECOM Digest Tue, 30 Apr 96 15:51:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 207 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson AT&T Worldnet Service Works Great For Me (John Stahl) Canada Direct Homepage on WWW (Cole Cooper) Cellular Service in Milwaukee (Joseph C. Kirschling) Area Code 619 (Southern CA) Split Details Released (Pierre Thomson) Local Service Costs in Major US Cities (Bill McMullin) Information Requested on T1 Carrier Pricing (Tom Montgomery) Information Wanted on Telemate Software (Pete Holler) Non-LEC Payphones (John Mayson) Telephone Headset to SoundBlaster Interface Wanted (Foster Schucker) Information Wanted on Finland Telecomms? (Johannes Kiehl) Re: Information Wanted on Tymnet (Fred R. Goldstein) Re: Information Wanted on Tymnet (Stefano Cazzani) Re: Bits Don't Go High to Some 800s (John Nagle) Re: Bits Don't Go High to Some 800s (jensoft@blarg.net) Re: Fire in PDX US West Office Kills Phone Service (Mark Brader) Last Laugh! Robin Loyed Has a Long Commute Each Day (Minister of Truth) 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, 30 Apr 1996 14:01:07 GMT From: John Stahl Subject: AT&T Worldnet Service You will note by my email address, I am a subscriber to AT&T's new Internet service and can report to you that so far, I'm very happy with the service they offer. Both the Internet connection and the AT&T 800-number dial in help service line has been superb! No, I'm not an AT&T employee nor do I have any connection what so ever with AT&T; I'm just a user. Here's a bit of what I have observed so far: When you receive the software package - 3 disks (or CD if you want it) including a modified version of Netscape (there are AT&T logo's throughout), a special AT&T dialer program (very nice; I would say better than Winsock), Eudora Light ver 1.5.2 and a couple of other programs including a special program to help you set-up and trouble shoot the installation called "Customer Care Tools" - the installation under Windows 3.0, 3.1 or 3.11 is very easy. Incidentally, I have found that I can run any Internet type (TCP/IP) program once connected by the dialer. You don't even have to use the Netscape version supplied by AT&T; I use ver. 2.0. I have also run the Microsoft Internet Explorer and run News-Express for the Newsgroups access. After installation, the program asks if you want to register? If yes, it dials an 800-number, goes on line and it takes you through a series of questions (have your credit card available - it doesn't bill your phone account). One of the questions asked is what type of service you want. One of the options is for a small monthly fee you get the 5 free hours of access they tout, after which you pay by the hour similar to AOL and the others. The other option, for big users of the Internet, is an unlimited usage account for $19.95/month. I chose that one. They do charge something like $0.08/min to use their 800 number for Worldnet access if you are not in a local access number area. Also, if you don't subscribe to AT&T long distance service, the monthly access rates are higher - for example the $19.95 is $24.95/month. The 800 number for getting info to order the software, for help and to check to see if there is a local node in your local calling area is: 800-400-1447. There you will get a whole set of options to access most everything you will need. If you go to the access number area, you can ask for as many access numbers you desire by giving the AC and the exchange. If you travel, pick motels/hotels at your stops, get their phone numbers and see if there is a local access number before you go, I did! I have 'surfed' for many happy hours since signing up in February. The only down time thus far is their scheduled maintenance period, Thursday mornings from something like 2:00 AM to 7:00 AM when the service is off. This is in comparison to the local ISP I used to use who experienced - especially on weekends when there was no one in the office - much down time. AT&T so far seems to always be there, 24 hours a day, both for call-in help and the ISP service! Enjoy - I do! John Stahl ------------------------------ From: Cole Cooper/srci/Stentor Date: 30 Apr 96 10:04:33 Subject: Canada Direct Homepage on WWW Announcing a new web site of Interest to Candians travelling overseas. www.stentor.ca/canada_direct Canada Direct is a FREE service from the Canadian companies that connects you to a Canadian network so you can place your long distance overseas calls at low Canadian rates. In the Website: Tell Me More! - Find out everything you need to know about this FREE service before you travel. What's New - The latest details on avoiding telephone fraud, and up to the minute listings of Canada Direct access numbers. Don't miss it! E-mail Updater - Sign up to be alerted by e-mail of any changes to the Canada Direct access numbers. Your Personal Reference Card - Build your customized Canada Direct Reference Card featuring the access numbers you choose. For a complete card, e-mail or call us at 1-800-561-8868. Not all the telcos who can have made the link yet, but they will soon. The French should be up May 8, and English phase 2 (travel tips, useful links etc.) should be up May 10. C.M. (Cole) Cooper - ISS Services Manager Stentor Resource Centre Inc. Alberta and British Columbia Floor 3 W 3030 2nd Avenue S.E. Calgary, Alberta T2A 5N7 Telephone: 403-531-4205 Cellular: 403-540-5387 Facsimile: 1-800-269-7571 Internet: cooperc@stentor.ca ------------------------------ From: lycaeum@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (Joseph C Kirschling) Subject: Cellular Service in Milwaukee Date: 30 Apr 1996 15:07:05 GMT Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee I may be getting a cellular phone in the next week or so. I was wondering what cellular providers people favor in the Milwaukee area. I've been told to stay away from Cellular One and a friend just got shafted by Ameritech. Any suggestions, horror stories? Thanks, Joe Kirschling lycaeum@csd.uwm.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If you don't mind buying a cellular phone at the regular price from any dealer of your choice in exchange for a no-contract, month-by-month arrangement at $10 per month for the service fee and rates of 35/18, then you might want to sign up with Frontier. That long distance carrier, previously known as Allnet has a cellular division. They resell Ameritech at corporate rates, so it is a pretty good deal. I use them here in the Chicago area and have not only a Chicago number but a Milwaukee number as well on my dual-NAM phone. You get billed each month on a credit card, and you are required to have at least one of your landlines defaulted to them for long distance, but that is not a bad deal. I gave them one of my lines and left the others with AT&T. I got a nice cellular phone several months ago for $150 from a mail order place which Frontier uses. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Pierre Thomson Subject: Area Code 619 (Southern CA) Split Details Released Date: 30 Apr 1996 12:46:30 GMT Organization: MHVNet, the Mid Hudson Valley's Internet connection I just got the lowdown on the upcoming split of 619 in the San Diego area, in Bellcore Information Letter IL-96/04-009. Briefly, the city of San Diego and its immediate surroundings will keep the 619 area code, and the remaining part of 619 will get the new 760 area code. Permissive dialing starts on Mar. 22, 1997 and ends Sept. 27, 1997. The list of affected exchanges can be found at: http://www1.mhv.net/~mmommsen/npanxx.htm Pierre Thomson Telecom Manager Rifton Enterprises ------------------------------ From: Bill McMullin Subject: Local Service Costs in Major US Cities Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 21:40:17 -0300 Organization: Info-InterActive Inc. I am attempting to determine the all in cost of "local phone service" in the major US cities. Is there a single source of such data? If not, maybe some of you who have a phone :-) could help. By local phone service I mean the total fixed monthly charge for the average touch-tone phone line in an urban centre, with average local calling area. I'd be curious about the taxes and installation charges as well. Responses appreciated, Bill McMullin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 09:54:55 CDT From: Tom Montgomery Subject: Information Requested on T1 Carrier Pricing Can anyone tell me who the lowest price T1 carriers are. Is there a list? Thank you in advance, T. Montgomery ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 09:23:37 CDT From: Pete Holler Subject: Information Wanted on Telemate Software Hello all, I was wondering if anybody was familiar with a company called Telemate Software. They are a provider of telemanagement software for large and small companies. We are very interested in purchasing this software for our call accounting platform, and would like to hear any pros/cons about it. Please let me know what you can, and thank you in advance. Pete Holler Telecom Tech. Quad/Graphics, Inc. pholler@qgraph.com ------------------------------ From: jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) Subject: Non-LEC Payphones Date: Tue, 30 Apr 96 9:26:31 EDT I needed to call my wife on our cellular phone the other day, so I pulled off at the nearest pay phone. This was a non-BellSouth pay phone. I think the company's name was LTI, but I won't swear to that. We live in the Melbourne, Florida exchange. Our cell phone has a Cocoa, Florida exchange. According to BellSouth, a call from Melbourne to Cocoa is a local call. I put my 25 cents in, dialed 427- and got a message saying "please dial 1 plus the area code for this long distance call." I dialed "0" (knowing I would get a BellSouth operator), verified Cocoa was in the local dialing area, then dialed 211, pay phone repair and refunds. The woman who answered didn't sound too knowledgeable about much of anything. I tried to explain to her that her company's pay phone was trying to turn a local call into a long distance one. All she did was ask me a couple of times for my name and address so she could mail me my refund. I hung up and went and found a BellSouth pay phone. Here's my question. Just because BellSouth has decided Melbourne to Cocoa is a local call, are non-BellSouth pay phones obliged to place this call for as a local call? Isn't this company simply leasing BellSouth phone lines for their pay phones? Would complaining to the company or the Common Carrier Bureau of the FCC help? John Mayson | Palm Bay, Florida | john.mayson@harris.com ------------------------------ From: foster@voicenet.com (Foster Schucker) Subject: Telephone Headset to SoundBlaster Interface Wanted Date: 29 Apr 1996 18:00:28 GMT Organization: Voicenet - Internet Access - (215) 674-9290 I'm looking for an interface that will allow me to connect a telephone headset to a Soundblaster (tm) card. I'd like to be able to play sounds on the ear phone and use the microphone. I've tried some telephone supply places and have drawn a blank. Thanks!!! Foster Schucker ------------------------------ From: jokifedi@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Johannes Kiehl) Subject: Information Wanted on Finland Telecomms Date: 29 Apr 1996 18:11:25 GMT Organization: Technical University Berlin, Germany Can someone from Finland please give me the name (and maybe a phone number?) of the national telecomms company? (I understand there's a telecommunication monopoly in Finland?) Thanks all, Johannes Kiehl In der Nacht zum 29. Februar 1896 ist ein junger Computerlinguistik/Phonetik bartloser Mann in dunkler Kleidung in der Wiener Web Home: http://www.cs. Strasse unterwegs. Er schiebt einen auffallend tu-berlin.de/~johannes grossen, blauen Handwagen (Polizeibericht) ------------------------------ From: fgoldstein@bbn.com (Fred R. Goldstein) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Tymnet Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 10:17:52 EST Organization: BBN Corp. In article kshaw@plight.lbin.com (kendall shaw) writes: > There was a company called Tymnet who offered a service which was > popular with computer users, whereby you would call in and then > be able to call out to internet service providers or other services. > I think it was an X.25 network. I don't remember Tymnet's offering that; PC Pursuit was Telenet's. > What has become of that? I thought it became Sprintnet, but when I > called Sprintnet they said they have no such service and they were > never Tymnet. Tymnet is still around. It has gone through a number of owners. It began in the mid-'70s as an arm of Tymshare, Inc., a computer time-sharing bureau. Back in those pre-PC days, time-sharing was the only way for little guys to use a computer. Tymnet connected remote terminals to Tymshare's mainframes. The time-sharing business changed and most of the old players went away, the notable exception being CompuServe, which repositioned itself with new services geared to PC users. Tymnet became part of McDonnell-Douglas by the early '80s, was later purchased by British Telecom (and operated as "BT Tymnet"), and a couple of years ago went to MCI as part of the BT-MCI semi-merger (sort of a keiretsu deal). It's still widely used for corporate remote access, credit-card validation terminals, on-line service access, etc. They have numbers in all sorts of little burgs, probably the biggest Foreign Exchange collection in the USA. Then, TELECOM Digest Editor added his two cents: > Eventually, Sprint bought Telenet from GTE and renamed it SprintNet. > They continued to operate the PC Pursuit program for a couple years > after that, but the immense popularity of the program led to its > downfall. There were three big packet-switched network operators in the USA in the late '70s. Telenet was founded by BBN (we invented all sorts of packet-switching technology), but ran independently with minority partner ownership before being acquired by GTE in 1980 or so. They called it "GTE Telenet". GTE bought Sprint from the Southern Pacific and put the two together. Then GTE sold part of Sprint and Telenet to United Telecom ("US Sprint"), and finally the rest of them. Now the former United Telecom uses the name Sprint Corp., calls Telenet "Sprintnet", and operates both the "United" and "Centel" (a more recent acquisition) telephone companies. The third of the big three was Graphnet, run by Graphic Scanning Inc. It seemed to fade away by the early '80s. AT&T's X.25 efforts ("Accunet", I think, though they use that name on lots of things) were never huge. Some Bells also bought in during the mid 80s, never to dominate. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com BBN Corp., Cambridge MA USA +1 617 873 3850 ------------------------------ Date: 30 Apr 96 10:18:40 EDT From: Stefano Cazzani <100010.3371@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Tymnet > What has become of that? I thought it became Sprintnet, but when I > called Sprintnet they said they have no such service and they were > never Tymnet. I believe Tymnet was bought by BT (British Telecom) a few years ago. They marketd their X.25 network in Europe as BT-Tymnet for a while. I think it is now part of their Concert (BT-MCI alliance) offering. Regards, Stefano Cazzani Milano, Italy ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Bits Don't Go High to Some 800s Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 01:28:58 GMT Antilles Engineering writes: > We've noted that when our guys overseas call through the switch to > some 800 numbers (for example, American Airlines Advantage 1 800 848 > 4653), the call doesn't "connect" and yet information is being > conveyed by AA. You are prompted to enter a DTMF to access a > particular branch, then put on hold. *Only* when a live body at that > particular AA branch picks up do the signal bits go high and a > "connect" actually happens. > Technically, I can see how this can be done, but can *we* do it > legally, or do you have to have the concurance of your LD carrier, > *or* is someone out there being cute without the knowledge of the > carrier? I just saw some ITU documents on this, on the ITU web server. There are some documents on who pays for annoucements and such. The traditional rule for international is that charging begins when the voice connection goes bidirectional, but that's not enough to cover all the situations any more. John Nagle ------------------------------ From: jensoft@blarg.net (Genuine Softness) Subject: Re: Bits Don't Go High to Some 800s Date: 30 Apr 1996 03:32:42 GMT Organization: Blarg! Online Services 206/441-9109 Antilles Engineering (antilles@madriver.com) wrote: > the call doesn't "connect" and yet information is being > conveyed by AA. You are prompted to enter a DTMF to access a > particular branch, then put on hold. *Only* when a live body at that > particular AA branch picks up do the signal bits go high and a > "connect" actually happens. One of our local paging companies in Bellevue, Washington, doesn't return supervision on calls to pagers until *after* the data entry phase and a "thank you for calling" annoucement. So, if you can get in, dial in your message, and hang up before the terminal announcement is made, you've made a free call. I've often wondered about this. What do they care if they gyp US West or GTE out of a quarter? Wicker ------------------------------ From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: Re: Fire in PDX US West Office Kills Phone Service Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 23:50:27 GMT The Moderator writes: > Telcos are notorious for leaving millions > of dollars in switching and other sophisticated equipment unattended > for days at a time. In their penny-wise and pound-foolish budgets, they > would rather have a fire or other disaster every now and then costing > them several million dollars and a lot of bad customer relations than > to simply hire someone for twenty or thirty thousand dollars per year > and have them stay in the CO at night or on weekends... I don't dispute the general tenor of these remarks, but let's get the math right, please. Twenty or thirty thousand dollars per year times how many locations? Several million dollars every how often? Just what *is* the financial tradeoff here? Mark Brader, msb@sq.com, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto C unions never strike! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The math is particularly evasive because one does not sit down and factor in a major fire every X years at X million dollars each. Likewise, it is very difficult to put a firm dollar amount on customer goodwill. However, a very good estimate of the costs at Hinsdale is about ten million dollars. The entire switch had to be scrapped although originally they hoped to restore it. The last time I went shopping for a switch, the best price I could find was about five million dollars. To that you add in repair of the building in general, replacement of lots of cable, a month's worth of wages and overtime wages for people taken off of regular assignments to work on restoration of the disaster. Then you add in the costs of the emergency cellular service and equipment you provided to the most important customers during the outage, i.e. police, fire, hospitals. Then you pay for a few lawyers to fend off the inevitable lawsuits of customers which begin afterward. Did you know for example they were *still* settling lawsuits based on Hinsdale as of late last year, a full seven years later? I think ten million might be a good estimate of the 'cost'. What about the customers who did not sue you but just sat there for the duration very unhappy and who will jump ship when the opportunity arises. I guess they are worth something. So if you will for the moment at least stipulate that ten million dollars is reasonable, then let's go with that figure. Now if you pay a clerk five hundred dollars per week including fringe benefits you can reasonably expect to get a fairly sharp person in return. That is quite a cut above minimum wage. I do not think you would have to pay that much. Five hundred per week is about twenty-five thousand per year. If twenty such people covered the ten or so most important and critical company locations (remember, you have to cover days off and sick days and such; you are looking at three shifts some days of the week and one or two shifts other days of the week), then your expense would be about five hundred thousand per year. At that rate, you have twenty years of coverage for what Hinsdale 'cost'. You cannot say they would totally eliminate the cost of a disaster since fires would still get started and water pipes would still break, etc. But their *presence and immediate reactions* would greatly mitigate the loss. Maybe the cost of Hinsdale would have been as little as a few hundred thousand dollars and perhaps several hours to a day off line. Maybe there would have been no downtime except to a few customers. So you say well maybe Hinsdale did not cost that much and maybe you can't get people at that price. Okay, squeeze the two ends a little and cut my figures by fifty percent. Is ten years of protection still a good start? The other thing to remember also is that if those people employed for that purpose did *nothing but that* and their entire cost had to be budgeted to one department (let us call it plant security) then it is expensive. But suppose you transferred one or two people off of their daytime position and placed them on nights and weekends letting them spend about half the time on 'plant security' and the other half of their time at some routine task such as data entry or telephone message taking or janitorial duties ... something they had been doing all day long anyway but now would be doing all night long. You would continue to chargeback a great portion of their salary to the original department. In other words, maybe you don't really hire twenty people at a cost of five hundred thousand dollars, you merely juggle around the ones you have. This now cuts the expense down to a matter of the 'night shift differential' you would pay and the fact that you would be getting only about half as much work out of the person at their original task. For many years, telcos had during the evening and overnight shift a single clerk and technician in most central offices. The clerk answered customer calls to 611 and the technician did simple testing and repairs based on those calls in the frames. The clerk also did typing and filing and assorted tasks. Usually the clerk did stuff 'left over by the day crew' that they did not get to; i.e. an excessive amount of filing or data entry that day. Maybe the person pulled all the microfiche requests made that day and got them out to the requesting employees. Maybe they sorted and stapled and distributed computer printouts which were to be on the desks of certain executives each day. Routine, very rote work to fill out the time, but they would still manage to loaf, watch television and read the newspaper for about half their shift, thinking management was not aware of how little they had to do. It was actually a very cushy job; the person had no supervisors nagging at them, no absolute set periods for lunch or breaks, etc. It was great for people who liked working alone, and did not need any supervision at all. Don't you suppose if there were someone like that in the central office all night now that between their infrequent answering of calls to 611, their trips to the vending machines and the bathroom, their watching television and smoking cigarettes and occassional pecking at a keyboard they'd have enough wits about them to smell smoke coming from a room down the hall or see water dripping out of the ceiling and go to investigate, especially if a specific part of their job assignment was to specifically be alert for unusual conditions, etc? I suggest that you really would not wind up spending *anything* for the needed protection; you'd just juggle the existing clerical staff around a little. In any event, even if you had to start from scratch and pay large amounts of money, hire new people, etc ... how many years would it take before it became more expensive than Hinsdale in 1988 or lower Manhattan back in the 1970's ... and who is next? PAT] ------------------------------ From: dc@panix3.panix.com (Minister of Truth) Subject: Last Laugh! Robin Loyed Has a Long Commute Each Day Date: 30 Apr 1996 21:54:08 -0400 Organization: Woo Studios Ltd. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The Minister of Truth has revealed this latest wisdom to us. PAT] www.switchboard.com reports precisely one Robin Loyed in all of America: Loyed, Robin...5187 W 114th Pl...Shawnee Msn, KS 66211-1795 Phone: (913)469-xxxx Sure hope this isn't the Sprint man with the Dallas office number. David W. Crawford (c) 1996 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Shawnee Mission .... hmmm ... now what large, well known long distance carrier has their headquarters around that area? Hmmm ... United Telephone? Hmmm ... some company they bought out? Let me think, maybe it will come to me. According Southwestern Bell, the above number is now listed to the 'Deemer' (spelling?) residence. An entire check of 816/913 produced only one listing for 'Loyed', a person named Randy who lives in Missouri. I changed it to 'xxxx' because there is no reason to speak with the Deemer family. Maybe Randy is a relative, and perhaps Robin lived there in Shawnee Mission before getting transferred to Texas. I really cannot imagine him driving such a long distance to work each day, although it may explain why he is never at his desk or available on the phone. I guess we have to keep trying him at 214-405-5404, since it would certainly verge on harassment to involve the Deemers or Randy Loyed, whoever that might be. In the meantime, you do have a *total freeze* on all accounts payable to Sprint I assuume ... they'll eventually get around to asking why and what needs to be done to resolve the dispute. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #207 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 1 14:33:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA15555; Wed, 1 May 1996 14:33:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 14:33:22 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605011833.OAA15555@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #208 TELECOM Digest Wed, 1 May 96 14:33:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 208 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Employee Communications Plan (E. William Horne) New Area Codes in 209, 408, 510 (Tad Cook) Update on French CT2 Network (Eric Tholome) FITCE Annual Congress: Vienna, Aug 27 - Sep 1, 1996 (Dominic Pinto) CDPD Coverage in Parkersburg, WV (Blair Shellenberg) 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: 01 May 1996 09:10:09 GMT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Nynex Announcement on AT&T Calling Card Changes This notice was received today. PAT NYNEX EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATIONS PLAN IMPORTANT NOTICE: CHANGES AFFECTING CALLING CARD CUSTOMERS Please Note: This is a message to all NYNEX employees about calling card changes taking place this week which will affect all NYNEX employees and customers. Please print this information out, make copies and distribute it to all of your employees and/or anyone else (both Management and Craft) who may not have Lotus Notes access. In addition, please post this memo in a highly visible place in your work location. Executive Summary: AT&T has given NYNEX notice that it is terminating the Mutual Card Honoring Agreement as of May 1, 1996, and has directed NYNEX to block intraLATA 0+ calls customers attempt to bill to their AT&T calling card. Until today, callers in the NYNEX territory have been able to make intraLATA calls over either the NYNEX or the AT&T network and to charge the calls to either the NYNEX or the AT&T calling card. IntraLATA calls originated by dialing 0 plus area code and number are generally carried by NYNEX and billed at NYNEX rates; calls originated by dialing an AT&T 800 number are carried by AT&T and billed at AT&T's rates. With the termination of the Mutual Card Honoring Agreement, customers will no longer be able to charge an intraLATA 0+ call to the AT&T card. This agreement had no set expiration date -- it could be terminated by either party on notice to the other. NYNEX would have preferred to leave the agreement in place and continue to give customers a choice in the way they place and pay for calling card calls. However, AT&T apparently wishes to migrate customers to a proprietary AT&T card and, at the same time, increase intraLATA calls on its network. AT&T will continue to allow customers to use NYNEX cards to charge calls placed on the AT&T network, and, pursuant to FCC regulations, NYNEX is required to let AT&T accept our card as long as they wish. AT&T is taking similar action to terminate Mutual Card Honoring Agreements with other local carriers around the country, but the NYNEX termination will be the first to take effect. WHAT IS THE MUTUAL CARD HONORING AGREEMENT? This is an agreement between AT&T and each Local Exchange Carrier. For NYNEX it means that NYNEX and AT&T each honor the others calling card on their network; AT&T accepts the NYNEX card for interLATA calls on their network, and NYNEX accepts the AT&T card for intraLATA calls on our network. Independent of which card is used for billing, the company whose network carries the call keeps the associated revenue. WHAT IS CHANGING? AT&T is unilaterally canceling the Mutual Card Honoring Agreement, and has directed NYNEX to block intraLATA 0+ calls which callers try to charge to the AT&T calling card. AT&T has informed us that as of May 1, 1996, NYNEX must refuse the AT&T calling card for local and regional calls on the NYNEX network; AT&T will no longer accept charges for these calls. If NYNEX completes these calls, it receives no payment. WHAT DO THESE CHANGES MEAN FOR THE CUSTOMER? Termination of the Mutual Card Honoring Agreement means customers will not be able to charge intraLATA 0+ calls to an AT&T card. However, the way in which AT&T is advertising these changes might lead some customers to conclude that they no longer have a choice as to how they place any calling card calls. Because 0+ dialing for intraLATA calls over the NYNEX network is cheaper for most calls than dialing the AT&T 800 number for such calls, customers may pay more, without realizing that they have a choice. This will affect all customers who live in the NYNEX region and those who pass through the NYNEX region. WHAT IS AT&T TELLING CUSTOMERS CONCERNING THESE CHANGES? AT&T has recently distributed letters, TV and print advertisements, and bill inserts directed to AT&T cardholders who make NYNEX calls. These communications are potentially misleading in a number of ways: AT&T implies that NYNEX, not AT&T, is terminating the Mutual Card Honoring Agreement and choosing to block 0+ intraLATA calls which the caller wants to charge to his AT&T card. Customers can mistakenly conclude from these communications that NYNEX is to blame for this inconvenience. Through these communications, AT&T confuses customers and hurts NYNEX's reputation in the marketplace. AT&T implies that 0+ intraLATA calls dialed by AT&T cardholders have been carried by AT&T all along (rather than by NYNEX), and that using the AT&T 800 number is just a better way of dialing these calls. Customers may not understand that by changing dialing patterns, they are changing service providers and may be charged higher rates. AT&T is trying to divert intraLATA calls to its own network by confusing and misleading customers, rather than by competing fairly and openly on the basis of price, quality, or service. AT&T also implies that customers must dial the-AT&T 800 number to avoid having their calls blocked ("Call 1-800-CALL-ATT to get around the block", "Don't get blocked", "Always dial 1-800-CALL-ATT"). This is not true. Customers remain free to place intraLATA calls by dialing 0+, provided they charge the calls to their NYNEX card, or use another method of payment. POINTS TO EMPHASIZE: These changes are being made by AT&T. AT&T refuses to let NYNEX accept the AT&T Calling Card for intraLATA calls on the NYNEX network. If customers use a NYNEX calling card, which is available for free, they can still dial intraLATA calls the way they always have, and the call will go through. In many cases, using the NYNEX network is less expensive than using the AT&T network for intraLATA calling card calls. AT&T has the right to restrict its calling card so that it can only be used on the AT&T network. AT&T does not have the right to imply that NYNEX is to blame for the resulting customer inconvenience, or to mislead customers regarding their options. NYNEX EXTRA MESSAGE included in the NYNEX Bill: The NYNEX Extra for the MAY 1996 billing periods will include a message to both business and residential customers concerning the MCHA termination. The following information will be provided to all customers: URGENT MESSAGE TO ALL CALLING CARD CUSTOMERS: Beginning May 1, 1996, AT&T has directed NYNEX to reject the AT&T Calling Card for local and regional calls made by dialing 0 + AREA + NUMBER. It is AT&T, not NYNEX, that is eliminating this choice for AT&T Calling Card holders. However, you can continue to use your NYNEX Calling Card to make all calls -- local, regional and long distance -- by dialing 0 + AREA + NUMBER. The message to residential customers will also include the following: Remember -- your NYNEX Calling Card number starts with your area code and is followed by your home telephone number plus PIN. AT&T's card does not start in the same way. Finally, all customers will be provided with the number to call if they need to order a NYNEX Calling Card. Those numbers are: New York Residence: 1-800-771-5656, Operator 108. New England Residence: 1-800-499-5200, Operator 154. New York Business: 1-800-771-5656, Operator 425. New England Business: 1-800-499-5200, Operator 168. ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: New Area Codes in 209, 408, 510 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 23:39:48 PDT New Area Codes Needed in 209, 408 and 510; Running Out of Numbers, New Codes Planned For Mid-1998 SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 30, 1996--Due to increased demand for telephone numbers, new area codes will be introduced in some or all of the areas that now use the 209, 408 and 510 area codes in California. The three new area codes are expected to be in use by mid-1998. A group comprised of representatives from the telecommunications industry is currently developing and evaluating different options for introducing the new area codes. Under California law, public participation and comment must be obtained and final approval received from the California Public Utilities Commission before a new area code can be introduced. Administrators at Bell Communications Research (Bellcore), the organization that administers the North American Numbering Plan, also review the plan for compliance with industry guidelines and then assign the new area code. Bruce Bennett, numbering plan administrator for Pacific Bell and coordinator of the industry area code relief efforts for the 209, 408 and 510 area codes, said a series of meetings will be held before the end of October 1996 to seek public comment and input on potential area code relief. Locations, dates and times of the public meetings will be announced at a later time, Bennett said. Boundaries for the new area codes, as well as the actual three-digit numbers, will be announced later this year. The areas now served by the 209, 408 and 510 codes are the latest in a series of regions in California that need area code relief. Today, California has 13 area codes, more than any other state. Plans call for doubling that number from 13 to 26 over the next five years to keep up with the state's record telephone number consumption. This growth is being spurred by the high-technology explosion of fax machines, pagers and cellular phones as well as competition for local telephone service. Ten of the 13 new area codes will be introduced by mid-1998. In addition to 209, 408 and 510, the other California regions which have already announced the need for area code relief are as follows: the 415, 916, and 714 areas will need new area codes as early as December 1997. In 213, a new area code will need to be introduced in early 1998. In three other state regions, three new area codes have already been announced and will go into effect in 1997. They are: 562 in Eastern Los Angeles, 760 covering portions of San Diego, Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, Mono, Kern and Inyo counties and 626 in Los Angeles County. The 209 area code currently spans 21 counties in the San Joaquin Valley and Sierra foothills, including Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mariposa, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare, Merced, Stanislaus, San Joaquin and smaller portions of El Dorado, Alpine, Sacramento, Inyo, Mono, San Benito, Alameda, Monterey, Kern and Santa Clara counties. The 408 area code serves the South Bay Area Peninsula and Central Coast areas, which represent virtually all of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito and Monterey counties and small portions of San Luis Obispo, Merced, Stanislaus, Fresno and Alameda counties. The 510 area code covers the East Bay area, which includes all of Contra Costa County and most of Alameda County and a small portion of San Joaquin County. For more information, call one of the following: Eric Johnson -- 209 area code including Madera, Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties and small portions of Kern, Inyo and Mono counties; 408 area code including small portions of San Luis Obispo and Fresno counties. Veryl Oakland -- 209 area code including Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, Mariposa, Merced, Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties and smaller portions of Alpine, El Dorado, San Benito, Sacramento and Monterey counties; 408 area code including virtually all of Santa Cruz, San Benito and Monterey counties and small portions of Merced and Stanislaus counties. Beverly Butler -- all of the 510 area code including Contra Costa County, virtually all of Alameda County and a small portion of San Joaquin County; 408 area code including virtually all of Santa Clara County and a small portion of Alameda County; 209 area code including small portions of Alameda and Santa Clara counties. CONTACT: Pacific Telesis Eric Johnson, 209/454-3602 (209 area) Veryl Oakland, 916/972-2813 (209 & 408 areas) Beverly Butler, 415/542-9468 (510 & 408 areas) ------------------------------ From: tholome@francenet.fr (Eric Tholome) Subject: Update on French CT2 Network Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 12:35:48 +0200 Hi everyone, Since Chevalier has just announced that they were to close their CT2 network in Hong Kong on June 30th, I thought it was the right time to give you an update on the French CT2 network, which now is the largest CT2 network (in terms of number of subscribers) in the world (around 100k subscribers these days I believe). Recap: the French CT2 network (called "Bi-Bop" and operated by France Telecom) offers cellular-like service in and around Paris (several thousand base stations) as well as in a couple of other French cities and in most French airports and big train stations. While making outgoing calls is straightforward, receiving incoming calls is possible but requires that the subscriber locates him/herself and does not move to another base station. It has been quite interesting to follow the evolution of the network. Technically speaking, nothing much has changed since they introduced the inbound functionality (late 1993 if I remember well). The same stands for coverage: I don't think there has been any major deployment of base stations since mid 1994. The major evolution has been in terms of number of subscribers as well as tariffs. Bi-Bop is clearly an alternative to real cellular solutions (like GSM). While it may have had a couple of advantages over GSM (like offering voice mail before the GSM operators could, like providing in-building coverage in shopping centers, like having longer battery life), it is clearly not a real cellular system (no handover from one cell to another, no location tracking mechanism allowing automatic incoming call routing, patchy coverage, etc.). Its major advantage over GSM was therefore in terms of costs. Prices of handsets have fallen from US$300 (in 1993) to US$120 now. You can also rent your hanset for US$6/month. Bi-Bop handset prices have always been comparable to the price of the low-end GSM terminals. The initial offer was at US$11/month + US$7/month for optional inbound service. Calls were charged at PSTN rate + US$0.16/min for airtime (incoming and outgoing). In 1993, this was approximately 3 times less expensive than the GSM offers (except that French GSM operators charge the calling party for incoming calls, not the subscriber). This managed to attract quite a few people and Bi-Bop has been successful to bring mobility to a market segment that would have had to wait several more years otherwise. This offer had attracted around 80k subscribers end of 1994. But in the mean time, GSM operators had lowered their price quite significantly (mainly the airtime charges), while improving their coverage, making Bi-Bop less and less attractive. In 1995, France Telecom introduced another Bi-Bop offer targeted at occasional users: no more monthly fee, but calls were charged at PSTN rate + US$0.36/min. Inbound service was still optional at US$7/month. While airtime was in some cases more expensive than with GSM, it was a very good plan for occassional users. Apparently, they managed to attract more customers and reached around 100k around end 1995. Note: this growth is still pathetic compared to the GSM subscriber base growth in France. 1996 is starting to see drastic changes in the cellular world in France: on May 29th, Bouygues Telecom will open their DCS1800 network (DCS1800 is similar to GSM but at 1800MHz). They will probably go after the same market segment as Bi-Bop and steal some customers to the GSM networks too. We have already seen one GSM operator offering a new plan with a very low monthly rate, probably preparing for Bouygues' arrival. With the prices of GSM (and DCS1800) falling like tree leaves in October, there is less and less room for Bi-Bop ... France Telecom has just introduced two new plans for Bi-Bop: - one for heavy users: monthly rate US$16 (includes inbound service), calls are US$0.10/min for local calls, US$0.30/min for national calls. - one for occasional users: no monthly rate (includes inbound service), all calls are US$0.40/min, prepaid system. While I'm not sure that the first can compete with DCS1800, the second one may be attractive to occasional users (but France Telecom is not going to make big bucks with this one). With France Telecom seeing Bi-Bop revenues going down dramatically, the question clearly is: how long will Bi-Bop survive? Eric Tholome private account 23, avenue du Centre tholome@francenet.fr 78180 Montigny le Bretonneux phone: +33 1 30 48 06 47 France fax: same number, call first! ------------------------------ From: Pinto, Dominic Subject: FITCE Annual Congress: Vienna, Aug. 27 - Sep. 1, 1996 Date: Wed, 01 May 96 11:41:00 GMT FITCE was founded in 1961 to aid the establishment of good relationship between telecommunications engineers across European borders and to facilitate exchange of experience. Now FITCE numbers some 5000 members across the European Union, and includes telecoms and communications professionals from all the varying converging industries -- telecoms, IT, media, broadcast etc. This year's 35th Annual Congress is to be hosted by the Association of Austrian Telecommunication Engineers and supported by the Austrian PTT and by the Austrian Telecommunications industry. The theme of the Congress is Multi-Media Services on the Telecoms Networks of Europe. Keynote first day speaker will be Professor Peter Cochrane Head of Advanced Services at BT Labs, Martlesham Heath UK. This Congress coincides with Austria's millennium in 1996. In the year 1996 the name "Ostarrichi" (historical name for Austria) has been mentioned for the first time. Austria will be celebrating this historical moment with a lot of special exhibitions, concerts and other cultural events. The congress itself takes place in the Vienna Hilton hotel. There will be a full technical paper program (being finalised by the International Selection Committee), and a full social program. Registration fees are (in UK?) per person: Members ?76 (accompanying persons ?61), non-members ?152 (accompanying persons ?122). Travel and hotel is additional. Registration, hotel, and travel details are available from: Dominic Pinto FITCE UK, Room A604 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ UK. Ph +44 (0)802 246761, fax +44 (0)171 356-6482; e-mail dominic.pinto@itu.ch. ------------------------------ From: blair@instep.bc.ca Subject: CDPD Coverage in Parkersburg, WV Reply-To: blair@instep.bc.ca Organization: InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 16:00:54 GMT Hi There, From my understanding Cellular One is the cellular provider in Parkersburg, WV. Do they have any plans for CDPD coverage in this city? If any of the cellular carriers, particularly CDPD carriers, can send me some information it will be very useful. We are providing CAD (Computer Automated Dispatching) for taxi companies using mobile data terminals coupled with a CDPD modem. Using the CDPD network as our means of data transmission eliminates the costs, downtimes, lack of frequencies, and coverage issues typically associated with 2-way radios. If you can provide me with any useful information I can be reached at the following: InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Attn : Blair Shellenberg 1001 - 805 West Broadway Vancouver, B.C. V5Z 1K1 Canada (604) 872-7116 (604) 872-7125 Fax blair@instep.bc.ca If you have any questions or comments, please get in touch with me at your convenience. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Blair Shellenberg ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #208 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 1 20:35:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA17305; Wed, 1 May 1996 20:35:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 20:35:26 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605020035.UAA17305@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #209 TELECOM Digest Wed, 1 May 96 20:35:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 209 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson MFS Purchases UUNET (TELECOM Digest Editor) MIT Internet Telephony Interoperability (Gill Cable-Murphy) AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop (Atri Indiresan) Adult Entertainment Lines (Scott Enriquez) ISDN Conference (Bob Larribeau) Big Problems With AT&T WorldNet Service (Greg Eiche) Competition and Anti-Trust (turner7@pacsibm.org) Further Notes to Those Who Ordered Clocks (Eric Roellig) Wanted to Buy: Manuals for Dialogic/Gammalink (Les Kula) ITU Standards on OAM (Steve Liu) Employment Opportunity: Communication Jobs (Leslie Farrell) Possible Work-Around to Avoid 911 ANI? (Philip Evans) Suing AT&T/Nynex For Credit Card Charges (Danny Burstein) Microsoft Funding Ends June 30; Corporate Sponsor Needed (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: Wed, 1 May 1996 17:49:29 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: MFS Purchases UUNET In an interesting business development late Tuesday, MFS Communications Company, Inc announced it is buying UUNET Technologies, a major supplier of Internet service. This will be done in a stock deal worth just over two billion dollars. MFS is the name for Metropolitan Fiber System, which began as a small private telecommunication service in Manhattan, New York just a few years ago. It is now based in Omaha, Nebraska. MFS competes with regional Bell companies in the business market for data and telephone services. UUNET, which is based in Fairfax, Virginia and is thirteen percent owned by Microsoft Corporation is well known on the Internet as a major site for the transfer of news. It has a large number of customers of its own and in addition it priovides Internet access for the Microsoft Network. It focuses much of its Internet access service on the business market. In a press release Tuesday, the companies said the merger will create a single source for Internet, voice, other data and video services over its international fiber optic network. "This merger is especially compelling because of the unique fit between MFS and and UUNET," said MFS Chairman James Crowe. "Because there is substantial overlap between our networks, we can improve our margins," he said. The deal promises to accelerate the rapid integration of voice and Internet-based communications. It could also resolve some of the bottle- necks that constrain wider use of the Inernet for data, voice and video communications. As part of MFS, UUNET will be the only Internet service provider to own or control fiber optic networks for local, intercity and undersea connections in the United States as well as France, Britain and Germany. Internet providers usually must lease these facilities from telephone companies. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates said his organization fully supported the deal. Under the terms of the merger which will be will be implemented in phases over the next few months, UUNET shareholders will control about thirty percent of the combined stock. The announcement on Tuesday caused UUNET's stock to jump $10.50 to $58.75 per share while MFS stock fell a little over six cents to $34.56, both according to Nasdaq. I am wondering what Digest readers think of this, and what differences they see in the months ahead in the performance of the two companies. In particular, what about UUNET and its long standing role with the net for many years. Comments welcome. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 14:15:58 -0400 From: gcm@rpcp.mit.edu (Gill Cable-Murphy) Subject: MIT Internet Telephony Interoperability "MIT to Form Internet Telephony Consortium" Contact: Lee McKnight (617) 253-0995 mcknight@rpcp.mit.edu http://rpcp.mit.edu/~itel/ Massachusetts Institute of Technology is announcing the formation of the Internet Telephony Interoperability Project. An informational meeting will be held on May 7 at MIT for all firms that might be interested in joining. Internet telephony applications span traditional telecommunications infrastructures and the Internet enabling the development of new personal communications services. Among them is the use of the Internet for long distance calls. The project will be based in MIT's Research Program on Communications Policy (RPCP), a multidisciplinary research group focusing on infrastructures' interoperability and Internet economics. The project will be multidisciplinary in nature and will consider technical, economic, regulatory and business issues that are presented by Internet telephony. RPCP has succeeded at highlighting the need for interoperability for high bandwidth applications such as digital television and networked multimedia and is extending its ground breaking work to the intersection point between the Internet and the Public Switched Telephone Network. Internet telephony has already presented regulatory concerns. For example, America's Carriers Telecommunications Association, a lobbying organization for non-dominant long distance carriers, has filed a petition before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). A graduate student team at MIT has been organized to study the petition and will provide comments to the FCC. An information clearinghouse about the petition can be reached at: http://rpcp.mit.edu/~itel/acta/ MIT has shown its leadership in the development of the Internet most recently through the formation of the World Wide Web Consortium at MIT's Laboratory of Computer Science which develops standards for the World Wide Web. MIT's Laboratory of Computer Science has played a key role in the development of protocols for the Internet, and will be advising the project. More information about the project can be found on the Web at: http://rpcp. mit.edu/~itel/ ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 14:33:10 -0400 From: Atri Indiresan Here's another twist on checks for LD switching. I live in University housing, and we have to use their phone service for local and long distance. However, this has not stopped AT&T from calling me at least three times asking me to switch to them. Each time I explained to them that given the nature of my phone service, it was not possible to me to make the switch to them, or anyone else. Yesterday, I received a check for $100 which, if I encash, authorizes them to switch me to their LD service (with 40% True Reach savings for the first 6 months). I really have no objection to being switched to AT&T - their rates seem better than what I get now. Do you think I should encash the check, and let them try to switch my LD service? Once they realize that I cannot be switched, maybe they will stop pestering me by phone? The way I see it, in spite my of telling them more than once that I cannot be switched, if they send me a check for $100, they deserve to lose the money. Comments? I have till May 23 to cash the check. Atri Indiresan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:55:54 -0700 From: Scott Enriquez Subject: Adult Entertainment Lines I am new to this list and I have a question that has been bugging me for awhile. In my line of work, I see a lot of AEL calls on customers' bills that, of course, they do not claim. But what I'm wondering is how do these types of places make any money? I'm sure that, probably, some use customers' credit cards to be billed in addition to the normal international call. But there are some places like: Guyana & Sao Tome that you can just dial straight through and talk with someone on the other end and I don't believe that they ask for any credit information. I've never really stayed on the line long enough, once I determine that it is indeed an AEL, to find out. I'd appreciate any answers that anyone has on this puzzling question. In addition, it seems *subscription fraud has become a big problem in particular regions of the country (mostly the BellSouth region). Is there any reason that BellSouth has more of this type fraud than USWest, Ameritech, SouthWestern Bell and NYNEX combined? Are the other companies just more capable of keeping the problem under control or does BellSouth just have that many more customers that it can't be helped? *(assigning telephone numbers to customers who run up their phone bill thousands of dollars and then split only to be reassigned, in some cases, another number under another name to do it again) Scott Enriquez [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In those situations where you can dial through to a sex line and not be required to provide any billing infor- mation, the provider of the service makes his money via kickbacks or commissions from the long distance carrier serving the point. Many of those places have a very out of balance account with the American telcos regards the amounts each owe the other for traffic handled. Many very small foreign countries are chronically in debt to the USA carriers since most of their traffic is to the USA rather than the other way around. A good way to reverse that trend they have found is by inducing people here to call there. Now, how do you do that? Well, you create a reason for traffic in your favor to exist which would not occur otherwise. A good market for this are all the guys who are into phone sex and who are otherwise sick and tired of having outlandish charges on their bill for calls to 900 numbers, or charges on their credit cards for the same thing. So you take the charges for calls to international points which are higher than domestic USA calls; you inflate them just a little bit more but so they are still priced much less than calls to some 900 numbers, and then you run advertising in the media which will likely attract the customers you are trying to reach inviting people to call your phone sex service 'for free'. You tell them no charge to use the service; all you pay is the international toll charge. That, to many of your customers, seems like a better deal -- and by and large it is cheaper -- so they flock to your phone sex service and quit using the one with the 900 number which is 'ripping them off'. Now all of a sudden, instead of a few measly calls every day to some third-world country from the USA, telco is suddenly getting thousands of incoming calls, all from hungry men in the United States lookng for nourishment. The local telecom administration in the third- world country is pleased to see this, because it helps get rid of that nasty imbalance in their books with AT&T, Sprint and MCI. The telco there agrees to give the proprietor of the service -- unless they themselves happen to be running it, which is not unheard of -- a commission, or piece of the action on all incoming calls. A dime for this one, twenty five cents for that one, etc ... the guy who runs it does not have to charge you the caller anything -- and in fact that is his stock in trade -- because the local telecom takes care of him nicely as long as he manages to keep the American men all stirred up and excited and on the phone daily making obscene calls to whoever he has on his end of the line listening to them and encouraging them to continue what they are doing. This scheme could only work in America, or more specifically, from America outbound to those points. Stop and think about it; I think you will agree. All those guys in other countries do in fact take calls from all over the world, but nothing makes their balance with the American telcos look as sweet as the gay guys in the United States calling to discuss their fantasies with new friends around the world, via some conference bridge in the Netherland Antilles or Guyana. The rest of the world put together gives them about ten percent of the traffic, with the Americans generating the other ninety percent or more. It is not all from the USA outbound however. AT&T has a deal going with that guy in Nevada who operates the gay conference bridge which seems to be packed night after night. You dial a 702 number, and if your telco gives it to AT&T, when AT&T sees it they convert it to some other number and send it via their own T-1 to the bridge. What they save in local access charges they don't have to pay to the Nevada telco, they split with the bridgetender. If you try to call that same 702 number on anything other than AT&T (for example Sprint) then the call goes straight through to the bridgetender on his POTS line where it is answered without billing supervision and the caller is told 'to reach this number you must dial 10288 first, then one plus the number.' For obvious reasons, he does not want anyone on the bridge who he won't get payment for. In some cases you may just get a busy signal if he leaves his POTS lines off hook all the time. In other words you are forced to use AT&T to call the number (or whatever carrier runs it; there are many and I do not mean to single out AT&T on this.) In New Jersey you will find some 201 numbers which terminate in a place where you can speak with astrologers, along with Tarot practioners, numerologists and related 'sciences'. But the numbers are never advertised in the USA! Where *are* they advertised? In all the newspapers in Spain and Portugal, and newspapers in some African countries, with the same 'generous' offer from the proprietors: 'Use the service free! All you pay is toll.' Whatever is the equivilent of the {National Enquirer} or the {Weekly World News} in those countries are full of these ads, always involving a call to the USA. I guess the USA carriers say turn about is fair play; if the telecom in Guyana is going to hustle the gay guys here in the States, then they'll work on superstitious old women in Europe. Advertisment seen once in the {Advocate} newspaper: Picture shows very muscular, attractive men mostly naked but of course wearing boots and leather jackets. Some have handcuffs; others have whips. One is dressed like a police officer. The caption underneath read, "Reach Out and Touch a New Friend using the AT&T Long Distance Network. Hundreds of men waiting to talk to you now, and have you tell them what you would like to do to them. Absolutely no charge! All you pay is toll." You were then advised to "call this 'special' number" followed by 10288-011, a country code and number. The only thing 'special' about it was it was international and in the advertising it was parsed in such a way to make it confusing looking to the average person. It was not the sort of advertisement Ma Bell would run in the {New York Times} to announce new custom calling features or changes in calling plan rates. :) So to answer your question, that is how they make money. And when you have someone claim they know nothing about it, whatever you do, don't fall for their 'injured consumer fighting giant corporation' routine. They know perfectly well what they called, and just like in the old days when it was all done via 900, now that they've had their fun they don't see why they should have to pay for it. Tell them to pay or get sued. For all intents and purposes, telcos do not make mistakes on long distance billings. Well, they do ... but you know what I mean. You'll notice the deadbeats who are always asking telco to write these off rarely give the credit card offices the same kind of sass when they make the same calls via credit card billing. They know telco is easily intimidated and will give them whatever they ask where the credit card office is far more likely to make them pay or put them in collection and place them with an agency, letting them do the 'injured consumer who has been cheated by the giant corporation' routine with the bill collectors. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bob@larribeau.com (Bob Larribeau) Subject: ISDN Conference Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 22:49:22 -0700 Organization: Larribeau Associates The California ISDN Users' Group will be holding its Spring ISDNworld conference June 5 & 6 at the LAX Hilton. Check out our web site for details: http://www.ciug.org/isdnworld/ There will be over 20 sessions and tutorials. 50 different companies will be exhibiting their ISDN products. This is the biggest ISDN-only conference in the U.S. The North American ISDN Users' Forum will be meeting in conjunction with us at the LAX Hilton. Their meeting will be June 3 through June 5. Hope to see you there. Bob Larribeau California ISDN Users' Group ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 19:08:53 PDT From: Greg Eiche Subject: Big Problems With AT&T WorldNet Service Does anybody have any insight in the problems that AT&T WorldNet has been having in registering new accounts? I tried to register for a new account today with the software they just sent me, and was unsuccessful. When I called AT&T's tech support, I was told that their server was overloaded with people trying to sign up and that they were having major problems. I couldn't help but laugh when I recalled all the reports that AT&T was going to give the ISPs a real run for their money. It's quite amazing that the world's largest telecom can't get it right!! I, for one, plan to stick with my local ISP ... ------------------------------ From: turner7@pacsibm.org (TUrner-7) Subject: Competition and Anti-Trust Date: 1 May 1996 02:38:46 GMT Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS With the announcement of the Bell Atlantic/Nynex merger, many public officials voiced fears of a "monopoly" and anti-trust violations as a result, and called for investigations. I don't understand why this particular merger is raising so much concern, when other mega-mergers in the communications industry and in the business world in general don't raise any eyebrows. For example, Time Warner owns my local cable company, and they're quite ready to throw their weight around in dictating franchise terms to local municipalities. They have a monopoly in service. In addition, Time Warner is a distributor as it owns HBO and Cinemax, plus of course Warner Bros is a major film studio. No one seems to have a problem with this, so why should a local phone company be any different? In the Philadelphia area, there's been a spate of bank mergers, resulting in only FOUR large banks, only ONE is based in the city. No one objected to those acquisitions. In retailing, the last city owned department has been sold -- it's stores will be merged with stores of an outside owned chain or closed, giving consumers significantly less choice of where to buy. Again, no objection, indeed, we hear the praises of "increased efficiency and savings". Comments appreciated. ------------------------------ Subject: Further Notes to Those Who Ordered Clocks Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 15:29:42 CDT From: roellig@cig.mot.com (Eric Roellig) Reply-To: roellig@cig.mot.com TELECOM Digest Editor writes: > This is a note to those of you who contacted Jim Hill regards getting > Western Union clocks. Pat, I finally got mine last week. One side of the case has a rather large rust spot. The glass front of this one is in perfect order. The hands are a little bent but I think I got them worked out. The internal works have some light rust covering but it does run! I wound it by hand and hung it on the wall for a while and it tick-tocked away for over an hour. I haven't given it enough electricity to wind on its own but I did touch a few c-cell ni-cads to the wire and I think it will wind. I just love the way it winds!! A couple of the numbers on the face are scratched and the face has a couple of bends in it. I'm not sure if I can get the face completely flattened out or not. I haven't tried the resetting circuit yet but it does have the light you mentioned when the resetting circuit is activated. Some of the red paint is scratched off the light. Anyone know of a good substitute to use to repaint? I can see how this could be the beginning of an addictive hobby :) Thanks for spreading the word on these wonderful clocks. Eric roellig@cig.mot.com (Eric Roellig) Motorola CIG +1-847-632-5774 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not really a clock collector, but I love collecting the old Western Union clocks, with all the different models and styles they had. You can *carefully* repair the scratches on the dial with the proper color of paint. The little light bulb which was intended to illuminate for just a half second on the setting can be replaced, but it is hard to find 3.2 or 6.3 volt 'bayonet' bulbs that size which also have red glass on the front. I use red fingernail polish. Lightly and carefully touch the tiny brush with the fingernail polish on the bulb as needed. Just like when doing your nails! Since there is no longer a setting circuit, the bulb would not be used much. You might want to rewire the clock so the bulb illuminates on the winding rather than on the setting. That way you get to see the bulb flash on each time the clock rewinds itself. All you have to do is move one of the wires from the bulb to the chassis ground on the clock and the other to the proper side of the little contacts which connect for winding. Then you jump the contacts which before had caused the bulb to illuminate when the arm fell down which grabs the minute hand to yank it into place. The power supply is critical. If you use two 1.5 volt batteries *and* have the light on there, the batteries will run down fast, like after a few months. On one clock I use four 1.5 volt batteries but the resulting six volts is a bit more than the winder would like, so having that bulb in there to pull some of the current away helps out. Obviously a 3.2 volt bulb will burn out right away. A 6.3 volt bulb lights nicely and steals enough current that the winder gets a nice (but not big) portion of the juice. On the others I own, they share an AC/DC transformer which gives them 4.5 volts when they call for it. If you are going to go with strictly three volts from a transformer then I would say use a 3.2 volt bulb, otherwise it never gets very bright and the poor clock takes the better part of a minute to wind as the winder pulls very slowly when it is starved for juice. Two of mine wind hourly; one taking eight seconds and the other taking about twelve or thirteen seconds. The 'newest' one I have with the sweep second hand winds every five minutes for a total of one second each time. The minute hand can go on at various ninety degree angles so you want to make sure when putting it on you install it in the one position where when moved backwards it won't go backwards past the twelve. If you want to get clever and put a pseudo-setting circuit on it, note the little hole in the top where the WUTCO wires used to come out. From Radio Shack, get a mini push-button switch of the normally off type. It will fasten right in that little hole. Use some double sided tape to stick a nine volt battery on the back wall of the case and wire it in series through the switch to the setting circuit. Now when you tap that little mini-push button on the top of the case and provided the clock is within two minutes of either side of the hour, the battery will energize the magnet which grabs the arm and drops it on the gears of the minute hand, yanking it straight up to the twelve. Using NAVOBS or NIST, when the time is exactly at the hour, tap that little button just for a half second and the clock will instantly set to the correct time. If you *carefully* regulate the pendulum and have the clock hanging *perfectly level* you can get it to the point manual adustments seldom need to be done more than once a month for a few seconds of discrepancy. Whatever you do, do *not* scrap the movement inside and replace it with a quartz movement or an electric movement. If that's the way you feel about it, :( -- send me the works; I can always use spares in rebuilding my others, etc. I love the way they wind up also! The soft 'whirring' noise is pretty neat. I wish I could find a master clock somewhere; I have enough slave clocks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lkula@eng.sun.com (Les Kula) Subject: Wanted to Buy: Manuals for Dialogic/Gammalink Date: 30 Apr 1996 00:24:21 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc. Reply-To: lkula@eng.sun.com WTB: I) Manuals for Dialogic T-1 card : 1) Voice Software Reference 2) Network Interface Software Reference Guide II) Gammalink Gammafax CP4LSI Fax Reference manual III) Any other related manuals Please respond directly to my e-mail address. Les ------------------------------ From: Steve Liu Subject: ITU Standards on OAM Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 10:47:02 -0400 I'm doing some research on Operations and Management standards, more specifically front end standards for managing and controlling telephony services and wanted to see what kind of standards are supported by ITU or any other international standards committee. I tried to look up the ITU web site (www.itu.ch), however, the gopher engine was unhelpful in that it didn't lead me to any abstracts that could tell me if the document was what I needed and I didn't want to buy all of them! Any help on this subject would be appreciated. Steve Liu liu@amarex.com ------------------------------ From: twbiweekly@aol.com (TWBIWEEKLY) Subject: Employment Opportunities: Communication Jobs Date: 01 May 1996 19:31:39 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: twbiweekly@aol.com (TWBIWEEKLY) Telephony Works Bi-Weekly is featuring a new employer in the April 29th issue. Hickory Tech Corporation (HTC), a communications holding company based in Mankato, Minnesota, offers a variety of career opportunities in the following subsidiaries: Mankato Citizens Telephone Company-Minnesota & Iowa National Independent Billing-Minnesota Digital Techniques, Inc.-Texas Collins Communication Systems, Co.-Minnesota Free issues are available to anyone who is interested in alternative employment options and/or listing your own individual ad at no cost. Send your snail-mail address and we will post the April 29th issue to you. Web site is coming!!!!!!!! This forum is by and for industry workers who would like to explore the job market in the local, long distance, wireless, ATM, PCS fields. Resumes for the June issue will be accepted through 5/31/96 ( fax to 817/444-8137). Good luck and best wishes in your job search from TWB! Leslie Farrell Publisher/Editor 817/444-8125 Fax: 817/444-8137 ------------------------------ From: pevans@mindlink.bc.ca (philip evans) Subject: Possible Work-Around to Avoid 911 ANI? Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 17:18:56 GMT Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada If I do *67 and call the local non-emergency number, and then get transferred to the dispatcher; and assuming that the non-emergency number does not have ANI but the dispatch number does, can the dispatcher do ANI after the call has started? PS. Um, I know how CID works and when -- that's why I'm asking. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 17:24:35 EDT From: danny burstein Subject: Suing AT&T/Nynex For Credit Card Charges Article: misc.legal.moderated.15593 Message-ID: From: TopBell@news-e2d.gnn.com (Glenn Stok) Subject: Looking for Attorney to sue AT&T I am looking for an attorney who would be interested in suing AT&T in a class action for several companies. The issue is as follows and happens to answering services, such as mine, who have hundreds of phone numbers and provide these numbers to the public for the purpose of automated voice mail ... A criminal will "rent" a phone number from an answering service and then order a calling card from AT&T. They provide the number we give them, and AT&T sends the card without checking if they are sending it to an address that matches the phone number. They use the card and we get billed. Long distance takes as much as two months for billing via our local phone company, Nynex. So the thief gets two months of free calls before we find out about it. We have provided AT&T with a list of all our numbers with a request that they refrain from honoring any requests for calling cards billed to these numbers. We continue to find billings for new cards every few months. One time it amounted to $4000 of fraudulent phone calls. It takes many hours of numerous phone calls with the local phone company (Nynex in our case) and AT&T, to get the fraudulent charges removed. This time translates into lost revenue for all answering services who need deal with this. None of us seem to be able to stop this problem with over a year of several reoccurrences. Maybe only a lawsuit will stop it and allow compensation for lost time fighting each occurrence. If you are an attorney experienced with telephone fraud and you are interested in this case, please email me. Glenn Stok, Pres. Stok Software, Inc. email: TopBell@gnn.com I welcome your visit to http://www.stok.com for your Voice Mail software needs. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 14:52:06 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: Microsoft Funding to End June 30; Corporate Sponsorship Needed I mentioned several days ago that Microsoft has decided to discontine their financial support of the Digest effective June 30. It is not just a matter of this Digest; they do not feel in general this sort of thing fits into their plans at the present time. Above all, first and foremost, they are owed a great deal of thanks for the assistance they gave me over the past year. I am very grateful for it, and without them the Digest would not have been in publication. The fact remains however that corporate support is needed urgently for the year ahead, and I would like to speak with people who can make this happen. The need is very great. Thank you, Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #209 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu May 2 14:02:17 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA20041; Thu, 2 May 1996 14:02:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 14:02:17 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605021802.OAA20041@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #210 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 May 96 14:02:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 210 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson California Area Codes to Double (Tad Cook) Bell Canada and Bank of Montreal Offer Bell MasterCard (Nigel Allen) Teleplaza Telecommunication Resources Directory (rreader@laker.net) Area Code Database By City or Zip (tbond@primenet.com) Phone Service Along the Kissimmee River (Ed Kleinhample Re: Required PIN Dialing Over Cellular Phone (Steve Bagdon) Re: Slamming Dunked (Steve Arlow) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified (Babu Mengelepouti) Old Contel PC F.E.P. For Switch? (Michael Newton) 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: California Area Codes to Double Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 15:28:29 PDT East Bay Is California's Top Market for Telephone Use By George Avalos, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 1--Fueled by the launch of local telephone competition and a boom in wireless communications, the East Bay has become California's most incandescent market for new telephone numbers. Startling telecommunications growth in the 510 area code of Contra Costa and Alameda counties is the primary factor prompting Pacific Bell officials to announce Tuesday that the 510 territory will require a new area code by mid-1998. Pac Bell began warning last fall that the East Bay and several other California regions are rapidly running out of phone numbers. "The 510 was the top number user in 1995," said California area code administrator Bruce Bennett of Pacific Bell. The second-fastest growing region was the 916 area code covering Sacramento. In 1995, 76 prefixes were added to the 510 area code, more than double the year before. During the first four months of this year, about 55 prefixes have been assigned, according to Bennett. That puts the East Bay on a pace to top 100 new prefixes for the year. "A lot of the growth last year was due to cellular and paging services," Bennett said. Wireless devices accounted for 56 percent of the phone numbers assigned in 1995. This year, add phone competition to the reasons the East Bay pool of phone numbers has almost been drained. "About two-thirds of the new numbers that have been added in 1996 are for numbers that will be used by local telephone competitors," Bennett said. California now has 13 area codes, more than any other state. Over the next five years, that number is expected to double to 26. The 415, 916 and 714 regions will require new area codes by the end of 1997. Besides 510, new codes will likely be needed in the 209 San Joaquin Valley region and the 408 South Bay region by mid-1998. A series of public meetings are scheduled starting this month to discuss the changes. Industry and state officials haven't decided whether to split existing regions into two new area codes or to mix the new area code into the same geographic area as the old one, called an area code overlay. The overlay process means adjacent homes could have different area codes. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 14:51:57 -0400 Subject: Bell Canada and Bank of Montreal Offer Bell MasterCard Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) Here is a press release from Bell Canada and Bank of Montreal. I found the press release on the Canada NewsWire web site at http://www.newswire.ca/ I assume that the new card will only be available to residents of Canada. BANK OF MONTREAL AND BELL CANADA TEAM UP TO OFFER THE NEW BELL MASTERCARD TORONTO, May 1 /CNW/ - A combined credit card and telephone calling card, a Canadian first, will be launched this May by Bank of Montreal and Bell Canada. Consumers will earn points toward free long distance just by using the new no-fee Bell MasterCard card for their credit card purchases and calling card calls. Bell Canada, which serves Ontario and Quebec, will be the first telecommunications company to offer the card. Eight other Stentor alliance companies will join with Bank of Montreal to offer their co-branded Bank of Montreal MasterCards across Canada over the next year. Applications for the Bell MasterCard will be available from both Bank of Montreal branches and Bell Phonecentre stores starting May 27. The card will display the credit card and the calling card numbers. "We believe that our partnership with Bell Canada and Stentor in developing Bank of Montreal's Bell MasterCard fits in with our strategy of providing `best value' products and services to our customers," said Rob Pearce, Senior Vice-President, Electronic Banking, Bank of Montreal. "The card will offer added convenience and will be rewarding to use." "We're delighted to work with Bank of Montreal to offer consumers a card with all the features of a credit card and a calling card and to give consumers the opportunity to earn free long distance on all their purchases," said Bob Cheriton, Vice President - Card Services at Bell Canada. "Rewarding customer loyalty is something the Stentor companies have been doing for years through loyalty programs," said Stentor's Sal Iacono. "We expect customers who use the new telephone companies' MasterCard could earn up to one month or more of free long distance per year." The program rewards customers with points towards free long distance in two ways: - for all purchases made with the card, including telephone calls that are purchased by swiping the card at pay phones equipped to accept charge cards, - when customers key in their calling card number, which results in the call being charged to their telephone bill. The new Bell MasterCard will carry no annual fee. The interest rate will be competitive with other reward-based cards and will be set at 18.9%. The cards will be accepted at more than 13 million locations worldwide and can be used at banking machines around the globe. Free supplementary cards are also available. Bank of Montreal is a highly diversified financial services institution that earns about half of its income outside Canada. It ranks as one of the 10 largest banks in North America with average assets of C$150 billion. Together with Nesbitt Burns, Canada's largest full-service investment firm, Harris Bank, a major U.S. mid-west corporate and private bank with one of the largest community bank networks in greater Chicago, and its alliance with Grupo Financiero Bancomer, the second-largest Mexican financial institution, Bank of Montreal serves customers throughout North America and around the world. Bell Canada, the largest Canadian telecommunications operating company, markets a full range of state-of-the-art products and services to more than seven million business and residence customers in Ontario and Quebec. The Stentor Alliance was formed in 1992 by Canada's leading providers of telecommunications services. The alliance works together with customers across Canada to economically deliver leading-edge local, national and international telecommunications services. Members of the alliance are: AGT, BC TEL, Bell Canada, Island Tel, Manitoba Telephone System, Maritime Tel & Tel, NBTel, NewTel Communications, NorthwesTel, Quebec-Telephone and SaskTel. For further information: Bank of Montreal, Joe Barbera, (416) 927-2740; Ronald Monet, (514) 877-1101; Internet: http://www.bmo.com; Bell Canada, Barbara Schurman, (416) 581-4251; Suzanne Ricard, (514) 870-6093; Internet: http://www.bell.ca; Stentor Communications, Joanne Stanley, (613) 781-3301, Internet: StanleyJP(at)Stentor.ca; Eileen Inrig, (613) 785-3723, Internet: InrigE(at)Stentor.ca Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/ ------------------------------ From: rreader@laker.net Subject: Teleplaza Telecommunication Resources Directory Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 20:27:46 -0400 Organization: BridgenetLC - 305.374.3031 - 100 S. Biscayne Blvd, Miami Teleplaza Telecommunication Resources Directory http://www.teleplaza.com Interactive library of 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, survey and more. Web Site features include excellent navigation, fast download time, extensive database, minimal graphic size, order forms, Java animation, frames, icons and more. The LUNCH Room features 250 fun and cool links to do on your lunch break including food, on-line games, puzzles, comics, riddles, funnies, sports, T.V., movies, music, jokes, crosswords, 3-D stereograms and more! ------------------------------ From: tbond Subject: Area Code Database by City or Zip Date: 1 May 1996 16:48:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet With all the changes in area codes which are occuring. I was wondering if there was a data base of area codes available which is searchable either by city or zip code. Cheers, DanL [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Carl Moore used to keep all those files. I'd begin by asking him where its at now. PAT] ------------------------------ From: edhample@sprynet.com Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 06:21:37 -0700 Subject: Phone Service Along the Kissimmee River About two years ago, I went on a boating/fishing trip along Florida's Kissimmee River, which flows south from an area south of Orlando, and eventually empties into Lake Okeechobee. The chain of lakes that make up the upper portion of the river are known as some of the best freshwater fishing in Florida. One of our stops was at a fish camp on Tiger Lake. One morning, I had to make a call to Tampa to inform a friend of a change in plans. There wasn't a payphone to be found in the camp, so I walked into the bait shop/camp office to inquire about a telephone. I was quite surprised to see an old wooden plug-type switchboard in the back corner of the office. I asked about placing a call to Tampa. The clerk told me that she couldn't get a call through to Tampa until after 10:00 (it was about 8:30am) when the owner of the camp across the lake opened up her office/switchboard. She continued to explain that the owner of Bud's Fish Camp could patch her through to an operator at Indian Lake Estates Co-Op who could patch me through to a GTE operator in Lake Wales, who could give me a connection to Tampa. I gave up and returned to my boat, where I contacted a Marine Operator in Daytona Beach via VHF radio who was able to put the call through within seconds. We stopped at several other fish camps during the remainder of our week-long trip down the Kissimmee. I made a point of scoping out the telephone facilities at each stop. I was surprised to find that many of these camps where connected to the outside world only through a single phone line to the next camp up the river, and eventually you would find a camp that had a direct connection to the real world. We made the same trip again a year later - this time armed with a cell-phone. I was very surprised to find that cellular coverage in this part of the Florida outback is quite good. There was only a short stretch of the river south of Indian Lake Estates where my phone indicated 'No Service'. Ed Kleinhample Consultant from 9 to 5 boater - all other hours. Land O' Lakes, FL. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 08:25:31 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: Required PIN Dialing Over Cellular Phone jeff777@netcom.com said: > Here's a question regarding dialing a PIN number over a cellular > service that not only requires a PIN number to be dialed, but also > requires the PIN number to be entered after first dialing the phone > number and hitting the SEND button. This applies more to cellular > carriers in the northeastern U.S. When the PIN number is being sent > to the carrier, is the PIN number being transmitted to the carrier via > DTMF tones or through a control channel? Whichever way the PIN number > is transmitted, is this process consistent with all carriers that > require the PIN number to be dialed after sending th phone number > first? Any information would be greatly appreciated. So far, there appears to be two methods of PIN notification, from the cellular phone to the cellular switch. Anybody out there that can refine this list, or add to it, let me know. 1) PIN notification at turn on. After the user turns on the phone for the first time, they dial their PIN, then SEND. In effect, this is dialing the PIN as a phone number, sending the data over the RECC (REverse Control Channel) data stream, similar to any other call. The switch accepts the PIN, verifies it, then notifies the user if the PIN is good (double stutter tone, or double ringing?) over the FOVC (FOrward Voice Channel) audio. For as long as the phone is on (or continues to answer the FOCC (FOrward Control Channel) audit requests via the RECC), the person can complete a phone call. If the phone does *not* answer a FOCC audit request, the phone line is 'deactivated', and the person must go through the 'registration process' again. Major weakness -- the ESN, MIN and PIN go across the RECC data stream in one burst, negating almost everything that this PIN requirement is attempting to accomplish. If someone is monitoring the RECC data stream, and they see a good ESN, good MIN, and a (ie:) four digit phone number (PIN) going across, they can take over your account. 2) PIN notification on every call. The person dials the number and presses SEND, hears a double ring (or stutter tone), then dials their PIN and SEND again -- if the PIN is good, the call is completed. This is the method my local providor is using. The person dials the phone number and presses SEND -- the ESN, MIN and dialed number is broadcast over the RECC data stream. The cellular phone is assigned a FOVC via the FOCC, and over the FOVC audio, the person hears a double ring tone. The person dials their PIN, and presses SEND -- the PIN is sent over the REVC (REverse Voice Channel) data stream as a 'dialed phone number' -- as if they were trying to initiate a three-way call from the cellular phone. When the PIN is verified, the call is completed. To the best of my knowledge, the DTMFs are/aren't broadcast over the REVC audio depending on your cellular phone -- most will, for instance to retrieve voice mail or checking your bank balance. But, the DTMFs are *not* broadcast over the FOVC audio -- the audio appears to be muted until the PIN is verified. Why does this matter? IMO, there was a definite reason to do this 'mute until PIN verified'. 'ESN grabbers' are (relatively) cheap and (easily) attainable, and (almost) all cellular phones on the market can monitor forward channel audio and data streams. A very easy way to break this method would be to wait until the dead of night, so that the FOVC assignment would be easily guessable. A person would set their ESN-grabber to the closest FOCC (347, as an example). When the next call request came in, they would monitor the FOVC audio for that call (to hear the DTMFs), and since it is the dead of night and no one is using any of the freqs on the cell, it will (almost) always be assigned to the same FOVC channel (600, as an example, the first channel to be assigned for that cell). So, they use the ESN-grabber to get the ESN and MIN, then grab the DTMFs audio from the FOVC (if it *were* unmuted), then decode the DTMFs using any of many means. Since the audio *is* muted, this (quite) simple method will *not* work. There are some obvious ways around this, but they involve more equipment, and aren't 'simple' any more. So to answer your question, it appears that both methods use the data stream (one over the RECC, one over the REVC), and not the DTMFs (over the REVC audio), to verify the PIN. One obvious reason is that if a person makes a mistake with DTMF audio, they have to press CLR and correct their mistake. Over audio, this will confuse the switch. Over data streams, the data isn't send u ntil all the corrections are fixed and SEND is pressed, and the switch gets one (good) data stream of PIN data. As for consistency, it would require verifying every carrier to see how they are using a PIN -- but I would presume they are the same, since the switch software is probably supplied by the same (group of) companies. But I would also presume that the providors will be very tight-lipped about their individual PIN implementations. Since I don't work for a providor (and do you think they'd actually hire me now?:) ), most of this is backward engineered information. If anyone can clarify or append to this data, feel free to e-mail me directly. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net http://www.rust.net/~bagdon Katharine aNd Steve Bagdon (KNS) ------------------------------ From: yorick@conch.aa.msen.com (Steve Arlow) Subject: Re: Slamming Dunked Date: 01 May 1996 23:09:48 -0400 Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, MI. In article , Stan Schwartz wrote: > From {Long Island Newsday} Online (www.newsday.com), forwarded FYI to > the Digest: > U.S. Billing told her she had not had AT&T for months. "What I did > have," she was told, "was a company called Long Distance Services." > [...] What boggles the mind is that the owners of this company are not in jail -- they are clearly engaged in large-scale, organized fraud. I, too, was "slammed" -- despite my request to Ameritech that my default LD carrier not be switched without my express written permission -- by "Long Distance Services". Now, I noticed this on the very first affected bill, but consider: 1) The company logo graphic was simply the words "L. D. SERVICES" in an exact duplication of the font that Ameritech uses on the rest of their phone bill. This is a clear attempt to fool the consumer into thinking that this is not the logo of a separate company, but just a lable for the LD section of Ameritech's bill. 2) When I called 1-700-555-4141, where LD carriers are required by (I believe) FCC regulations to identify themselves, there was only a recording with an angry voice saying "You are NOT authorized to make this call!" These two items clearly show fraudulent intent on the part of this company. They not only took over my LD Phone service without my consent, and without notifying me in any way, but they *took the above steps to deliberately conceal what they had done*. (And no, I never enter contests or the like, and I routinely hang up on telemarketers.) When I complained to Ameritech, I was proptly switched back to my former carrier, without fee, and was assured (again) that my carrier would not be changed without my written permission. But when I refused to pay for the phone calls charged to this company, I was told that since I had made the calls and recieved service, I was still liable for the charges -- though they might be able to adjust them to match the charges my regular LD carrier would have charged. I replied (condensing several conversations here) that I had supposedly done business with this company without my knowledge or consent, and that they were no different from the travelling con-artists who come by and quickly "seal your driveway" and then knock on your door to present you with a bill for their services -- which you were the unknowing and unwilling recipient of. I steadfastly refused to pay one cent for these calls, and after repeated complaints, and withholding that amount from my bills for several months, the charges -- for all phone calls charged to "Long Distance Services" -- were finally removed from my bill. I wholeheartedly recommend that everyone in a similar situation follow the same course of action that I did, ideally calling your state's attorney general as well. Be polite to your RBOC, but persistant and inflexible, and keep asking to speak to higher- level management until you get satisfaction. Unlike other LD carriers, whose practices may be called questionable, "Long Distance Services" is unmistakably a criminal enterprise engaged in deliberate fraud, and we must not allow them to profit from it. Hopefully, they will eventually be prosecuted. Steve Arlow, Yorick Software 39336 Polo Club Dr. #103, Farmington Hills, MI 48335 http://www.msen.com/~yorick ------------------------------ From: walkerrb@www.hendrix.edu (Babu Mengelepouti) Date: Thu, 2 May 96 04:00:18 CDT Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? > 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.) This situation has existed for quite some time with AT&T, depending on the phone number you're calling from. If you're calling from a business or residence phone, you can *usually* third-party bill a number without verification. This is in part why you can't third-party bill calls to numbers in Canada anymore. Seems as though the naughty phreaks figured out that you could bill *disconnected* numbers in Canada, and there was no "back-bill" agreement between Stentor and AT&T (this later changed, but because, assumedly, of the lack of a "no-3rd-party" database the billing agreement was terminated). You should know that if you third-party bill a number without authorization, and the number is in the US: - It's a federal crime (minor technicality) - The party you bill will probably call AT&T and contest the charge, and - You'll get back-billed. As the holder of a business or residence line *you* are responsible for the calls placed from your line, regardless of who placed them. This includes unverified third-party and credit card calls. AT&T also adds an extra charge to calls they back-bill. See the Winter 1996 issue of 2600 Magazine for more information on AT&T procedures; there's a quite good article on AT&T's "RAMP" customer service system and many of their standard customer service procedures. Quite enlightening. Incidentally ... what if you were to do this from a cellphone? An interesting loophole exists where in areas that SS7 isn't linked to the cell switch. One can call a Sprint operator, have the Sprint operator bill a call to anywhere in the *world* to the "number you're calling from," and the *cell carrier* gets the bill -- because Sprint gets the number of the trunk you're calling from rather than your mobile number. Even more murky if you were to third-party bill a number using Sprint or another carrier from your cellphone -- Sprint, like AT&T, often doesn't verify acceptance of third-party billed calls. Of course, all of this is patently illegal and there's no way of knowing whether you'll get away with it or not without first trying it (minor technicality), which could result in an unpleasant surprise. You also still will be billed for airtime on those calls -- even though you might manage to get around long distance. I haven't tried this -- a naughty phreak suggested I try it, and I politely declined. I'm calling from Saudi Arabia. walkerrb@www.hendrix.edu ------------------------------ From: miked@megalink.net (Michael Newton) Subject: Old Contel PC F.E.P. For Switch? Date: Thu, 03 May 1996 12:01:59 GMT Organization: Megalink Internet I have a front end processor that we aquired with GTE exchanges that is based on a Wyse 80286 chassis to be used with a DMS-10 ... any information on operation or ideas on sources of docs would be a help! Thanks, Mike Newton miked@oxford.megalink.net ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #210 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu May 2 20:46:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id UAA23958; Thu, 2 May 1996 20:46:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 20:46:06 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605030046.UAA23958@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #211 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 May 96 20:46:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 211 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson UCLA Short Course on Multimedia Compression (Bill Goodin) CelluComm 96 Wireless Data Conference (Tyler Proctor) Re: Adult Entertainment Lines (Peter Bell) Re: Adult Entertainment Lines (Linc Madison) Re: Adult Entertainment Lines (John R. Levine) Re: Suing AT&T/Nynex For Credit Card Charges (Roy A. McCrory) Re: MFS Purchases UUNET (Craig Nordin) Re: MFS Purchases UUNET (John R. Levine) Re: MFS Purchases UUNET (Ron Mackey) Cellular Phone For Use in Israel (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Nynex Announcement on AT&T Calling Card Changes (turner7@pacsibm.org) Re: AT&T Worldnet Service (geneb@ma.ultranet.com) Re: AT&T WorldNet Service (Fred Whitebook) Re: AT&T Worldnet Service (Roger Conlin) Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop (Kyle Cordes) Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop (Robert Bulmash) 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: BGoodin@UNEX.UCLA.EDU (Goodin, Bill) Organization: UCLA Extension Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 09:31:52 -0700 Subject: UCLA Short Course on Multimedia Compression On August 6-9, 1996, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Multimedia Compression: Principles, Applications, and Standards", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Jerry D. Gibson, PhD, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, Texas A&M University; Richard L. Baker, PhD, Chief Scientist, PictureTel Corp; Toby Berger, PhD, Professor, School of Electrical Engineering, Cornell University; and Tom Lookabaugh, PhD, Vice President, Research and Business Development, DiviCom. The efficient digital representation or compression of data, speech, music, facsimile, still images, and video for storage and transmission plays a dominant role in current and developing communications systems, computer networks, PCs/workstations, video-on-demand, and entertainment. Standards have been and continue to be developed for this host of multimedia applications that will serve as the traffic on the information superhighway. This course explains the fundamental principles and algorithms underlying these standards and describes in detail current and evolving multimedia compression standards. Audio tapes, slides, videotapes, and equipment demonstrations complement the lectures. The course should help professionals to understand existing standards and products, evaluate future standards, and incorporate these compression methods into their own applications. Topics include: entropy and lossless coding, quantization, predictive coding, speech coding standards, frequency domain coding, audio coding, vision, perception and image representation, standards and applications in video compression, grey-scale image compression, videoconferencing, desktop videoconferencing and collaboration. The course fee is $1395, which includes extensive course materials. These notes are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu ------------------------------ From: Tyler Proctor <75260.710@CompuServe.COM> Subject: CelluComm 96 Wireless Data Conference Date: 2 May 1996 13:18:43 GMT Organization: Zsigo Wireless CELLUCOMM 96 WIRELESS DATA CONFERENCE East Lansing, MI -- April 24, 1996 -- CelluComm 96 Wireless Data Conference and Exposition will be held May 20, 21 and 22 at the Regal Riverfront Hotel in St. Louis, MO. CelluComm '96 is devoted to the wireless data industry and is tightly focused on four "early adopter" vertical markets. Public Safety, Transportation (fleet management), Utilities and Petroleum will be spotlighted by featured speakers, exhibitors and a newly revised educational agenda. Divided into two conferences, CorporateTrack and IndustryTrack, the conference is designed to meet the needs of a wide spectrum of attendees. IndustryTrack has been developed for cellular and PCS carriers and manufacturers involved in data. It focuses on the latest issues facing the industry and exposes new technologies and developing market information. The sessions have a unique format, allowing for well over an hour's worth of Q&A between panelists and audience members. These discussions reveal important facets relating to deployment, sales, and management of the cellular data business. CorporateTrack has been developed primarily for corporate IS managers and executive management seeking to implement wireless data solutions. It is a tutorial track, designed to allow attendees to interact in a fairly small classroom environment, freely asking questions and discussing technology options for thier business. It has the advantage of being incorporated into a much larger conference, so CorporateTrack attendees can first learn about the issues surrounding data over cellular, then see solutions demonstrated by experts on the exhibit floor. CelluComm '96 will tackle leading edge issues such as Data Over Digital Cellular Networks (TDMA, GSM, CDMA, and IS-661 (Omnipoint), Cellular WANs and LANs, Wireless Internet Access and PCS-1900. There will also be nearly two dozen featured speakers sharing thier personal experiences in the industry. CelluComm '96 is much more than just a training class! This years exhibition floor is bigger than ever with over 40 leading technology companies displaying the latest in wireless technology. Floor hours have been expanded to allow ample time for attendees to discuss thier specific needs with the exhibitors. Rounding out the conference are vendor sponsored breakfasts and luncheons as well as private vendor presentations. For information on registering for CelluComm '96, call 800-594-5102 or e-mail zsigo@netcom.com. Based in East Lansing, MI, Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants is the leader in technical and marketing training for the wireless data industry. CelluComm is the only national conference devoted exclusively to cellular data. CONTACT: Zsigo Wireless Data Consultants, Inc. Konstantin Zsigo 800-594-5102 or 517-337-3995 zsigo@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 22:10:06 -0400 From: Peter Bell Subject: Re: Adult Entertainment Lines Organization: Yale University I found the discussion of why the international long distance sex lines are profitable *very* enlightening. I do wonder, though, why you singled out gay sex lines as the offshore specialty. Are most of them oriented to gay men, or are there also plenty of them catering to the majority of men? I suppose I'd know the answer if I read the phonesex ads in the back of our local weekly more carefully Peter bell@minerva.cis.yale.edu ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Adult Entertainment Lines Date: Wed, 01 May 1996 22:41:24 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , PAT wrote: > I guess the USA carriers say turn about is fair play; > if the telecom in Guyana is going to hustle the gay guys here in > the States, then they'll work on superstitious old women in Europe. PAT, in fairness, you should not characterize these sex lines as a gay phenomenon. Sure, there are a lot of them that are aimed at gay men, but also quite a few aimed at straight men, bisexual men, transvestite men, omnisexual men, pansexual men ... For example: "Sexy Explicit Adult Erotic Images! WARNING! WARNING! Highly explicit sexual entertainment! Over 100,000 adult GIF, Shareware, Windows/DOS files -- updated daily! FREE unlimited downloads! No subscription required! And now ... LIVE VIDEO GIRLS! Use your modem to dial 011-373-837-xxxx MCI callers, dial 10288-011-373-837-xxxx International Long Distance Rates Apply" That is from that hot-and-steamy sex publication {Microtimes}. I crossed out the last four digits just to spoil everyone's fun. ;-P Didn't the FCC or FTC try to rule against doing this sort of carrier kickback with the U.S. carrier of an outbound call, though? By the way, 373 is the country code for Moldova, formerly known as Moldavia. It's a former-Soviet republic on the Black Sea on the southwest side of Ukraine. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You and Peter Bell both raise the same point about gay people and their role in this. While it is quite true that all sexual lifestyles are to be found in the phone sex industry, and all contribute to the profits of the people who run it, I believe you will find that gay people are the most profitable part of it; so profitable that they provide a disproportionate amount of the profit relative to their numbers in the population as a whole. Phone sex appeals to people who for whatever reason are not free to act out their fantasies or desires as often as they wish. If they are heterosexual men, perhaps they are married and their wife keeps them on a very short leash. Perhaps they are very well known and trusted leaders in their community and the risk of exposure they would face if they used the services of a prostitute is, in their estimation, to great to deal with. Maybe they are school teachers, ministers, rabbis, or other professionals who are expected to 'behave themselves'. If their public found out they were 'messing around' it would be their ruination. "People do tend to get very upset you know, when they discover their gods are actually human beings much like themselves." (The last sentence in the above paragraph is attributed to Henry Ward Beecher from his sermon at Plymouth Church on the Sunday in 1862 following the report in the {New York Herald-Tribune} of his 'affair' of many years with Elizabeth Tilton, wife of the Senator and Vice Presidential candidate.) Now with heterosexual people, they are entirely free to be as boorish and crude as they like; they can live dangerously and have extremely active sexual lives; all that will happen at worst is as described above: their wife will divorce them and others might ridicule them. Those who want to be discrete are; those who are too dumb to be discrete or don't care are not. But with gay people on the other hand, the stakes are a little bit higher in some places. In 24 states of the United States, gay sexual activity is still illegal on its face. It is not a question of whether it is in private with a consenting person or out in public where they scare the horses as Oscar Wilde put it. You just don't do it, period, and you could go to jail or be murdered if you get found out. Older gay guys can tell you how it used to be through the 1950-60 era and into the middle 1970's. Even if you live in a big city with a 'tolerant' atmosphere, you still cannot 'be that way' or make others much aware of it if you are in certain professions or situations. Again, refer to the example above of teachers, religious leaders, community leaders, policemen, firemen, etc. Most places just won't deal with it, or they give the gay people a very hard time with it. The phone sex lines don't advertise with the idea in mind of getting the openly gay guys in San Fransisco or Chicago as customers. It would be a waste of their time and their advertising dollar. They go after the ones who of (their actual or perceived) neccessity must stay 'in the closet'; they go after lonely and very isolated gay guys all across rural and small town America -- zillions of them. A small per- centage of gay people live in the big 'tolerant' cities and go bar hopping and bed hopping every Saturday night. Most are in small towns where they're not school teachers; they're not ministers or priests; they're not in any position of trust in their community. Maybe all they are is a grocery stock person at the Safeway, a clerk in an office or a janitor at the bus station. They still wouldn't dare openly talk about their feelings in the town they live in, and they dream about the day when they will have the money to go visit San Fransisco, Chicago or New York. The most exciting place they've ever been is the gay bar in a somewhat larger town a hundred miles away. Those are your phone sex customers. Where the heterosexual community is concerned, the phone sex lines cater to the 'respectable' ones. They are not interested in the ones who go out to those bars and pick up women all the time either. What need would those people have for phone sex? The phone sex people don't make money off the young, very open and tolerant people of either sexual orientation who do it in the streets and scare the horses. Their customer base comes from people who find it prudent to keep their thoughts to themselves. Whether that is a 'respectable' older heterosexual man living a lie he has been in for so long he cannot now escape as a dignified and trusted member of the community or any number of gays all across America begs the question. That is the customer base, other than a few curiosity seekers from time to time who wander into one of those services for thrills. Although there are lots of heterosexual guys in that boat together, there is a considerably larger number of gays in that boat, for reasons described above. The phone sex industry is very dependent on having a lot of people around who feel sex is something shameful, dirty and nasty; something to be kept secret. That's the only way it can survive. The telephone offers a nice anonymous way to validate your fantasies by talking about them with others who 'understand your feelings.' If you want to check out the ratio of gay users of those systems to heterosexual users, why not ask Compuserve or America On Line about where *their money* comes from. CB Simulator has paid the bills at CIS for many years now; you think people actually call there to read the Groliers Encyclopedia on online or check the weather forecast or make airline reservations? They pile into CB by the thousands on weekend nights and as the night goes on and the crowds thin out, some channels will have two, three, five or ten users still on. Then tune channel 33 on the 'B' or 'C' machines; the two 'gay lifestyles' channels. Four in the morning, still 150-200 gay guys on that one channel alone, even as other channels are deserted. CB Simulator is the most profitable part of Compuserve by far, and the 'gay lifestyles' part of it is extremely profitable. And when on, look at the 'node listing', or the point of telephone connection to Compuserve. Small town America written all over it. AOL is the same way, if you care to check out the crowds in that part of the chat system long after most other users have logged out for the night. Beautiful and liberated people don't need phone sex or computer hot chat. Unfortunatly most people are not beautiul, and very few are liberated. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 96 11:26 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Adult Entertainment Lines Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > Many of those places have a very out of balance account with the > American telcos regards the amounts each owe the other for traffic > handled. Many very small foreign countries are chronically in debt > to the USA carriers ... Perhaps I'm misinformed, but my understanding is that in the international settlements process, there's a payment between the carriers regardless of which way the traffic travels, which seems to be related somehow to the relative prices charged in the two countries. Since the U.S. rates are invariably lower than in third world countries, the payments are always from the U.S. to the other country. The only place I know of with a balance problem is Cuba, due to the embargo. That's why you can't call Cuba collect, there's no way to settle the account. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Even phrasing it in the way you do, it still makes lots of sense for traffic to flow from the USA into those countries; it means more money for them from the USA carriers doesn't it? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Roy A. McCrory Subject: Re: Suing AT&T/Nynex For Credit Card Charges Date: 2 May 1996 13:32:52 GMT Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Dumb question. Why can't you get your numbers put on the "no third party/calling card billing" list at AT&T and Nynex? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is a 'no third number billing allowed' list but I do not think there is any such thing as a 'do not issue credi cards to this number or accept them in use later' type of list. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cnordin@vni.net (Craig Nordin) Subject: Re: MFS Purchases UUNET Date: 2 May 1996 08:32:38 -0400 Organization: Virtual Networks Please correct this if it is wrong: MFS is the managing entity of MAE-East; MFS supplies many datalines to many ISPs big and small; MFS has been "cherry picking" the lines in metro areas to make its living -- it does not have full coverage anywhere; UUNet itself doesn't seem very interested in retail dial-up; UUNet supplies many high-speed access ports to other ISPs and especially IP consuming organziations. http://www.vni.net/ cnordin@vni.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 96 11:53 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: MFS Purchases UUNET Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > As part of MFS, UUNET will be the only Internet service provider to > own or control fiber optic networks for local, intercity and > undersea connections in the United States as well as France, Britain > and Germany. I suspect that Sprintlink, InternetMCI, and AT&T Worldlink might contest that claim. > In particular, what about UUNET and its long standing role with the > net for many years. Comments welcome. Unless MFS is a lot dumber than I think they are, they'll leave it alone for the time being. On the other hand, uunet started as a non-profit mail and news switch to connect dial-up uucp users to the Internet. That's still the most visible part of the business to most net users, but I'm sure it's a tiny nit compared to their corporate Internet business. So maybe they'll spin that off. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 11:40 CDT From: rem@dsiinc.com (Ron Mackey) Subject: Re: MFS Purchases UUNET Organization: Distributed Systems International, Inc. In article TELECOM Digest Editor noted: > In an interesting business development late Tuesday, MFS Communications > Company, Inc announced it is buying UUNET Technologies, a major supplier > of Internet service. [snip] > I am wondering what Digest readers think of this, and what differences > they see in the months ahead in the performance of the two companies. > In particular, what about UUNET and its long standing role with the > net for many years. Comments welcome. I think it's a good deal for UUNET, as MFS will be able to provide them with additional infrastructure they could not afford to build on their own. I don't see UUNET changing their role as a dominant internet service provider (ISP). Frankly, I'm more concerned with the smaller ISP's that currently use MFS as their primary Internet connection. If I'm not mistaken, all of the major ISPs in the Chicago area currently use MFS's services, in one form or another. My question is "Now that MFS owns their own major ISP, what is going to happen to all the other independent ISP's currently serviced by MFS?" Best regards, Ron Mackey Distributed Systems International, Inc. rem@dsiinc.com 531 W. Roosevelt Road, Suite 2 708-665-4639 Wheaton, IL 60187-5057 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 96 10:59 EDT From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Cellular Phone For Use in Israel I have cellular service here in New York, but next year I'll be in Israel. By the time I'm done, I'll own my phone, a gift to me for using BANM cellular service for a year. My local dealer will pretty much give me any low-end phone I want. (I have a Motorola flip phone now.) So: which phones will I be able to use once I get to Israel? All of them? None of them? (I realize they may have to be reprogrammed.) I'm not talking about high-end word-wide service, but local service in Israel. Thanks, Joel (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ From: turner7@pacsibm.org (TUrner-7) Subject: Re: Nynex Announcement on AT&T Calling Card Changes Date: 1 May 1996 19:54:12 GMT Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS Very seriously -- am I the only person who misses and prefers the former system where ONE calling card issued by the phone company "fits all" -- local, short long distance, long distance? Where you didn't have to memorize multiple sets of access codes and stand at a pay phone keying them in in the rain? As an individual consumer, not a telco employee/provider/beneficary -- I fail to see how we consumers have benefited from long distance competition. In the mid 1970s, I made lots of long distnace calls,a nd AT&T rates were quite modest back then -- and it wasn't competition that forced them down. Divesture and LD competition added tremendous cost and overhead to the telephone network, eliminating a lot of economies of scale. Much equipment that did multiple purposes in call handling had to be split off to either 100% local or long distance (see Mountain Bell's history for more details.) Now local companies have to print special subset bills for LD carriers, and accomodate a subscriber's choice. Who paid for this transition? The stockholders of AT&T? The new stockholders of the divested local companies? Or the new long distance companies like MCI and Sprint? I suspect it was us customers! I know very large organizations can now negotiate volume discounts, but as a private individual that's meaningless to me. Indeed, my bills go up to cover those discounts. I also know, thanks to "competition", toll rates at pay phones have shot through the roof. Maybe that's want Judge Greene wanted, but as a consumer, it's coming out of my pocket. Rationalize it any way you want, thanks to divesture, I'm paying more and getting less. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A lot of the divestiture of AT&T has been pure politics, nothing more. There were a lot of people in the Justice Deaprtment at that time who disliked AT&T for various reasons, and even Judge Greene did little to hide his own animosity toward the company. Some good things have come out of it, but by and large I think that phone service in America has suffered from it. Some of the things they are doing now are totally outrageous, things AT&T would never have done. PAT] ------------------------------ From: geneb@ma.ultranet.com Subject: Re: AT&T Worldnet Service Date: 2 May 1996 03:02:03 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Reply-To: geneb@ultranet.com In , John Stahl writes: > You will note by my email address, I am a subscriber to AT&T's new > Internet service and can report to you that so far, I'm very happy > with the service they offer. > Here's a bit of what I have observed so far: > One of the questions asked is what type of service you > want. One of the options is for a small monthly fee you get the 5 free > hours of access they tout, after which you pay by the hour similar to > AOL and the others. The other option, for big users of the Internet, > is an unlimited usage account for $19.95/month. Do note, however, that there is NO online means of switching from between the plans. You must call the 800-WORLDNEt number and speak to a rep, who will happily switch your service. Note also that the Worldnet Dialer only tracks elapsed time for the current session; it does not track total time online, so if you want to stay under five hours, you'll have to keep track manually. Also, you must use a minimum of one hour per month on the five hour plan, or they'll deactivate your account. Gene ------------------------------ From: fredw2@ix.netcom.com (Fred Whitebook) Subject: Re: AT&T WorldNet Services Date: 2 May 1996 05:01:49 GMT Organization: Netcom In Joshua Fenton writes: > 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. I noticed your post. I am an Augustana grad (class of 1958) who just changed careers by getting hired as a Tech Support Rep on the AT&T Worldnet Project. I started training on Monday 4-22 and hit the floor on Saturday 5-4 with a group of 90. They have hired about 300-400 in California and have no more room in the telecenter. They are starting a second unit in Colorado. AT&T is mailing out thousands of kits each week. I have heard that 300,000-400,000 kits have been ordered. The registration servers are sometimes overwelmed. I ordered my software on 3-8-96 and have not heard anything yet. I did get a copy of a set we installed in training. A 32 bit upgrade (Netscape 2.01) will be out in a few weeks. Hang in there ... AT&T is spending a lot of money to try to catch up with the unanticipated demand and is sincerely commited to first class free 24 hour, seven day Tech Support. Fred Whitebook ... fredw2@ix.netcom.com installed Worldnet at home as yet, I'm waiting for the 2.01 version as I have on Netcom. ------------------------------ From: conlin@shout.net (Roger Conlin) Subject: Re: AT&T Worldnet Service Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 14:37:25 GMT Organization: Shouting Ground Technologies John Stahl wrote: > You will note by my email address, I am a subscriber to AT&T's new > Internet service and can report to you that so far, I'm very happy > with the service they offer. Both the Internet connection and the AT&T > 800-number dial in help service line has been superb! No, I'm not an > AT&T employee nor do I have any connection what so ever with AT&T; I'm > just a user. [chop] > I have 'surfed' for many happy hours since signing up in February. The > only down time thus far is their scheduled maintenance period, > Thursday mornings from something like 2:00 AM to 7:00 AM when the > service is off. This is in comparison to the local ISP I used to use > who experienced -- especially on weekends when there was no one in the > office -- much down time. AT&T so far seems to always be there, 24 > hours a day, both for call-in help and the ISP service! Glad to hear from somebody using this. I've been waiting forever for the software. Got some little postcard finally saying it was on the way, but it's still not here. I can echo your experience with a local ISP, and was hoping for some better service with Worldnet. Glad to see somebody else try it and find out it actually works, than sign up and find out that AT&T can't handle the business. conlin@shout.net http://www.shout.net/~conlin ------------------------------ From: kcordes@mo.net (Kyle Cordes) Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 13:40:22 GMT Organization: Automation Service > I live in University housing, and we have to use their phone service > for local and long distance. However, this has not stopped AT&T from > calling me at least three times asking me to switch to them. Each time > I explained to them that given the nature of my phone service, it was > not possible to me to make the switch to them, or anyone else. > Yesterday, I received a check for $100 which, if I encash, authorizes > them to switch me to their LD service (with 40% True Reach savings for > the first 6 months). I really have no objection to being switched to > AT&T - their rates seem better than what I get now. Do you think I > should encash the check, and let them try to switch my LD service? > Once they realize that I cannot be switched, maybe they will stop > pestering me by phone? The way I see it, in spite my of telling them > more than once that I cannot be switched, if they send me a check for > $100, they deserve to lose the money. I can be a little to eager to prove points, but if I were you, I would cash it. If/When they realize that no switch can occur (or ever could have occurred), and if/when they contact you about it, offer to send the $100 back as soon as an appropriately high level manager calls to apologize for pestering you. Kyle Kyle Cordes @ Automation Service kcordes@mo.net ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop Date: 1 May 1996 22:07:59 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) > Yesterday, I received a check for $100 which, if I encash, authorizes > them to switch me to their LD service (with 40% True Reach savings for > the first 6 months). I really have no objection to being switched to > AT&T - their rates seem better than what I get now. Do you think I > should encash the check, and let them try to switch my LD service? > Once they realize that I cannot be switched, maybe they will stop > pestering me by phone? The way I see it, in spite my of telling them > more than once that I cannot be switched, if they send me a check for > $100, they deserve to lose the money. > Comments? I have till May 23 to cash the check. Take the money! If the endorsement states that, by cashing the check, you are giving your consent to have your service switched it seems like a legitamite contract. The fact that your consent is not sufficient to switch is something that is not within the four corners of the agreement. Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #211 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu May 2 22:10:22 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA00405; Thu, 2 May 1996 22:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 22:10:22 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605030210.WAA00405@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #212 TELECOM Digest Thu, 2 May 96 22:10:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 212 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson India's General Elections Slow Telecom Reform (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Manitoba Telephone is Going Public (Henry Wysmulek) Re: Telephone Headset to SoundBlaster Interface Wanted (Ross Oliver) Re: Telephone Headset to SoundBlaster Interface Wanted (Andy Smith) Change to Number Plan in New Zealand for Cellphones (Martin D. Kealey) Northern Electric Antique Phone Advice Wanted (George Richards) Re: Non-LEC Payphones (Stanley Cline) Telemanagement Vendor Information (Tony Dal Santo) Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? (Don L. Jackson) Re: Tricked Into Switching (Billy Harper) Last Laugh! But Not Funny! Sponsorship Ideas (Cameron Young) 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: India's General Elections Slow Telecom Reform Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 16:35:40 PDT From: rishab@dxm.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Reply-To: rishab@dxm.org The Indian Techonomist: bulletin, May 2, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved India's general elections slow telecom reform May 2, 1996: Since last Saturday when the world's biggest democracy went to the polls, telecom companies hoping to venture into the potentially vast Indian market have been waiting. As much of the country's 590 million electorate started voting in general elections - in a multi-stage process of which results will start arriving only after the 7th - seven companies who have won ten of the twenty licences for basic telephony in regions across the country watched as the government dithered over signing licence agreements. Having received letters of intent (LoIs) from the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) as long as five months ago, the licensees-in-waiting - whose foreign partners include Israel's Bezeq, Hughes, NYNEX, Bell Canada, Japan's NTT and Swiss PTT - have been unable to act upon their licences as uncertainty remains over the actual signing. The government blames procedural delays. Both the licence agreement and the interconnect agreement, which governs access between the competing networks of private companies and the DoT, are being vetted by the Law Ministry. The Law Ministry is reputed to work slowly, but it also provides a convenient excuse for government departments that wish to stall for any reason. Even if legal clearance is received soon, the agreements are not likely to be signed before the middle of this month - by which time a new government will be in the process of forming. Luckily, this is not the problem being faced by the 14 licensees for cellular services (two each competing in 18 regions) - they face more bureaucratic delays. Although their licence terms stipulate stiff penalties if they do not start providing service within a year of receiving their licence, they have been unable to get frequency clearance from the DoT's wireless advisor. This is partly because of the complexity of assigning so many frequencies; partly because the DoT lacks the efficient machinery to plan for and allocate large numbers of frequencies, having had till now very few users of the airwaves; and partly because the biggest user, the military, is reluctant to give up some of its frequencies to civilian use. The DoT has already said that the penalty clause will be waived if there are "genuine" problems in starting service; presumably delays in frequency allocation by the DoT itself will be seen as such. Yet while the problems faced by cellular providers are truly procedural, even technical, those worrying would- be basic telephony operators right now are in many senses political. Unlike cellular licences, where the total fees to be paid over the ten-year licence period are a little over $6 billion, basic telephony involves big money. As much as $35 billion was at stake in the first round of bidding last August. There were strange bidding patterns: one company, HFCL- Bezeq-Shinawatra walked away with a theoretical nine licences for $27 billion (to be paid over the 15 year period); as HFCL annual revenues were closer to $27 million there appeared to be something fishy. Another consortium Reliance-NYNEX (the Indian partner had revenues above $2 billion) bid for every circle, winning the poorer regions for what the DoT thought was a pittance. The Communications Minister, Sukh Ram, went abroad for his health. He returned and announced caps on the number of licences awarded to a single firm, as well as reserve prices on bids across all regions. An entire sitting of Parliament was wasted as Opposition parties charged the Minister with favouring HFCL, which happens to come from his home state of Himachal Pradesh. By the next sitting, this year, the Supreme Court had dismissed an assorted collection of legal challenges against the telecom privatisation process and the sudden changes in bidding norms, and no further mention was made of telecom. But there is a fair chance that the next government will not be formed by the currently ruling Congress Party; it may be a left-of-center coalition with or without the Congress, or quite possibly one based around the right-wing nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Both left and right wing parties promise to bring up the controversial basic telephony bidding process if they come into power. This will affect not only the seven licensees-to-be but also the fate of the remaining eight circles for which bids have been rejected as being too low, as well as two others involved in a dispute. The left-wing approach will be to question the entire bidding process, particularly the notional loss of $18 billion thanks to the cap, which allowed HFCL to back out of many circles - although nobody expected it to afford that much anyway. The left - consisting of a loose coalition of parties from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) which rules the state of West Bengal to the Janata Dal (which formed a short-lived government in 1989) - is also likely to grumble about selling licences cheap. Purportedly to benefit the poor parts of the country, this approach which was adopted by the present government in its sudden decision to apply reserve prices is actually greed, pure and simple. Telecom reforms were to bring in much needed private and foreign investment to lift the telephone density from a miserable eight per 1,000 to at least 30. In chasing high licence fees instead, all that has happened is that while the wealthy regions will all receive investment, six of the poorest, all of which received bids in the first round (deemed too low) may well go without. The BJP has always been against too much government interference and, drawing much of its support from the trader and small business community, has come out against bureaucracy. On these grounds, it will not oppose telecom reforms for ideological reasons; its opposition may relate to the actual implementation. It will probably want to do something about the caps and multiple rounds - its spokesperson recently said that the new government should "hold a proper inquiry" into the bidding process, which was "marked by [a] lack of transparency." It is unclear what purpose this could serve, as the only practical steps are either to accept the current process and quickly hold another round - open to all comers and without reserve prices - for the remaining circles; or to scrap the second and third rounds altogether and issue letters of intent based upon the first one. The main loser this way would be HFCL, who would then have to lose their earnest money on the bids on which they decide to renege. This could even benefit large bidders such as Birla-AT&T and BPL- US West, who could originally have won a number of licences once HFCL was out of the picture, but with the caps and multiple rounds have ended up with nothing (though they have won cellular licences). However this will not please second-round winners such as Reliance- NYNEX, RPG-NTT-Itochu and Tata-Bell Canada. Telecom is not yet, unfortunately a concern in the elections. This is odd. Unlike the wider economic reforms, which are yet to reach the stage of trickling down to the villages, phones are extremely important to keep in touch with agricultural markets in the cities, and avoid high margin payments to intermediaries. For all his alleged corruption, the Communications Minister Sukh Ram is widely popular in his home state - he has made it a point to have payphones installed in every village. Perhaps five years later - if the next government lasts its full term - political parties will realise that contrary to conventional wisdom, it is the rural, often poor villagers who stand to gain the most from communications and information technology. 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 Opinion polls and coverage of the Indian general elections are available on at least six web sites. The Times of India - http://www.cyberindia.com/timesofindia The Indian Express - http://express.indiaworld.com 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 17:45:08 CDT From: Henry Wysmulek Subject: Manitoba Telephone Goes Public *********************HOT OFF THE PRESS*************************** Manitoba Telephone System, a government owned crown corporation is to be converted to a publicly traded telco. **********************HOT OFF THE PRESS************************** H. WYSMULEK xhp195@freenet.mb.ca BLUE SKY FREENET [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The above is all I have on this at the present time. I guess it was announced in the news on Thursday afternoon. Perhaps there will be further reports on Friday or over the weekend. Send along any news please. PAT] ------------------------------ From: reo@netcom.com (Ross Oliver) Subject: Re: Telephone Headset to SoundBlaster Interface Wanted Organization: The Air Affair: http://www.airaffair.com/ Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 21:03:17 GMT Foster Schucker (foster@voicenet.com) wrote: > I'm looking for an interface that will allow me to connect a telephone > headset to a Soundblaster (tm) card. I'd like to be able to play sounds > on the ear phone and use the microphone. I've tried some telephone > supply places and have drawn a blank. You probably will have a hard time adapting an actual telephone headset (Plantronics, etc) to a sound card. But you can get lightweight headphones with a boom mike designed for video production that should work. Check retail electronics outlets like Circuit City. Ross Oliver reo@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: aherncorp@aol.com (AhernCorp) Subject: Re: Telephone Headset to SoundBlaster Interface Wanted Date: 1 May 1996 17:05:35 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: aherncorp@aol.com (AhernCorp) Ahern Communications now offers the Plantronics CAT-132, a computer headset designed to work with sound cards (like the SoundBlaster). You can see information, pictures and prices of the new Plantronics CAT product at: http://members.aol.com/AhernCorp/plantronics/cat.html Andy Smith, Director of Marketing Ahern Communications Corporation http://members.aol.com/AhernCorp/ 800-451-5067/Fax 617-328-9070 Business Communications Experts ------------------------------ Subject: Change to number plan in New Zealand for Cellphones Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 08:26:48 +1200 From: martin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Martin D Kealey) Telecom New Zealand has recently announced that new cellphone connections will shortly have seven rather than the current six digits. With a few exceptions, all numbers here have been eight digits after the country code (64), so this is significant because it breaks this. Numbers for New Zealand are of the form: +64-A-XXXXXXX (all landline numbers) +64-2N-XXXXXX +64-2N-2XXXXXX (mobile numbers: cellphones, pagers, etc) In more detail: +64-21-XXXXXX Bellsouth cellphone +64-24099-XXX Scott Base (Antarctica) +64-25-XXXXXX Telecom cellphone +64-25-2XXXXXX new Telecom cellphone +64-26-1XXXXX Telecom pager +64-26-2XXXXXX Telecom pager +64-3-XXXXXXX all of South Island + Chatham & Stewart Islands +64-4-XXXXXXX Wellington (capital city) region +64-6-XXXXXXX south of North Island Island +64-7-XXXXXXX middle of North Island +64-83-XXXXXX mailbox & conferencing facilities +64-9-XXXXXXX north of North Island + Great Barrier Island Some numbers (like 0800-xxxxxx) are only dialable from within the NZ, so I haven't included them above. If anyone is interested, I also have a breakdown to finer detail; would you like them for the archives? Martin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, a file in more detail would be nice for the Archives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: George Richards Subject: Northern Electric Antique Phone Information Wanted Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 17:57:24 -0300 A coworker recently showed up with a N50AL Northern Electric Co. phone. Can anyone tell me the vintage of this phone. It's a candlestick type with a separate earphone, patent dates on the receiver module are from 1925-1935. It's currently bare brass; was it produced this way or has someone stripped off the black paint? Any help or pointers would be appreciated. George Richards ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Non-LEC Payphones Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 23:51:56 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services In comp.dcom.telecom, jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) wrote: > Cocoa, Florida exchange. According to BellSouth, a call from > Melbourne to Cocoa is a local call. > I put my 25 cents in, dialed 427- and got a message saying "please > dial 1 plus the area code for this long distance call." I dialed "0" > (knowing I would get a BellSouth operator), verified Cocoa was in the Believe it or not, I had this happen today. My cellphone is in the shop (they are running tests on it -- again) and I stopped by a payphone to check my voicemail. I dialed the number (304-xxxx) and I was told to dial the area code. I dialed that and I got a reorder tone. (The call was between NPAs -- 423 and 706 -- but the call is local, and we DO NOT DIAL AREA CODES to call within the area. At least in non-ALLTEL CO's, we don't.) This phone belonged to Peoples Telephone of Miami. I called the 211 number and reported it. In other cities (especially Atlanta) I have found phones that block all PIC codes except AT&T's and MCI's; I have found phones that fail to recognize *67 or 950 numbers; I have found phones that time-out after some preset interval if no one answers; I have found phones that disable the DTMF keypad on 0+ calls. The major problem with COCOTs seems to be poor upkeep of the routing tables in the phones. I have repeatedly run into payphones that don't allow calls to new NPAs (such as 770, 423, etc.), that don't allow calls to new prefixes (read: prefixes established in *1992*, etc.), that don't allow any calls to cellular phone prefixes, and don't allow calls to areas served by independent telcos that are otherwise local. The major payphone vendors (Intellicall of Texas, and Elcotel of Sarasota, FL) have fixes for the NPA problems; it's up to the COCOT vendor to fix the others. > Here's my question. Just because BellSouth has decided Melbourne to > Cocoa is a local call, are non-BellSouth pay phones obliged to place > this call for as a local call? Isn't this company simply leasing > BellSouth phone lines for their pay phones? Would complaining to the Yes. The local calling area on the payphone should match that of the LEC. Note that in Georgia, countywide calling (where 1+ is required) may not be available from any payphone (LEC or non) because of the complexity of countywide implementation (which depends on tax zones, etc.) > company or the Common Carrier Bureau of the FCC help? You should complain to the Florida PSC/PUC and the payphone company. Complaining to the LEC will do no good, as they disclaim responsibility for what COCOTs do, and the FCC can't help since the call was not an interstate one. (In my case, where the local calling area spans state lines, they may be able to.) Stanley Cline, d/b/a Catoosa Computing Serv., Chatta., TN mailto:scline@usit.net -- http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CIS 74212,44 -- MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: tony@mtu.edu (Tony Dal Santo) Subject: Telemanagement Vendor Information Wanted Date: 2 May 1996 19:10:42 -0400 Organization: Michigan Technological University We are looking at (among others) Axis, Compco, and Telco Research as our telemanagement software vendor. I would be very grateful to get any feedback on these vendors and their products. Things like: Which product and version do you use? What is your server platform? What is your client platform? What modules do you use? How well does it integrate with your financial system? How satisfied are you? How has the vendor treated you? The functions we are looking to implement are call accounting, work orders, student resale, cable plant management, help desk, and storing various host and network info. Thanks, Tony Dal Santo ------------------------------ From: djackson@xroads.com (Don L. Jackson) Subject: Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 16:42:12 GMT Reply-To: djackson@xroads.com On Mon, 29 Apr 1996 06:02:06 CDT, you wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No information is provided to B since > it is only being used as an overflow/alternate for A, and A does not > subscribe to the service. The 'decision' in the software as to which > custom calling features to extend to a subscriber with an incoming > call are made before any 'decision' is made how to dispose of the > call if the specifically called line is unavailable for whatever ...stuff omitted... > Ditto on a call-forwarding situation. The central office 'finds out > about' your request to forward the calls after it has already decided > what privileges or services are to be provided you on your incoming > call. Naturally the final end stopping point still has to have a > Caller-ID box. When you want to turn on call screening or turn on > call forwarding, you do have to do it from the lead number in your > group however, the one which telco always tries first to deliver > your calls to before deciding on other ways to handle them, because > if it can drop a call on that line, it will do so. > Cellular phones usually do not send or receive caller-id, regardless > of what features you have on your landline phones. PAT] I have caller ID on line A and not on line B. When line B is call-forwarded to line A, it shows the CID information. I also have "custom/distinctive ringing" with two other numbers going to line A and they also show the CID info. Another line C at a different location which does not have CID, when forwarded to my line A also shows CID info. We have USWest Communications here in the metro Phoenix area. Regards, Don L. Jackson / Gilbert, AZ djackson@xroads.com ------------------------------ From: Billy Harper Subject: Re: Tricked Into Switching Date: 02 May 1996 13:58:56 GMT Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA To those who may not have it handy: FCC Enforcement Division F. Room 6202 Washington, D.C. 20554 Be advised, I filed an informal (formal costs $$) complaint about being slammed 4/21/95, and got my first response 3/7/96. I have since received responses from all involved parties, and a check from my LEC (GTE) as reimbursement for switchover fees (which I did NOT request -- I do not feel GTE was responsible for any of the problems I experienced.) As the 'slammee', I still am not satisfied with the way the FCC dealt with the 'slammer' (NTC -- National telephone and Communications, INC [a registered trademark goes here]). I would suggest all slammed parties always file a written complaint with the FCC and the state/local PUC. Don't change/hide any names -- there are no 'innocents'. BTW, Pat, I'd be glad to snail-mail you the historical (hysterical?) file of the entire proceeding. I'd retype/post it, but my employer expects me to get a little work done. Billy bharper@spd.dsccc.com Requirements Engineer Competitive Long Distance Carriers DSC Communications Corporation ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 May 96 13:06:29 -0700 From: Cameron Young Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd. Subject: Last Laugh! But Not Funny! Sponsorship Ideas Hi Pat, How about getting sponsors through advertising. I realized that we're all missing an obvious use for this newsgroup - building brand image. You see, you are encumbered by this mindset that you have a journalistic obligation to be unbiased. Rather, consider yourself a new type of "E-programming manager" or "editorial consultant". Exchange your unbiased perspective for US currency. (You know, just like PC Magazine, BCR, CNN, etc.) Here's a hypothetical rate schedule for your IXC market strategy: 1) Post one wildly enthusiastic endorsement of a specific IXC - $250. 2) Post a series of 10 followup endorsements confirming the initial posting - $1000. 3) Post one scathing critique of an obvious error of incompetence of an IXC competitor - $500 4) Post one scathing critique of deceptive / unethical practices of an IXC competitor - $1000 5) Rates to withhold publishing corresponding posts which favour a competitor are double the above. Now, postings can be like TV commercials. Endorsements can be done by "talent", not real people. Since the "posting talent" base is not well developed you'll need to recruit it through promotions. For example, you could sponsor a contest "BULLETIN: *** $10000 *** to the best, most believable, most compelling, most heart-warming post in favour of brand X Long Distance Carrier !!!" Of course, never post this in YOUR newsgroup. You need to have a separate group just for the "talent". OK ... my imagination has taken me far enough. You must admit it is scary though, since this is the way other mediums have gone. [TELECOM Digest Advertising Manager's Note: In 1953, {Reader's Digest} ran an opinion poll for their subscribers on the question of adver- tising. Up until that point, {Reader's Digest} had been totally free of any commercials at all. They told their readers times were getting tough and the choice as they saw it was to either start including advertising or to raise the price of the magazine which was then fifteen cents per issue to twenty-five cents per issue, published monthly then as now. At the time, DeWitt Wallace and his wife Lila Acheson-Wallace were still alive and at the helm of the magazine they began on the kitchen table in their Greenwich Village apartment in 1922. They asked the readers what to do, and the readers overwhelming voted in the poll to continue without any advertising. They said they would rather have to pay twenty-five cents for each issue in order to continue having the unbiased and truthful reports which appeared in each issue. Mr. Wallace finally decided that 'rather than become beholden to commercial interests' the {Digest} would raise its price to subscribers instead. He noted that {Time Magazine} was getting twenty-five cents per copy and that seemed to him to be a fair price; The {New York Times} was four cents per issue weekdays and twenty-five cents on Sunday, but they 'are always filled with all those ads; all the stores having sales ...' and he did not want his magazine to look like that. Perhaps eight or ten years later later, circa 1963 {Readers Digest} raised their price again and started including advertising anyway, although Mrs. Wallace assured everyone that 'we do not intend to run any beer or cigarette advertising; only nice products we personally can vouch for and approve of.' Well, look at it now, 33 years after that. When I first suggested two years ago a voluntary donation in the suggested amount of twenty dollars per reader/year would sustain me pretty well, there was a huge amount of hate mail from the Usenet side of things (comp.dcom.telecom) and this one fellow who went to many different newsgroups saying that if they did not stop me, 'before long he is going to close off the archives and charge people money to use those also ...' Well I have not closed them off, however if you like you can pay me for them ... remember the CD ROM I mentioned back at the start of this year? It's out in the stores now. Go to your favorite computer store and look in the CD ROM section for it. It's title is very simply TELECOM, with a sort of an interesting cover design. The retail price is about $39 and I had nothing to do with that. All I get are some royalties on it. It is the complete archives as they were on December 31, 1995, through the end of Volume 15, with all the other files and stuff as well. Please look for it in your stores and please buy one if you have a way to use CD's in your computer. I guess I am sort of proud of it. The producers plan to have an update in perhaps a year if the original sales warrant it. After you have looked it over, let me know what you think. The Telecom Archives remains available and free for use by anyone who wants to do so at anonymous ftp: lcs.mit.edu, cd telecom-archives. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #212 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri May 3 11:59:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA18228; Fri, 3 May 1996 11:59:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 11:59:11 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605031559.LAA18228@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #213 TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 May 96 11:59:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 213 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Phone Records for OK City Bombing Suspect (Tad Cook) US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees (Tad Cook) Call for Professorship in Telecommunication (Pekka Neittaanmaki) Bell Atlantic Announces Mandatory 10 Digit Local Dialing (Roger Fajman) Last Laugh! "Important News for Frontier Customers" (Tim Tyler) 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: Phone Records for OK City Bombing Suspect Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:07:28 PDT Phone record shows calls to suppliers of bomb parts DALLAS (AP) -- A telephone card found in the home of Oklahoma City bombing suspect Terry Nichols was reportedly used to make more than two dozen calls to suppliers of bomb components in the months leading up to the attack. One of the calls was to the Ryder store in Junction City, Kan., that rented the truck used in the blast, The Dallas Morning News and CBS reported Thursday. The suspects used the prepaid card in the mistaken belief that it would prevent their calls from being traced, authorities said. But a log of every single call was obtained by the government, and this record suggests Nichols' involvement in the bombing may have been more extensive than first thought. Nichols' lawyer has said his client split with fellow suspect Timothy McVeigh in February 1995, but government sources told the News that the phone records will be used in court to show that the suspects stayed in close touch in the days before the explosion. "It's not a crime for Terry Nichols to call Tim McVeigh," McVeigh's lawyer Stephen Jones told CBS. "It's only a crime if it was part of a conspiracy. You don't see that by just looking at the credit cards." Terry Nichols' lawyer and prosecutors declined to comment. Twenty-two of the calls were made during three days in September 1994, to companies including racing fuel suppliers, chemical distributors and one of the nation's largest explosives manufacturers. That wave of calls came just days before Nichols and McVeigh allegedly began buying tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, the component used in the April 19, 1995, bombing that killed 168 people. Records show the calls to companies whose products can be used in bombs continued in October 1994 from Kingman, Ariz., about the same time that the suspects allegedly drove there to hide stolen explosives, the newspaper said. Three of the Arizona calls were made from the home of Michael Fortier, whom McVeigh often visited. Fortier, a former Army buddy of McVeigh's, has pleaded guilty to knowing about the bomb plot and doing nothing to stop it. He plans to testify for the government. The phone records show that as McVeigh traveled around the country, several calls were made to Nichols' home, right up until the day before the bombing, according to the news reports. Although Nichols said McVeigh called him from Oklahoma City on Easter Sunday in 1995, the logs show he called from just down the street, CBS reported. Investigators now believe McVeigh and Nichols were together and drove to Oklahoma in two vehicles to drop a getaway car, the network said. Two of the calls were made on April 14, 1995, from the Junction City, Kansas bus station: one to Nichols' home and one less than a minute later to a Ryder agency in Junction City that rented the truck used in the blast. The card, which cost $480, was mailed in November 1993 to the Michigan farm owned by Nichols' brother, James. McVeigh and Terry Nichols were both staying there at the time, the News reported. The bombing indictment alleges both defendants used the card "as a means of concealing their true identities and as a means of preventing calls from being traced." Joel Soto, a marketing representative for a company formerly known as WCT Communications, which issued the card, said FBI agents came to the company's Santa Barbara, Calif., headquarters within days of the bombing. He said they obtained toll records for the 684 calls made on the card. WCT's records show that the card was issued through The Spotlight, a far-right political publication in which McVeigh had once advertised to sell replicas of rocket-launchers, in the phony name Daryl Bridges. ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 02:11:38 PDT US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees By Sherri Buri, The Register-Guard, Eugene, Ore. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 3--Every workday morning, Curt Nyquist leaves Eugene at 3:15 to reach the US West office in Portland by 6. He works until 4:30 or 5:30 in the evening and gets back to Eugene by 7. He says the commute doesn't bother him. He likes to drive, doesn't require much sleep and would rather pay $400 a month in gas, insurance and parking than see a third of his paycheck go to a Portland landlord. When faced with the choice of working in Portland or leaving the company last year, Nyquist decided to commute. He's a year away from retirement and he didn't want to uproot his wife in Eugene for an uncertain future with US West in Portland. But Nyquist is bothered by the fact that US West's Eugene office on Country Club Road remains open eight months after company officials said it would close. And some workers there are doing the same job as Nyquist, he says. "They should have done this differently," he says. "If you're going to move a department, move it." US West officials began a corporate-wide restructuring several years ago to cut costs and boost profits. Using new processes and technologies, the company consolidated 103 local business offices into 19 megacenters in big cities across the West and South. The upheaval is a case study in how employees and customers are affected when an industry refashions itself, in part using technological solutions. "It's been pretty well documented that (the reorganization) didn't go as well as we wanted it to," says Gary Miller, a US West spokesman. Thousands of employees throughout the company's 14-state territory moved, left, retired or were laid off in the shuffle. "Everyone has their own story," Nyquist says. Some workers in Eugene accepted jobs at the megacenters and moved their families to such cities as Portland, Seattle, Albuquerque or Salt Lake City. Some fashioned temporary solutions, renting an apartment in Portland and seeing their families in Eugene on weekends. Others traded full-time positions for part-time ones to stay in Eugene. Telephone industry regulators, customers and some employees say US West's consolidation strategy has failed miserably. "There's a clear correlation between downsizing and (US West's) technical and service problems," says Roger Hamilton, chairman of the Public Utility Commission. "Clearly, they downsized to the point where they couldn't meet the demands," he says. "They needed to be growing -- not shrinking -- in rapidly growing areas such as Portland, Bend and Eugene." Responding to mounting consumer complaints, the commission recently penalized US West by stripping it of a regulatory framework that gave the company considerable leeway to increase prices it charged for nonessential services, such as call waiting and caller ID. Now, the company is scrambling to restore service levels and stay afloat in a fiercely competitive market. US West began downsizing in 1991 and announced it was shedding 1,000 workers throughout its 14-state territory. In September 1993, the company said it would cut another 8,000 workers companywide by 1997. "In order for us to be competitive in this new environment we had to increase service and reduce costs," Miller said. According to the latest count, about 4,500 workers companywide have left US West. Of that group, about 600 were laid off and most of the others retired, Miller said. Much-needed expertise left the company when those workers retired, employees say. Eugene lost about 200 positions when US West consolidated its so-called back-office operations, such as the business office and directory assistance. As US West slashed thousands of jobs, it added 2,700 others, mostly technicians and jobs related to new products and services, such as videoconferencing and distance learning. "We're hiring for positions we didn't even know would exist three years ago," Miller says. Some questioned the timing of US West's reorganization. "They made all these cuts and they might have done it too quickly," said Connie Luecke, telecommunications analyst at Duff & Phelps Equity Research in Chicago. US West officials admit they made mistakes, but they say there's more to the story. The company underestimated the demand for new phone lines and overestimated how long existing cable would be sufficient, Miller says. With the proliferation of fax machines, interactive computer systems and other technologies, the demand for phone lines surged. Oregon even needed a new area code to accommodate the huge demand. Each month, US West receives 36,000 requests for new lines in Oregon. In the Eugene-Springfield area, the number of phone lines rose 3.5 percent from 1994 to 1995. The company also encountered unanticipated problems with new computer and telecommunications network technology, Miller says. It tied the hands of service representatives. They weren't able to access information to respond to installation and repair requests, he noted. The result: Long waits for service, escalating unmet orders, in which orders were delayed because existing cable couldn't handle new lines, and a growing perception that US West was falling down on the job. When JoAnn Andersen started work at US West's Eugene office as a customer service representative in 1977, she was responsible for answering calls from customers in Lowell and Dexter. The woman seated across from her handled calls from Cottage Grove. "We got to know everyone on a first-name basis because we handled such a small area," she recalls. "We had maps to show repairmen how to get there and we wrote specific directions: go to red mailbox, take right, you'll see a dog barking." Andersen says today's technology allows that same representative to take calls from all over the state, perhaps even from two states. And handwritten directions are seldom needed because dial tones often can be provided and repairs made from the central office, she says. Customer complaints fell from January to February, which shows the company is turning a corner, Miller says. "We're having problems, we're addressing the problems," he says. "But at the same time, 97.5 percent of our Oregon customers have no problems in making or receiving calls or receiving the kind of service that they expect from us." That company-generated figure is based on US West benchmarks for installation and repair, Miller says. As further evidence that US West is improving customer service, Miller says the company currently exceeds its goals for responding to customers. The company's objective is to answer 85 percent of customer phone calls for line access and repair within 20 seconds. Last year, representatives answered only about half the calls within that time, but by the end of February, they met the objective more than 85 percent of the time, Miller says. But getting the phone answered doesn't necessarily mean that customers receive the help they need, says Hamilton, the commission chairman. "If you call you may get an operator in Midwest," Hamilton says. "It's great that you can get through, but if you're getting through to someone who can't help you because they don't know where your little town is or they have to forward the message and have someone else call you back, then they have a real customer service problem on their hands." Where the service representative is located isn't the problem, Miller responds. The problem was that new technology wasn't functioning properly so that representatives had customer information at their fingertips, he says. "Whether a repair bureau is in Portland, Seattle, or Spokane, representatives have the same information and customer records, and are able to provide the same level of service as people in Eugene," he says. Now that US West has fixed the bugs in the system, the company will start showing customers the rewards of reorganization, Miller says. "We took one step backwards, but we are taking two steps forward," he says. One recent success: During the flood in February more than half the 90 long-distance operators at the Corvallis office were unable to show up for work. New networking systems allowed US West to forward those calls to operators in Seattle, providing better service for customers, Miller says. But customers and the Public Utility Commission will be the final judges of US West's success. ------------------------------ From: Pekka Neittaanmaki Subject: Call for Professorship in Telecommunication Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 14:48:24 +0300 Organization: Juvaskyla University Call for Professorship in Telecommunication The University of Jyvaskyla in cooperation with Telecom Finland seeks Pro fessor position for its new Telecommunications Program (TP) for teaching, resear ch and development. The successful candidate must demonstrate a strong commitmen t to graduate education and research projects in Master School in Information Technology. Additionally, he/she is expected to develop a skillful resear ch program in partnership with Telecom Finland. This is due to the fact that Telecom Finland has created a telecommunications environment which repres ents the state of the art by any comparison and acts as a pioneer and "field laboratory" in European telecommunications. Telecom Finland's optic trunk network covers the whole country while broadband SDH technology enables the construction of the Information Super-highway with fast ATM services. The company's representatives also participate in important quality standardisation organisations like ISO 9000, EOQ and EFQM. Telecom Finland experts have developed new ATM specifications, which are applied internationally. Telecom Finland's digital mobile network is growing fast and already offers short message and data transfer services. The mobile network will also become broadband. Among the achievements of Telecom Finland, it could be counted: Intelligent, customer oriented services; Centralised network management (Network Management Centre is in Jyvskyl) R&D production platforms, process interfaces; First commercial ATM network in the world. Fields of Teaching/Research/Development The professorship position is eligible in one of the following areas in telecommunications networks design: Mathematical Modelling of Communication Systems Digital and Adaptive Signal Processing Electronics and Hardware Design of Communication Systems Network Management and Computer Controlled Interfaces Database Processing of Automated Exchanges Intelligent Networks and Mobile Phone Networks Requirements The Telecommunications Program is focused on graduate and postgraduate ed ucation and involvement in the industrial research projects. Course development is to place emphasis on student participation in solving practical problems from telecommunication networks. Due to the industrial partnership with Teleco m Finland, it is expected that the program's members will successfully employ innovative teaching methods and involve students in substantive research activities. Although applications are welcome from anyone who holds a Ph.D. in Telecommunication, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering or Computer Systems Engineering, the Telecommunications Progr am has a particular interest in candidates who are qualified in electronics and telecommunication systems. The actual staff of the Telecommunications Program is expected to offer M.S. and PhD degrees in telecommunication systems. More information about the city, the university and the department can be found in the WWW pages: http://www.infoma.jyu.fi (MSc Programs in Information Technology) http://www.math.jyu.fi (University of Jyvskyl) http://www.jsp.fi/jsp (Jyvskyl Science Park Ltd.) http://www.jkl.fi (City of Jyvskyl) The starting salary is, depending on the qualifications of the person, ab out 20.000 Finnish marks per month. Duration The professorship position is available starting with 1st September 1996 for a five year term. An extension can be negociated, depending on the quality of the teaching/reasearch activity and on the achievements in applying the research to Telecom Finland development projects. A shorter than five year term is also possible. Contact Person: Applicants should submit a detailed resume and the names of at least thre e references to: Professor Pekka Neittaanmki, Department of Mathematics, University of Jyvskyl, FIN-40351 Jyvskyl, FINLAND, Tel. (358)-41-602732 (Secretary,Ms Heidi Laaksonen), Fax. (358)-41-602731, Email: pn@tarzan.math.jyu.fi, WWW site: http://www.math.jyu.fi/~pn/cfp.html. Applications must be received by 14th June, 1996. ------------------------------ From: Roger Fajman Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 01:14:15 EDT Subject: Bell Atlantic Announces Mandatory 10 Digit Local Dialing BELL ATLANTIC LAUNCHES STATEWIDE PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN IN MARYLAND Ads Acquaint Customers With 10-Digit Local Dialing Baltimore, MD -- Bell Atlantic today launched a statewide customer information campaign in Maryland, encouraging customers to begin using the "Ten-number Number" for local calling. The new dialing method comes as the company prepares to introduce two new area codes in the state next year. Effective today, customers across the state will be able to use the area code plus seven-digit phone number on all local calls. During the next 12 months, local calls can be completed using either 10 digits or seven. However, on May 1, 1997, 10-digit local dialing will be required throughout the state. "We intend to tell all Marylanders about this important change. Our primary objective is to make sure customers know about the change and their frustration is kept to a minimum," said Daniel J. Whelan, president and CEO of Bell Atlantic - Maryland. Bell Atlantic newspaper ads will begin appearing throughout the state this week. The company will also be reaching its customers initially through bill inserts and direct mail. Radio and billboard advertising will be added in 1997. The campaign is all part of the company's implementation of an "overlay" solution to accommodate the need for additional phone numbers in the state. Maryland's supply of numbers is rapidly exhausting in the wake of an explosive demand for new telephone numbers for fax machines, cellular phones, pagers, computer modems, and other telecommunications equipment. The overlay plan keeps the 301 and 410 area codes in the same geographic regions as they are today, but adds a new code to each region. 240 will be added to the 301 region; and 443 will be added to the 410 region. The neighbor next door could potentially have a different area code, which is why the area code will need to be included when dialing all local phone calls. With the overlay, existing telephone numbers will not change. As the phone numbers in Maryland's 301 and 410 area codes are depleted, new phone lines will be assigned numbers with a new area code, essentially doubling the total amount of numbers that can be assigned. New area codes will not be assigned until sometime after May, 1997. One of the alternatives to the overlay method would have split geographically the 301 and 410 area codes, thus adding two new codes to the newly split areas. However, this approach would have divided communities and forced over a million Marylanders to change their phone numbers. Even though the geographic split would have maintained 7-digit dialing in some areas, 10-digit dialing would have been required for the vast majority of customers to reach some portion of their local calling area. Rates and local calling areas will not be affected by this new dialing change. A local call is still a local call. Long distance calls will require, as they do today, a '1' in addition to the area code and phone number. Customers will still dial 911 for Emergency Service, 411 for Directory Assistance, and 611 for Repair. Businesses with in-house switchboards, or PBXs, are encouraged to contact their vendor to see if an upgrade is needed. Bell Atlantic Corporation (NYSE: BEL) is at the forefront of the new communications, entertainment and information industry. In the mid-Atlantic region, the company is the premier provider of local telecommunications and advanced services. Globally, it is one of the largest investors in the high-growth wireless communication marketplace. Bell Atlantic also owns a substantial interest in Telecom Corporation of New Zealand and is actively developing high-growth national and international business opportunities in all phases of the industry. #### INTERNET USERS: Bell Atlantic news releases, executive speeches, news media contacts and other useful information are available on Bell Atlantic's media relations World Wide Web site (http://www.ba.com), by gopher (gopher://ba.com) or by ftp (ftp://ba.com/pub). ------------------------------ From: tim@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Tim Tyler) Subject: Last Laugh! "Important News for Frontier Customers" Date: 3 May 1996 04:09:01 -0400 Organization: University of Michigan Computing Club (UMCC) On a separate page included with the Frontier Communications (my LD carrier) bill, is a statement that reads: EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 1996, PENDING REGULATORY APPROVAL, YOUR INTERNATIONAL RATES WILL BE INCREASED BY AN AVERAGE OF 5%. THE GOOD NEWS IS...FRONTIER CONTINUES TO PROVIDE QUALITY SERVICE AND INDUSTRY LEADING INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS... What sort of stupidity is this?! They're saying that the rates will increase, but there service continues to be good?! Maybe I should send them a statement, advising that effective 1 June, 1996 my payments will be mailed ten days beyond the due date, but the good news is that I'll continue to use quality stamps on the payment envelope. I don't have a problem with them raising rates, just the nonsensical statement! Tim Tyler Internet: tim@umcc.umich.edu C$erve: Hooligan AOL: Hooligan P.O. Box 443 Amateur Radio: KA8VIR @WB8ZPN.#SEMI.MI.USA.NOAM Ypsilanti, MI 48197-0443 In cyberspace, no one can hear you scream. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #213 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri May 3 13:00:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA23547; Fri, 3 May 1996 13:00:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 13:00:28 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605031700.NAA23547@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #214 TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 May 96 13:00:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 214 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Voice/Fax Mail to Internet Mail (Richard Shockey) More Voice/Fax Mail to Internet Mail (Richard Shockey) Pac Bell *Still* Doesn't Recognize NPA 268 (Antigua) (Linc Madison) ANI Information From D-Channel (tjo94001@uconnvm.uconn.edu) ADSI Standards and Devices (Klaus Zuenkler) How Will Local Telephone Competition Work? (turner7@pacsibm.org) Need Basic Information On Direct Link Microwave (Theresa Riter) Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? (David Brod) Re: Different Countries - Different Results (Hendrik Rood) 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: rshockey@ix.netcom.com (Richard Shockey) Subject: Voice/Fax Mail to Internet Mail Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 04:33:12 GMT Organization: Netcom Centigram Supports Universal Messaging Standard Protocol With Other Voice Messaging Industry Leaders; Company to Demonstrate Multimedia Internet Connectivity Between Disparate Voice Messaging Systems ------------------------------ EMA '96 -- VPIM Booth No.369, Centigram Booth No.332 This group may find the following announcement of considerable interest. It seems self evident that the voice mail industry is ready to jump into the internet in a rather big way. The companies listed below represent 60 percent of the voice processing industry in North America. Add to that fax traffic ... 45 percent of transatlantic telephone traffic is fax according to ATT. Microsoft is probably not to happy about all of this since the delivery of most mail object types [voice / fax /email ] over SMTP transport layers does nothing for their Exchange Server Strategy. Remenber ... though Microsoft was wise is supporting the moderator of this forum ... they have been known to drop the ball from time to time. In addition I sincerely recommend persons interested in this subject to point their browsers to http://www.imc.org The Internet Mail Consortium is the best single site for any information you would ever want to know about Internet mail. Of particular interest to this group would be RFC 1911 an expermental Voice Profile for Internet Mail done by some folks at Octel ... who seem to be leading the charge on delivering Voice Mail over Internet Mail. The following press release strikes me as only the beginning. ################################ ANAHEIM, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 29, 1996--Centigram Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: CGRM), a leading global provider of communications solutions, today announced its participation in the joint development of the voice profile for Internet messaging (VPIM) protocol for transferring messages between disparate voice messaging servers. Centigram, a member of the VPIM Demo Work Group developing this standard, will demonstrate interchanging voice and fax messages with the other members of the group -- Lucent Technologies (formally AT&T), Northern Telecom (Nortel), Octel Communications and Siemens Rolm -- at the EMA `96 conference. VPIM enables the creation of voice, fax or compound voice and fax messages on a Centigram Series 6 communications server, and sends them over the Internet or private intranet to other vendors' voice messaging systems. This interoperability would allow Centigram users to exchange messages conveniently with their suppliers, distributors, customers and even family and friends using different vendors' voice messaging servers. In the future, communicating among disparate voice messaging systems can be as easy as communicating between disparate e-mail systems over the Internet is today. VPIM builds upon two Internet e-mail standards, simple message transfer protocol (SMTP) and multipurpose Internet messaging extension (MIME), to include such benefits as sender spoken name and compound voice and fax messages. "We are excited to be at the forefront of this universal connectivity by supporting interoperability among disparate voice messaging systems using VPIM," said George Sollman, Centigram president and CEO. "It is imperative that the work group, as leaders in the voice industry, complete and deploy VPIM. In the near future everyone with a VPIM-enabled messaging server will benefit from more effective communications and higher productivity through fast, low-cost messaging." Centigram plans to use Internet protocols and Internet connectivity to enable voice and fax messages among different vendors' systems. The VPIM Work Group has utilized these well-established e-mail standards to implement working interoperability prototypes in only a few months. With VPIM, users will be able to make an Internet voice message from any telephone and deliver it directly into the recipients' voice mailboxes. The Internet also provides cost-effective network access points throughout the world. VPIM Work Group The Electronic Messaging Association (EMA) sanctioned the VPIM Work Group to develop a universal messaging standard protocol to promote effective communications among voice messaging users of various vendors' voice messaging systems. The VPIM Demo Work Group, made up of Centigram Communications, Lucent Technologies, Northern Telecom, Octel Communications and Siemens Rolm, began working on its cross-system voice messaging protocol in 1995. Centigram Communications Corporation Centigram is a leading global provider of communications solutions. Centigram delivers communications solutions by integrating voice, data and facsimile on its Series 6 communications server, and by providing access to this multimedia information through a telephone or PC. The Series 6 platform is based on industry-standard hardware and software. Centigram also licenses TruVoice(R), its patented text-to-speech software. Centigram is headquartered at 91 East Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134. Phone 408/944-0250, fax 408/428-3732, World Wide Web http://www.centigram.com. Centigram has sales and support offices in North America, Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Australia. Centigram and TruVoice are registered trademarks of Centigram Communications Corporation. Richard Shockey Developers of Fax on Demand Solutions President For Business, Media, Industry and Nuntius Corporation Government. 8045 Big Bend Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63119 For a Demonstration Call our Voice 314.968.1009 CommandFax Demonstration Line FAX 314.968.3163 at 314.968.3461 Internet: rshockey@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ From: rshockey@ix.netcom.com (Richard Shockey) Subject: More Voice/Fax Mail to Internet Mail Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 04:42:39 GMT Organization: Netcom More self serving but technically significant information about the future of voice on the Internet. ####################################### Designers of OcteLink Architecture Foresee Global Voice Messaging Interoperability MILPITAS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 29, 1996--Octel Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: OCTL), the company that developed the innovative OcteLink global voice messaging service, is the driving force behind the VPIM protocol. As a core member of the VPIM work group, Octel provided the expertise necessary to author the voice profile for Internet mail, or VPIM, which provides for interoperability among voice messaging systems using any type of LAN/WAN network that supports TCP/IP protocols. "This protocol, along with OcteLink's unique ability to direct messages to the intended recipient, provides a framework for ubiquitous voice messaging services," said Charles Levine, senior vice president of Octel Services. "With the VPIM protocol and OcteLink's directory capabilities, people will be able to send voice messages to a global community, much as they do now with e-mails." In addition to the VPIM protocol, OcteLink supports the OctelNet and AMIS analog protocols. While VPIM enables peer-to-peer exchange of voice mail messages, OcteLink provides unique directory, protocol translation and network operations services. OcteLink determines from whom the message originated, discerns its specific destination and translates the message from one system protocol to another. As leader in development of the VPIM protocol, Octel is uniquely positioned to help facilitate ubiquitous voice messaging technology. Introduced in July 1995, OcteLink supports Internet mail, X.400-based AMIS-Digital and other proprietary and industry-standard messaging and directory protocols. "OcteLink provides the much-needed directory services, security and network operations to provide the truly global voice messaging that the VPIM protocol will make possible," said Mr. Levine. About OcteLink OcteLink is designed to link commercial, residential and institutional customers worldwide. OcteLink consists of messaging hubs (or "voice post offices") that connect disparate voice processing systems and ensure that every message is efficiently routed to its destination. The hubs act as multimedia gateways -- accepting voice and fax with delivery based on the telephone (hard-wired or cellular). Future delivery vehicles will include computers (PCs), personal digital assistants (PDAs), or fax machines; message transport will include e-mail and multimedia. OcteLink hubs are currently located in Dallas and Chicago. Additional OcteLink hubs will be placed in Canada and elsewhere in the U.S., as well as in countries throughout Europe, the Pacific Rim, South America and the Middle East, as demand requires. About Octel Communications Corporation Octel is the voice messaging company. Its worldwide leadership extends to over 40 countries and includes more than 30 million users of Octel voice mail. Octel's products are bought and used by businesses of all sizes, governments, educational institutions, telephone companies and cellular service providers. Octel is also the world's largest outsourcer of voice mail providing a wide range of outsourcing services to phone companies and businesses. Founded in 1982, the company is headquartered in Milpitas, California. It has development centers in California, Texas, England, France and Israel and major operations centers in California and Texas. Additional information is available at http://www.octel.com. Richard Shockey Developers of Fax on Demand Solutions President For Business, Media, Industry and Nuntius Corporation Government. 8045 Big Bend Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63119 For a Demonstration Call our Voice 314.968.1009 CommandFax Demonstration Line FAX 314.968.3163 at 314.968.3461 Internet: rshockey@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Pac Bell *Still* Doesn't Recognize NPA 268 (Antigua) Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 16:44:19 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications Well, it was a full month as of yesterday that area code 268 was allegedly in service for Antigua and Barbuda, a small island nation in the Caribbean. Permissive dialing still has another 11 months, though, which is fortunate, since Pacific Bell still hasn't gotten around to enabling it in their switches. I dial 1-268- and immediately get an intercept "We are sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please check the number and dial again." This is a Pacific Bell intercept, not an intercept from my LD company. I called in a trouble ticket to repair over a week ago. After I finally got the representative to understand what on earth (and where on earth) I was talking about, he put in the report. A couple of hours later, a different person called me back to explain that, no, the new area code that split from 809 is 441, not 268. I explained to her that 441 is only for Bermuda, that Puerto Rico is now 787 and Antigua is 268, with more on the way. She said, "Oh. 441 is only Bermuda? I'll have to look into that." Sunday afternoon, their computer called me up to tell me that they had been unable to locate the trouble in my line, but that the trouble seemed to have cleared, and to call repair if I had any further problems. I called just now, and they are referring it to their switch programming people. We'll see if anything happens. The rep this time did at least notice that it was quite unusual that the test number (1-268-268-4482, or 1-268-ANTIGUA) has the same area code and prefix. (FWIW, 809-268 is now 787-268 in Puerto Rico, in permissive dialing with either NPA.) Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: Dishu Subject: ANI Information From D-Channel Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 13:12:28 -0400 Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT I'm a lab supervisor for a Macintosh Lab at the University of Connecticut. In the very near future, this lab is going to be connected to the rest of the campus via a 56.6 ISDN network. It is my understanding that the D-Channel provides an ANI service that can be linked to telephones for the purposes of Caller ID. Is it possible to pass this information to a program residing on my server, perhaps? I wish to basically monitor incoming calls, to discern whether or not my staff is taking a greater number of personal calls or work related calls. Thanks for any help, e-mail responses to the address below would be appreciated, as I do not check the group often ... Tim tjo94001@uconnvm.uconn.edu ------------------------------ From: Klaus Zuenkler Subject: ADSI Standards and Devices Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 09:06:26 +0200 Organization: pc-plus COMPUTING GmbH Can anybody give me a pointer to the definition of the ADSI standard and sources for compatible devices? Does anybody know about the penetration of such phones? Any hint is appreciated. Dr. Klaus Zuenkler Operator Services Architecture Management pc-plus COMPUTING Tel: +49/89/62030-188 Schlierseestr. 73 Fax: +49/89/62030-113 D-81539 Muenchen email: zu@pc-plus.de ------------------------------ From: turner7@pacsibm.org (TUrner-7) Subject: How Will Local Telephone Competition Work? Date: 2 May 1996 19:57:15 GMT Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS Right now, a pair of wires goes from my home to my local telco's Central Office, where I may be connected to almost anyone in the world. In terms of wiring and logistics, how will local competition work? Will the new company also string wires through the neighborhood? I assume all exchanges will be interconnected. Will the new competitors be forced to carry the unprofitable neighborhoods (ie inner city residential lines) as well as the cream (centrex in a huge office building)? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If the competition so highly touted over the past few years were done in a truly fair way, that is what would happen. MCI, Sprint and the others would have been told they were free to compete *entirely*. That is, they would be free to build exchanges, build their outside plants (i.e. string wires and install telephones, etc), build their national infrastructure, set up their accounting and billing procedures, etc. They could also build their own research facilities, manufacturing centers and whatever else they deemed necessary. They could spend better than a century putting it all together. They could go out and solicit customers. The court would rule that *when that had occurred* -- *when they got to that point* -- Bell was requiried to interconnect with them. The court would rule that local communities were required to treat the competitors fairly regards easement rights, the laying of cable, etc. When they had their network up and running and ready to go, Bell would open their front door and hand out several cables saying 'here are pairs you can use to interconnect with us'. Bell would also be required to administer fairly any sort of numbering plan. **The subscribers would be deemed of paramount importance**, and all interconnections, etc would be totally transparent to the customers, along with billing. That would have been the fair way. All the competitors however feel they should not be required to spend billions of dollars over a period of a hundred years developing the infrastructure Bell has in place. They feel they should be able to use AT&T's collective wisdom and resources in putting together their own networks. They feel the existing telcos should be required to allow them to move right in to the same central office facilities on a co-location type arrangement. So what they will be doing, if you don't mind, is forcing the local telcos to jerry-rig their switches and rewrite their methodology in order to accomodate the competition. They'll be using the existing cable and requiring the telco to do some magic in the central office with call-forwarding to get the calls handled. Actually, it won't affect you anyway. The competition is not interested in your worthless account. They'll only be dealing with very high volume business customers -- not even *all* business customers. Residence and low volume accounts are like poison to them. The existing telco will be required to continue handling those, even if they have to raise the price of your service to make up for what the 'competition' stole of the big business accounts. I wonder why, back in the early 1980's when Judge Greene got this bee in his bonnet, he did not at least first consult his dictionary and look up the definition of the word 'competition' so he understood what it meant, as if he cared. So that is how local telephone competition will work. Endless squabbles among the telcos, massive customer confusion over who does what and when, wholesale ripoffs of the existing insfrastructure by the new- comers, and still futher degradation of what at one time years ago was the finest telephone network in the world. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Theresa Riter Subject: Need Basic Information On Direct Link Microwave Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 11:22:18 -0500 I would like to find out some basic information about direct link microwave. We got a price quote on a T-1 from South Dakota to Arizona ... ouch! A friend suggested that we look into direct link microwave for voice and data transmission. Any information would be appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 2 May 1996 22:54:29 -0500 From: doc_dave@bga.com (David Brod) Subject: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? Rich asked: > Let's say I have two lines. A and B. Line A doesn't subscribe to > caller-id. Line B does. If line-A busy is set up to hunt to line-B, > what caller-id info if any is presented to B? Same question for a > call-forwarded line. Oh, lets toss in the same question for cell > phones (as line A) immediate, busy, and no-answer call-forwarding. Pat responded: > TELECOM DIGEST Editor's Note: No information is provided to B since > it is only being used as an overflow/alternate for A, and A does not > subscribe to the service. It has been my experience that line B DOES get the caller info. Any call that rings into line B, whether line B is direct dialed, or subjected to line A overflow, will result in a caller ID read. Just like if line B has call waiting. The feature is active when line B is called, regardless of the method. > The 'decision' in the software as to which > custom calling features to extend to a subscriber with an incoming > call are made before any 'decision' is made how to dispose of the > call if the specifically called line is unavailable for whatever > reason. As long as you *never* have incoming calls which were dialed > direct into your back lines, you are perfectly safe in having things > like caller-id and call screening on your first, main, listed number > only. In this instance, lets say line A has caller ID and is busy. The call then goes to line B. If you want to know who is calling, line B must be equiped with caller ID. Each back line must have a caller ID box, in the event that a given back line is receiving a call. > Obviously you need to have a Caller-ID display box on each line; > there still has to be a way to display what telco is presenting; > you just don't have to pay the monthly service fee. Service reps are > trained to tell you things like Caller-ID and Call Screening 'will > not work correctly' on multi-line arrangements unless you buy those > services for each line. You can tell them that is not true as long > as you have no 'independently delivered' calls into those lines. Now, > let your customers/employees/others find out the numbers for those > back lines and then all bets are off. Here, Southwestern Bell charges for caller ID on each line, regardless of what kind of hunt group you have. > Ditto on a call-forwarding situation. The central office 'finds out > about' your request to forward the calls after it has already decided > what privileges or services are to be provided you on your incoming > call. Naturally the final end stopping point still has to have a > Caller-ID box. It also has to subscribe to the service. A number with Caller ID service can not 'pass along' the service to a line that does not independently subscribe to the service. David Brod Crowley Communications ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: Different Countries - Different Results Date: Fri, 03 May 96 04:12:17 GMT Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses In article , Telecom@Eureka.vip. best.com (Linc Madison) 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). [truncating explained] > 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, This is 14 digits, together with the Dutch acces-code 00 for international calls it means your dialing 16 digits. That must be possible nowadays. But you may have a chance it goes wrong. PSTN maximum allowed national significant number has been 12 (E.163) for international dialling plans and is currently upgraded too a maximum of 15 (E.164). This must extension of maximum allowable digits must be realized all over the world at the so called time T, which as far as I am informed is January 1th 1997 (can anybody confirm that? I allways read about time T in the specs, but never see the actual date). You must now the complete routing of the call (through a SS#7 trunk you might get through, through a R2 MFC, you are exposed the risk of getting truncated after 12 digits, which in your case explains why you miss the last digits and explains too why USA can not reach this number (USA international access is 011, which extends the total digit string to 17, I know some types of well known and much used public switches that cut digit strings after 16 digits). According to ITU-T international numbering plan ruling it is allowed for an international switch in the originating country to make a routing decision after 6 significant digits have been collected. In your case that means after you have dialled: +43 512 3. So when you are punching in 611129 (say it lasts 6 seconds, 1 second per digit punched on the DTMF-telephone) the international SS#7 has allready set up a complete route to the PABX in Austria. To this PABX an Direct dialling in call is set up from the local exchange with the digits 3611129 which is sufficient to reach the reception desk. When you dial the last digits 80 it might happen that the PABX makes the decision the call is for the reception desk and you last digit is not coming through because the routing decision is allready made. Succes of your call with such a long number is all very dependend on protocols used in the International trunk network, the Austrian downlink from their International exchange to the local exchange and the protocol used for DDI to the PABX, combined with routing decision speed in the PABX. The reason you succeeded during the numbering plan transition period in the Netherlands was because an extra waiting time has been implemented as a guard against misrouting caused by slow dialers. During the transition period the Netherlands had a double numbering plan with overlap in the decision tree for several area's. Therefore Dutch switches waited 5 seconds, which was just enough for you to punch +43 512 361.112. During the call setup time over the network to Austria you entered the last three digits 980, which meant that the local exchange received all the needed digits before the DDI call setup to the PABX was made. This explains: 1. Why you experience problems after transition period; 2. The fault is not the PTT, nor in the Netherlands nor in Austria. The problem is in the PABX routing in your Innsbruck-office and might happen from time to time, when dialled from countries with modern switches. Just remind that foreign countries you have mentioned calls succeed are known to still operate a large base of electro-mechinacal (slow!) switches, so they have implemented a much longer waiting period in their International gateway for collecting digits before they setup the international part of the call. A way to test this is to go to a PABX or line with ISDN and enter the number before setting up the call. When that call is succeeding you have tracked your problem. The reason why you do not succeed when setting up the call from mobile is that part of the trunks between the mobile exchanges and the international gateway are still R2 MFC. The interworking between R2 MFC and SS#7 on the international part can cause the same waiting time problems with long numbers as described above. 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 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #214 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri May 3 13:53:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA29605; Fri, 3 May 1996 13:53:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 13:53:16 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605031753.NAA29605@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #215 TELECOM Digest Fri, 3 May 96 13:53:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 215 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Information Wanted on Tymnet (Tom Reynolds) Re: Information Wanted on Tymnet (Steve Coleman) Re: Information Wanted on Tymnet (Joel M. Snyder) An Intelligent Phone? (Dale Robinson) New-Fangled Phones on a Two-Party Line (Pat O'Neil) Billing ISDN/Modem Calls to Calling Card (Eric Pylko) NewBridge MainStreet Boards Wanted (Christopher Bernat) Alphabet on the Phone Keypad (Zev Rubenstein) Re: Intimidating Cellular Phone and a Phony Police Officer (Tye McQueen) Re: Big Problems With AT&T WorldNet Service (Douglas Kaspar) Re: Big Problems With AT&T WorldNet Service (geneb@ma.ultranet.com) Re: Big Problems With AT&T WorldNet Service (Alan M. Gallatin) Re: Information Wanted on Finland Telecomms (Yves Blondeel) Re: Information Wanted on Finland Telecomms (larsendg@mcgraw-hill.com) Re: Is NYNEX Deceptively Advertising *66? (Brian Brown) 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: Tom Reynolds Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Tymnet Date: 3 May 1996 02:42:03 GMT Organization: MCI DSE - Development > A competitive service started around 1970-75 called 'Tymnet' pronounced > 'Time Net'. It operated much the same way and it came down basically > to a 'do you prefer MCI, Sprint or AT&T' sort of thing. Either one > you picked had about the same rates; each served a few slightly differ- > points than the other when you got out in the boondocks, etc. The spelling was because the founder was named LeRoy Tymes. Funny the flavor comparison, Tymnet is now a part of MCI. > At some point, Tymnet jumped into it with an offering of their own > which was quite competitive. I do not recall which company owned > Tymnet, although I beleive there are some very old files in the > Archives which discusses it and makes a comparison study between it > and Telenet's PC Pursuit. Actually, we olny sold directly to corporate accounts. The mass market edition was a company reselling the service. (Sorry, the name of the company escapes me.) > At some point Tynmet either went out of business or changed its name > or was bought out. Three times ... MacDonnald Douglas had already bought the company when I came on board eight years ago. They sold us to British Telecom, who changed the name of the company three times in one year. BT sold the portion of the network in the Americas to MCI. It's still a global network; BT operates much of the world, MCI operates the Americas. Customers may be from BT, MCI, or the global joint venture, Concert. >I know the very same phone numnbers from the Tymnet > days are still in service as dialups, and to a large extent by AOL. > The fastest baud rate you can get on any of those older dialups is > 1200. You get to pick that or 300, your choice ... ... also the We have higher speeds, typically it's the online service that chooses to limit their customers to our lower speed numbers. You see, something happened to the old model of how access was sold. The online services grew much larger and much faster than most of the "experts" predicted. Instead of selling surplus access at night and on weekends, online services started driving modem deploymnet. When you aren't selling surplus, you have to charge more. (This also explains why AOL is building their own network, and CIS is expanding theirs.) > I cannot imagine who would use it at 300/1200/2400 baud when there are > now so many other methods of connection at speeds much greater. LOTS of old PCs out there, with old applications. They just keep on going, till one day someone buys a new one, and they experience a shock as they try to configure the fast new PC with Win95 and a fast modem to do what the old slow DOS PC did. Also, lots of credit card terminals that still only do 300. (Fast ones rolling off the line today do 2400. > It has nothing to > do with Tymnet, which was a competitor with a similar program for small > PC users, who I have no idea where they went or when, just that they > are not around now. PAT] We're still around, and bigger than ever. We're the XStream product line of MCI Data Services, the Concert Packet Network, and the Concert Frame Relay Network. Tom Reynolds MCI Data Services Dial Access Network Operations Center ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 02 May 1996 22:08:48 GMT From: scaf@pro-net.co.uk (Steve Coleman) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Tymnet On 29 Apr 1996, Kendall Shaw wrote: > There was a company called Tymnet who offered a service which was > popular with computer users, whereby you would call in and then > be able to call out to internet service providers or other services. > I think it was an X.25 network. > What has become of that? I thought it became Sprintnet, but when I > called sprintnet they said they have no such service and they were > never Tymnet. Tymnet was purchased by BT and become part of their Packet Switching portfolio in the early 1990's. Outside of the UK, BT's asychronous dial service retained the name Tymdial and surprise, surprise operated over the purchased Tymnet nodes. In the UK a similar offering was marketed as Dialplus and ran over Telenet equipment. The charges for this asynch' service were usage based and the maximum speed offered was 2400bps. A dedicated option was also available. Around 93/94 the access speed was increased to 9600bps and the product renamed BT GNS Dial. GNS (Global Network Services) held responsibility for the companies packet switching products together with fast packet services like Frame Relay. This group are now part of the BT/MCI global alliance called Concert. A call to your local MCI rep' should move you a step closer to finding the products current status in the US. I have a sneaky feeling that the network was originally owned by MacDonald Douglas. However my old product notes do not appear to support this hunch. Hope this helps you though. Steve Coleman University of North London http://idun.unl.ac.uk/~hfa9colemas ------------------------------ From: Joel M Snyder Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Tymnet Organization: Opus One - +1 520 324 0494 Date: 1 May 96 10:02:22 -0700 Organization: Opus One, Tucson, Arizona In article , fgoldstein@bbn.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes: > There were three big packet-switched network operators in the USA in > the late '70s. Telenet ... Tymnet... > The third of the big three was Graphnet, run by Graphic Scanning Inc. The big three were actually two: Telenet (now Sprint) and Tymnet (now MCI), which dominated the industry. Then came a host of smaller networks: Uninet (which got bought by one of the big two), CompuServe (which is still around and big), ADP Autonet (which is still around), and AT&T (which marketed it's network under about five different names. I would not put Graphnet in the running, personally. Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Phone: +1 520 324 0494 (voice) +1 520 324 0495 (FAX) jms@Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms Opus One ------------------------------ From: Dale.Robinson@DWNPLAZA.NCOM.nt.gov.au Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 21:46:38 +0930 Subject: An Intelligent Phone? Pat, With the different long distance billing plans available, I wonder if anyone has make an intelligent phone to exploit this? I would like a phone that would: Select the least-cost billing plan for any given time of day. (ie. if Telco Y is cheaper than Telco X between 9 -> 10pm, then the phone would place the call with Y). Maintain log of calls made and cost of them, for bill comparison. Detect caller-id and perform some given action based on it. (ie. refuse call, divert call to mobile call, record message). It's only a wish list, and I could write something to do all the above on a computer, but isn't technology about being unintrusive? Cheers, Dale ------------------------------ From: Pat O'Neil Subject: New-Fangled Phones on a Two-Party Line Date: 3 May 1996 12:48:55 GMT Organization: Hughes Network Systems I'd like to install a wireless telephone for a friend who is on a two-party pulse-dial line. How do I insure that: 1. The phone will ring only when my friend's number is called. 2. My friend's toll calls will be billed to him, and not to the other party on the line. Anyone have any suggestions? Pat O'Neil Hughes Network Systems Germantown, Md [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You can't insure those things, which is why under FCC regulations it is *completely forbidden* to put any sort of attachment or phone on a multi-party line other than the nice black POTS phone telco gives you when you sign up for that asinine service. If your friend can afford a cordless phone, then they can afford single party service. I am making the assumption here that there are no physical limitations imposed by telco, i.e. lack of pairs in the area, etc. If so, then please excuse my response, but this is the first time I ever got a message here from someone with party-line service (in this day and age) who wanted to make improvements in their service without first getting to the core problem of the whole thing. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pylko@kodak.com (Eric Pylko) Subject: Billing ISDN/Modem Calls to Calling Card Date: 3 May 1996 10:30:05 -0400 Organization: Eastman Kodak Company I want to setup a LAN with a dial-out terminal server. I also want the Macintoshes to be able to use the ISDN and modem lines to dial out from the terminal server. The catch is I don't want to pay for the calls. I haven't purchased any hardware or software yet, so does anyone know of a solution that will allow people to dial out, yet bill all calls to a calling card or credit card? I've talked to a few vendors, but they don't seem to have anything like that. Thanks for any info/leads. Eric Pylko Phone: (716) 253-1611 Network Engineer Pager: (716) 975-1792 pylko@kodak.com Fax: (716) 726-7283 ------------------------------ From: Christopher Bernat Subject: NewBridge MainStreet Boards Wanted Date: 3 May 1996 15:15:56 GMT Organization: National SUPPORT Center Hello everyone, We are looking for six LGE boards for the Newbridge MainStreet 3624 Channel Bank. PLease call me at 800-672-3683 or email me at rjohnson@scsn.net. Thanks, Ron Johnson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 08:32:58 -0500 From: zev@wireless.attmail.com (zev) Subject: Alphabet on the Phone Keypad I did some digging on the ITU standards for the alphabet on the phone. The standard is an ITU-T (T for Telecom) standard, number E.161. I also found out that there is a current effort to change the standard for ATM kepads to bring them in alignment with the telephony standard. That standard is X3.118, and it may be changed to move the Q and Z to 7 & 9 (respectively) as early as next week. Zev Rubenstein zev@attmail.com Independent Telecommunications Consultant ------------------------------ From: tye@metronet.com (Tye McQueen) Subject: Re: Intimidating Cellular Phone and a Phony Police Officer Date: 3 May 1996 01:58:38 -0500 Organization: Texas Metronet, Inc (login info (214/488-2590 - 817/571-0400)) wwalker@qualcomm.com (Bill Walker) writes: > 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. Indeed. Many 911 systems have significant problems with things as bad as callers asking for the time of day or whether the ball game has been cancelled. > [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 > tell you 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] Chicago is unusual in that having charged each of its very numerous phone subscribers something like $1.00 per month for 911 development for years, they have one of the premiere 911 centers in the country. You can watch little police car and fire truck icons move around maps of the city on huge overhead monitors in realtime. In one area I worked with, they had to add a recording, something like: "You have reached 911 Emergency. If this is not an emergency, please hang up and dial 456-7890 now. Otherwise please stay on the line. [Repeats in Spanish]". If their was an unbusy operator, they would answer immediately and you would get no recording. If all were busy, the one with the least "hot" call would quickly find a "breaking point" and answer the call to make sure it wasn't "hotter" than the call they were on. They also (as with most 911 centers) have several buttons that do useful things like forwarding the caller to a recording: "911 is to be used _only_ for emergency calls. For non-emergency calls, ...". Oh, and 456-7890 was answered by the same operators but only after emergency calls were handled and it offered a different recording. This site used a Tie phone system. Best office phone system I've ever seen. I've heard they aren't made anymore. *Sigh* I wish I could multiplex calls at work like that system let you. Have one on the speaker phone, get a muted tone anouncing a new one, tap a button and you could hear both calls and switch the mic between them. Never miss a word and no one even notices. No need for a hurried "please hold" trying to catch the new call before it rolls to voice mail. Tye McQueen tye@metronet.com || tye@thingy.usu.edu http://www.metronet.com/~tye/ (scripts, links, nothing fancy) ------------------------------ From: Douglas Kaspar Subject: Re: Big Problems With AT&T WorldNet Service Date: 3 May 1996 03:18:17 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services I have been using my software for approximatly thirty days. Just recently I discovered that I was having problems with my modem not disconnecting. I called the customer care number at 10pm and had to wait approximatly 20 minutes on hold. I then worked with a live body. This individual couldn't fix my problem. I received a callback at 10am today. I wasn't able to get back to them until 9:30pm. I got right through to a tech and got my problem resolved. I wonder if your local ISP could handle 500,000 new users within six weeks? ------------------------------ From: geneb@ma.ultranet.com Subject: Re: Big Problems With AT&T WorldNet Service Date: 3 May 1996 05:12:22 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Reply-To: geneb@ultranet.com In , Greg Eiche writes: > Does anybody have any insight in the problems that AT&T WorldNet has > been having in registering new accounts? I tried to register for a > new account today with the software they just sent me, and was > unsuccessful. When I called AT&T's tech support, I was told that > their server was overloaded with people trying to sign up and that > they were having major problems. I couldn't help but laugh when I > recalled all the reports that AT&T was going to give the ISPs a real > run for their money. It's quite amazing that the world's largest > telecom can't get it right!! I, for one, plan to stick with my local > ISP ... Except for the fact that no "local ISP" could handle thousands or tens of thousands of registrations PER DAY either. It's when you get a *busy* signal calling AT&T Worldnet that you should feel free to laugh ... Gene ------------------------------ From: amg@netbox.com (Alan M. Gallatin) Subject: Re: Big Problems With AT&T Worldnet Service Date: Fri, 03 May 96 03:15:24 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services In article , conlin@shout.net (Roger Conlin) wrote: > Glad to hear from somebody using this. I've been waiting forever for > the software. Got some little postcard finally saying it was on the > way, but it's still not here. I can echo your experience with a local > ISP, and was hoping for some better service with Worldnet. Glad to > see somebody else try it and find out it actually works, than sign up > and find out that AT&T can't handle the business. Well, I never thought I'd hear (see?) myself saying this, but I'm quite happy with Worldnet (don't be deceived by my non-Worldnet e-mail address ... it's all a front :-)) Getting registered was certainly the most painful of my internet related experiences ... dozens of attempts over several days until a succesful trip through the registration process took place. However, since then, it's been a pleasure. My modem connections have been strong, stable and consistent, with network throughput being above average as compared to my past experiences. As for the good, bad and ugly of the Worldnet software, I really can't offer an opinion. I'm a content user of the Win95 DUN :-)) One question for "those in the know" re: Worldnet: Did AT&T set up POP's all over the country or are the local phone numbers forwarding into one central modem bank? I ask this because I've noticed a peculiar quality to the "ringing" tone whenever I call ANY of the Worldnet POP's. Alan M. Gallatin http://www.netbox.com/amg EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, PLEASE USE: amg@netbox.com IN PLACE OF amg@pobox.com ------------------------------ From: Yves Blondeel Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Finland Telecomms Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 14:33:44 +0200 Organization: Brussels Free Universities VUB/ULB Reply-To: yblondee@vnet3.vub.ac.be Johannes Kiehl wrote: > Can someone from Finland please give me the name (and maybe a phone > number?) of the national telecomms company? (I understand there's a > telecommunication monopoly in Finland?) Telecom Finland's Web site = http://www.tele.fi/ There has NEVER BEEN a telecommunications monopoly in Finland. (simplifying reply) Yves Blondeel yblondee@vnet3.vub.ac.be ------------------------------ From: larsendg@mcgraw-hill.com Date: Fri, 03 May 96 11:26:31 EST Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Finland Telecomms Telecom Finland (known as Tele, in Finland) offers telecommunications services to business and residential customers at the local, national, and international level, as well as mobile communications, and data and text transmission. Since the 1880s the Local Telephone Companies (LTCs) have been serving Finland's widely dispersed cities and smaller population centers. There are some 40+ separate companies. The majority of the LTCs are subscriber-owned and are run on a nonprofit basis. Most are limited companies, though one company operates as a municipal utilities and others operate as cooperatives and associations. In 1921, the Association of Telephone Companies in Finland (ATC Finland) was formed to coordinate the operations of the LTCs. All the LTCs are members of ATC Finland. The LTCs presently account for over two million subscriber lines -- approximately 73% of the total main lines in Finland. Phone Numbers: Telecom Finland Tel: +358 0 2040 6474 Fax: +358 0 2040 2032 ATC Finland Tel: +358 0 228 111 Fax: +358 0 605 531 Regards, David Larsen, Analyst, Datapro Information Services Group, U.K. ------------------------------ From: brianb@cfer.com (Brian Brown) Subject: Re: Is NYNEX Deceptively Advertising *66? Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 15:12:15 GMT Organization: ConferTech, International > The second flaw is that so far as I know, *66 has no knowledge of other > lines in a hunt group to which it could refer its user. If you (and > hundreds of other people) call a company which has a listed number with > let's say a couple dozen additional lines in sequence, the only thing > *66 knows about is the main, listed, first-in-the-group number that you > (and everyone else) dialed. And while yes, that line will become free > like the others, it will also be the first one to get seized by other > callers in the interim while *66 comes looking for you to make its > report and offer to try the connection again. There might be lines in > the hunt group available. I am not certain if retries are just dialed > again (thus the call might hunt down to a vacancy somewhere) or if it > just goes back and looks again first only to report that number XXX > has 'become busy again'. Actually, your second flaw is deeper than this. When you refer to "first-in-the-group" numbers, you are thinking about trunk termination in an analog sense. That is, in a small company, for example, you may have five analog phone lines and a hunt group programmed to go to the first available in the hunt order. Most large-scale setups have digital lines coming in, generally in the form of T1s. These T1's are almost never provisioned with a one-to-one correspondence of phone number and trunk. The DNIS is outpulsed for each call, telling the T1 termination equipment where to route (or in the case of IVR, what program to run) for that call only. Therefore, a busy service bureau, for example, TicketMaster, may have one main number which everyone calls, and which terminates across several circuits in one huge trunk group. It is not the case that each of these trunks in each of these circuits has a number associated with it. The trunk group can be set up such that only one number goes there. As far how the *66 feature deals with complicated trunk group scenarios, that question is still unanswered. (Help here) I would assume that some SS7 signalling paradigm would allow the requesting switch to subscribe to messages from the DNIS termination switch which indicate that lines are free. But, once again, in a fight for these free lines, odds are you will lose. On another note, we designed, and even started implementing, an IVR application at my company which, after hours, would use unutilized trunks and allow bulk-dialing to the same number to win contests, buy tickets, etc. We decided it was not fair, and may have been an inappropriate use of our company's facilities. This methodology, however, where you dial one number, enter your destination number, and then wait as 96 ports all go off hook and try to reach the destination, seems the most feasible, since it increases your odds. Call progress detection is used to connect the first off-hook line to your inbound line. Brian Brown ConferTech, International ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #215 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon May 6 11:07:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA04146; Mon, 6 May 1996 11:07:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:07:29 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605061507.LAA04146@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #216 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 May 96 11:07:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 216 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Growth of Cybercrime (Knight-Ridder via Tad Cook) Those Damned Magazine Subscriptions (Christopher Zguris) Smart Antennas Workshop at Stanford Univ, July 1996 (Sumeet Sandhu) ICA Announces 1996 Summer Program (Irina A. Strunina) Low Cost LAN/WAN Training at UC Boulder (Irinia A. Struina) 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: Growth of Cybercrime Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 20:37:39 PDT FBI Survey Reveals Growth of Cybercrime By Rory J. O'Connor, San Jose Mercury News, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 6--Intruders are breaking into the nation's computer systems at an increasing rate and often with more nefarious motives than in the past, according to a survey co-sponsored by the FBI and a private group of computer security professionals. With more attacks made by people outside an organization, security experts and civil libertarians are renewing their call for fewer government restrictions on encryption technology that protects information. If computer crime keeps growing, security experts said, it could suffocate the burgeoning growth of commerce on the Internet. "What this shows is that the ante has been upped in cyberspace," said Richard Power, senior analyst of the Computer Security Institute in San Francisco, which conducted the survey. "As all manner of commerce moves into cyberspace, all manner of crime is moving there as well. It's no longer just vandalism." More than 40 percent of the 428 corporate, university and government sites that responded to the FBI survey reported at least one unauthorized use of their computers within the last 12 months, with some institutions reporting as many as 1,000 attacks in the period. The attacks range from "data diddling," where some information on the compromised computer is changed, to wholesale attempts to steal passwords or prevent legitimate users from gaining access to the systems. The increase in cybercrime doesn't pose much danger to individuals using computers at home. It is the corporate databases that attract cyber-thieves. While more than half the organizations surveyed reported that some attacks came from inside the organization itself, more than a third said they had been attacked via the Internet, a disconcerting statistic for businesses that want to conduct commerce in cyberspace. About 75 percent of the executives who responded to the survey said they feared attacks from independent hackers and "information brokers." Nearly 60 percent said they consider their domestic competitors just as likely to try to break into their computers. Organizations could protect themselves by using technology that encrypts the storage and transmission of computer data. The strongest such technology would make it nearly impossible for an unauthorized person to read or misuse data -- yet it is not widely deployed because the U.S. government won't allow its export. Companies, therefore, don't include it with many of their products. "The No. 1 reason why computer crime happens is because we have a totally backward encryption policy in this country," said Daniel Weitzner of the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. Computer security experts said that any significant growth in computer crime could make consumers and businesses doubt that an honest transaction would take place on the Internet, instead fearing they would be vulnerable to theft of information, services or money. "It's important not to sensationalize things, because if you do you trivialize them," said Power. "But there is definitely a trend across the board of increased unauthorized use of computers from both the inside as well as the outside." His organization conducted the survey at the request of the FBI, using questions based on information supplied by the agency. The FBI has stepped up its investigations of computer crime in the past year, assembling special groups in San Francisco, New York and Washington to combat it. And agency director Louis B. Freeh testified before Congress earlier this year about what he considers the growing danger to U.S. businesses from information spies, including some in the employ of foreign governments or competitors. The report doesn't mean, however, that computer users everywhere should panic. Computer security experts note that individual personal computers, especially at home, are far less likely to be attacked than larger systems used by corporations and government agencies. The information those computers contain isn't nearly as valuable as a corporate database -- and the computers themselves make less-tempting targets for hackers because they are much simpler than large systems, offering fewer technical security holes to exploit. They also say the likelihood that a given individual will suffer from a computer-related crime -- for example, having a credit card number purloined by a hacker during an on-line purchase -- is fairly small, and that existing laws cap an individual's responsibility to pay. "As an individual, your liability is low," said Steven M. Bellovin, a computer security expert with AT&T Bell Laboratories. Computer crime statistics have also been notoriously unreliable in the past few years. Predictions that the so-called Michelangelo virus would wreak wholesale destruction on the world's PCs turned out to be laughably hyperbolic; only a handful of machines were ever infected. And much of the nation's hysteria over computer crime revolves around media accounts of just a few well-known "hackers" -- such as Kevin Mitnick and Robert Tappan Morris Jr. -- whose exploits turned out to be far less damaging than the publicity surrounding them. "Mitnick is often portrayed as a technical wizard," said Bellovin of the hacker who was arrested last year after a decade-long chase and then became the subject of at least three books. "Well, he's OK, but he's really a good con artist." Bellovin said Morris, the son of a National Security Agency programming expert who created a "worm" program that shut down parts of the Internet in 1988, had just been trying to draw attention to its security flaws. "He had a horrible lapse in judgment," he said. Many hacker "crimes" have just been the equivalent of "juveniles cruising cyberspace with virtual spray paint marking things," Power said. The most malevolent incidents of computer crime in the past have been committed by disgruntled employees against their employers; those incidents have usually resulted in the greatest financial losses. Perhaps because of that, however, law enforcement officials are growing concerned about their ability to sniff out -- and snuff out -- computer crimes. What worries law enforcement officials is that institutional victims of computer break-ins or other cybercrimes rarely report the incidents to police. The study bears that out: the respondents said they reported just 16.9 percent of suspected computer crimes. The overwhelming reason: They don't want the negative publicity that can come from a press account that their computer system was vulnerable. Only 8 percent of the more than 4,000 institutions who were mailed the survey responded at all, according to the FBI. But that may be a moot issue: according to Bellovin, the very complex nature of software and the imprecision with which it is written means that "computer security is very hard to solve." He called the Internet notably vulnerable because it was never designed to be secure in the first place. The worst security risk on the Internet is also its most popular aspect: the World Wide Web, because its complexity makes it "easy to (program) it wrong," Bellovin said. Some of the most troubling results of the survey, according to Power: the most frequent kind of computer crime at medical and financial institutions involves data diddling, meaning that "someone is changing people's medical records and financial histories," he said. It also appears that there's more computer crime for hire occurring, Power said, exploiting mainly older hackers who have graduated to making money off the skill they once used simply to establish bragging rights with their peers. He suggested that some of the hiring is being done by intelligence services of various governments, although he offered no proof. "You can't document it," he said, "but it's a no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned." FOR ONLINE SERVICES: Visit Mercury Center on America Online (keyword: MERCURY) or Mercury Center Web, the World Wide Web site of the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News. Point your browser to http://www.sjmercury.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Two I like watching a lot and getting a laugh out of are Kevin Lipsitz, female impersonator and magazine salesman to the net, and that other creep in New Mexico who calls himself Spam King. Yes, they are both still active, trying to rip off mailing list names. More about Kevin in the next message in this issue; he apparently struck again recently on other mailing lists. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 18:42:53 -0700 From: Christopher Zguris Subject: Those Damned Magazine Subscriptions Way back I contacted you about a home for a mailing list I run, Current-l. Well, I found a home at Netcom, then moved it to World.std.com. For some reason, Netcom never got around to removing the list (even though I asked them to and cancelled the shell account). Anyway ... I had three lists at Netcom (all basically dead, but Netcom forgot to remove them). Kevin -- the guy selling the magazine subscriptions -- found them, as well as every other Netcom list, and has been bombing them with his ads (we're talking five or six different spoofed AOL senders, in the course of a few days). He's also sent it to World, but that list is closed and it bounces. He's also hit a friends' motorcycle mailing list, it got through -- ironically -- while my friend was installing a new filter. Anyway, to make a long story short, I read your article through the web page for spammers, and had a telecom question. If Kevin is using a residential line for business purposes, isn't that a tariff violation? I was curious about who to contact, and who to direct my subscribers (of my mailing list) to contact. It would be great to get his lines disconnected or changed and billed at business rates. Christopher Zguris - czguris@ix.netcom.com - Uhhh, Ear? 1991 Honda VFR (Red, with red accessories) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you don't know that he is using residential service for business-related stuff, and even if he were that gets to be a stretch since it is quite acceptable to 'work at home' these days, and all the telcos seem to almost encourage it. I don't think that complaint would get you anywhere. Telco is not going to discuss his service arrangments with you, nor will the FCC. As for your sub scribers, unless they have specifically told him they do not wish any further email from him, there is probably not a lot they can do either since there is no such thing as 'unauthorized' email. Anyone is free to write to any email address and attempt to engage in correspondence with that person. The person has to request that it be stopped and then if it continues they can file complaints. The examples you give though are one good reason why I do not entrust the TELECOM Dgiest list to any third party for storage or its maintainence. It stays under my direct control in a directory accessible only to me, with several barricades standing in the way to retrieving it or using it. I made that decision after Spam King was rummaging around in it now almost a year ago. Having Lipsitz also trying to find it -- and he does attempt that -- also gives me the creeps. You need to create your own scripts and mail processing stuff and keep it all under your personal control. By now almost everyone is aware that in many mail software scripts, the name of the mailing list will be found in the header, or the stuff on the very top of the email. They know that two long-time commands in sendmail are VRFY and EXPD, to 'verify' an address and 'expand' on alias names. A vist to the /etc/aliases directory on many computers will produce the names of the mailing lists at that site and how to trigger the lists. It will also -- if you are not real careful -- provide the requestor with a complete printout of all the names on the email list. Not so in my case, and I can only do what I do because I have the list in my immediate possession, in my directory. If you go to /etc/aliases (usually by the verify and expand commands in sendmail if you approach the SMTP socket on another machine) or if you hack root and get on the machine and go directly to that directory you *will* see such things as the 'official' name of my mailing list where sendmail is concerned. But if you attempt to follow the 'alias path' thorugh a circuitous flow back to my directory, you are not going to find the names on the list under that alias. It helps if the postmaster at your site runs sendmail with user 'nobody' who has no privileges than running it under root. But to keep the list chmodded to user only, sendmail as 'nobody' has a hard time dealing with that and requires the list be left read/writeable to 'others'. So in my case, /etc/aliases points to a *script* in my directory which is readable by all, but it is a little one line thing that simply says to run another script. This first little one line script allows me to take control of the process. I feed the stream at that point to a script that *only I* can execute. I do not care if you are root or if you hack me personally. That script won't run unless you *are* me, because of criteria it expects which only I know about. Those miscreants write me every few days from various accounts asking to be added to the Digest mailing list, then a day or two later they ask to be removed. They get an issue or two of the Digest and go through the header carefully hoping to find some reference to the list name there. Of course since I am a trusted user, I use the sendmail flag to diddle up the header however I want ... and they never will find what they are looking for. I get one of Kevin's magazine advertisements at least three or four times per week. I hope it is driving him crazy wondering why he never can latch it and get his mail out to the list. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Smart Antennas Workshop at Stanford Univ, July 1996 Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 18:41:27 -0700 From: Sumeet Sandhu Third Annual Workshop on Smart Antennas in Wireless Mobile Communications Stanford University, July 25-26, 1996 The Smart Antennas Research Group at Stanford Univerity will hold the "Third Workshop on Smart Antennas in Wireless Mobile Communications" on July 25 and 26, 1996 at Stanford University. This workshop, the third in the series of successful workshops on the topic, will once again attract a large number of industry participants from all over the world. The workshop will provide a forum for exchanging perspectives on the fast emerging smart antennas technology. A number of technical presentations on the technology, economics and field trials are planned. The goals of the workshop are to assess the state-of-the-art in smart antennas technology, identify pragmatic technology goals for the near and the medium term, estimate the market need for this technology, understand its economics, and thus help the participants gain the best insights into the markets, technology and economics of smart antennas. In addition, the Smart Antennas Research Group at Stanford University will present a half day briefing on pragmatic approaches to embedding this technology in current and future wireless networks. We once again promise a very informative, insightful and exciting workshop! Dates: This one and a half day workshop is scheduled for Thursday and Friday, July 25-26, 1996. Venue: Terman Auditorium, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. Format: The workshop will consist of a number of invited technical presentations by industry experts on Thursday, July 25, followed by a half-day briefing by Stanford University staff on Friday, July 26. Who Should Attend: Technical and business management, senior research staff and consultants can benefit from the workshop. The presentations will be at an overview level and will span technology, markets and economics. Registration: In order to maintain a workshop format, only limited registration is planned. To register, complete the registration form and send it along with a check made out to Stanford University, to the address listed on the registration form. A postscript version of the registration form is available at http://www-ISL.Stanford.EDU/groups/SARG/wkshp3.html Fees: Technical sessions (Thursday only): $175 per person Tutorial (Friday only): $300 per person Technical sessions and Tutorial (both days): $400 per person Banquet (Thursday evening): $40 per person Fees will be waived for two individuals from each company sponsoring Smart Antennas research at Stanford. For further information: For registration information, please contact Ms. Kavitha Prabhu, tel: (415) 723-0711 fax: (415) 723-8473 e-mail: kkprabhu@rascals.stanford.edu. For information regarding the technical program, please contact Dr. Constantinos Papadias, e-mail: papadias@rascals.stanford.edu. You may also wish to check our web page, at http://www-ISL.Stanford.EDU/groups/SARG/wkshp3.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 22:40:32 -0500 From: 109HPNSNM3AI@MAIL-CLUSTER.PCY.MCI.NET (Irina A. Strunina) Subject: ICA Announces 1996 Summer Program DATE: 05 May 1996 00:20:00 EDT FROM: strunina@mindspring.com 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, 6 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 & Internetworking, Transport & Infrastructure and Management & 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. ------------------------------ Subject: Low Cost LAN/WAN Training at UC Boulder Date: 6 May 1996 00:00:00 GMT From: strunina@mindspring.com Organization: ICA Summer Program Registration International Communications Association Summer Program University of Colorado at Boulder Sunday June 2 through Friday June 7, 1996 A week long academic program of the non-profit International Communications Association bringing together the top educators, consultants and industry professionals as instructors in a university setting. This document contains a summary of courses and activities. For additional information, or to register, please Contact: Irina Strunina or Jim Cavanagh 800-328-0840 (US Toll-Free) 770-955-7967 (Direct) 770-984-2299 (FAX) General Information: The International Communications Association Summer Program is a week long academic educational program which has been held at the University of Colorado at Boulder for over a decade. The ICA Summer Program is an annual opportunity for telecommunications managers, directors, planners, consultants and other professionals in ICA member and non-member companies to be briefed on a broad spectrum of key emerging Local Area Network, Campus Area Network, Metropolitan Area Network and Wide Area Network technologies, standards and regulatory issues which will affect them in the year ahead. The ICA Summer Program format also allows opportunities for students to learn through hands-on laboratory exercises as well as from instructors and each other through interactive discussions in unique end-of-day "Patio Sessions". The ICA Summer Program is a complete learning experience and is planned and managed by a committee comprised of ICA member company representatives, vendors, educators, consultants and ICA staff. The Summer Program Committee represents a cross section of the telecommunications industry and is dedicated to providing a program which meets the training requirements of today's telecommunications professional. 1996 Summer Program Sessions At A Glance Internet Technologies Building a Successful Internet Corporate Web Site Internet 101 Incorporating Internet Technologies and Services Within Your Company Internet Access Provider Panel Fast Packet Technologies ATM: A Reality Check Fast Packet Technologies: ATM, Frame Relay and SMDS Frame Relay - How Good Is It ? Strategic and Tactical ATM The Future of Frame Relay Network Applications Coordinated Network/Application Tuning Computer-Telephony Integration (CTI) - Its Affect on Your Network Network Applications Network Centric Computing Local Area Networks and Internetworking Bridges, Routers and Hubs LAN Architecture Evolution LAN Switching vs Routing Network Operating Systems What's New with 802.x ? Transport & Infrastructure Structured Cable Systems The New American Public Network Operators - BOCs or NOT? Wireless Advances Management & Regulatory Issues Enterprise Management - A Practical Perspective on Managing Networks and Systems Global Network Interconnectivity Local Loop Competition Managing Applications on Your Network Networking Career Management Strategies Network Security US Public Policy Update Patio Discussion Sessions Cabling Standards Frame Relay Internet Services Networking Careers Innovative Uses of the Internet Wireless LANs Hands-On Lab Sessions A number of hands-on exercises will be available covering a wide variety of subject areas from Frame Relay to Network Management. More details on exact lab sessions will be available closer to the beginningof the ICA Summer Program. Frame Relay ATM Internet High Speed Wiring and Testing Network Management Computer Based Training Speakers & Panelists Dr. Charles Baker, Southern Methodist University Stan Bush, University of Colorado James P. Cavanagh, Consultant Marvin Chartoff, Ernst & Young, LLP Kent Cox, Optical Data Systems Phil Evans, Perot Systems Dr. John Fike, Texas A&M University Aaron Fosdick, CSD Roosevelt Giles, IMS Christine Heckart, Telechoice, Inc. Jeff Held, Ernst & Young, LLP Paul Heller, Heller Consulting Dr. Phil Hippensteel, Center for Communications Technology Excellence Craig Kanarick, Razorfish Gary Kessler, Hill Associates Laura Knapp, IBM Corporation Jim McCabe, Bay Networks & Full Spectrum Communications Dr. Robert Mercer, Dale Hartfield Associates, Inc. Dr. Thomas M. Oser, Ernst & Young, LLP David Passmore, Decisys, Inc. Carl Pitasi Fred Pratt, I-Net Frank Schoff, Management Recruiters John Smiley, Phoenix Data Net Rick Swirm, Enterprise Management Institute Alan Taffel, uunet Steve Taylor, Distributed Networking Associates Don Van Doren, Vanguard Communications Corporation Kenneth Van Wyk, SAIC Center for Information Protection Jack Ziros, Global One Sponsors The ICA Summer Program is a unique partnership of academia, users, vendors and consultants whose collaboration makes possible this state- of-the-art program. ICA wishes to thank the following companies and organizations for their generous participation and contributions to the Summer Program and overall support of the ICA. Advantis Apple Computer Ascom Timeplex Bay Networks British Telecom CACI Products Co. Center for Communications Technology Excellence Cisco Systems, Inc. CSD Dale Hatfield Associates, Inc. Decisys, Inc. Digital Equipment Corporation Distributed Networking Associates Enterprise Management Institute, Inc. Ernst & Young LLP, Fore Systems France Telecom (ICA Industry Partner) Fujitsu General DataComm, Inc. Global One Heller Consulting Hewlett-Packard Hill Associates IBM Corporation IBM Global Network IMS, Inc. I-Net Institute of Telecommunications Sciences Make Systems, Inc. Management Recruiters MCI Telecommunications Corportation Microsoft National Telecommunications & Information Administration NorTel NYNEX (ICA Industry Partner) Optical Data Systems Perot Systems Corp. Phoenix DataNet Razorfish, Inc. Southern Methodist University StrataCom, Inc. Telecommunications Engineering, Inc. TeleChoice, Inc. Texas A & M University Time Warner Inc. Travelers Insurance University of Colorado UUNET Wandel & Goltermann ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #216 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon May 6 11:55:16 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA08851; Mon, 6 May 1996 11:55:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:55:16 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605061555.LAA08851@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #217 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 May 96 11:55:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 217 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson International Traffic Accounting Process (Jeremy Parsons) ATIS, Canadian Telecom Standards: Webpages (Mark J. Cuccia) Nortel Datapath ISDN NT4X25 SPID? (excess@onramp.net) Frame Relay or Point to Point (Lou Person) Re: New-Fangled Phones on a Two-Party Line (Ed Ellers) Re: New-Fangled Phones on a Two-Party Line (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: Jeremy Parsons Subject: International Traffic Accounting Process Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 03:17:32 -0400 From the preceding stuff on international 'sex lines' and so on, I thought it might be helpful to give a more precise description of the accounting rate regime for international settlements, and why things are getting into such a mess. I have glossed a little over some of the details, but I hope this may give some people a better understanding of how it all works and what some of the pressures are on smaller and developing countries. Establishing a 'traffic relation' between country A and country B is essentially a matter for bilateral negotiations. This involves agreeing to establish dedicated circuits to carry the traffic, and the remuneration in the form of an accounting rate. An accounting rate consists of three elements, all of some significance: the currency (commonly SDRs [a basket currency], US$ or Gold Francs), the rate and the division (how the rate is divided between the administrations). This is meant to be cost-based, but often costs have fallen much faster than rates. Let's take a couple of examples. Eg 1 Admin A and admin B agree an accounting rate of SDR1.20 divided equally. The SDR1.20 is meant to represent total cost, so it is expected that the price in either direction will be higher. The division means that notionally when A sends to B it accounts for SDR0.60 to meet its own costs, and for SDR0.60 to be paid to B; B to A is symmetrical. As for actual payments, these are made net, so typically one only of A and B is outpaying to the other, at a rate of SDR0.60 times 'imbalance minutes'. For the purpose of these calculations, typically the arrangement will be that the call will be treated as originating in the billing country, so for instance home direct calls made by a customer of A from B's territory will be settled as if they had been made from A to B; different rates, surcharges etc may be applied for different services (eg collect calls). >From an accounting point of view, this is either looked at as a gross allocation (notional outpayments allocated along with any other costs to call prices, notional inpayments less costs looked at as a freestanding contribution), or a net allocation (the relation is taken as a whole, with all the revenue and cost streams lumped together). Eg 2 Admin A and admin B agree an accounting rate of SDR1.20 divided 3:2. For a call from A to B, A allocates SDR0.72 to its own costs and SDR0.48 as an outpayment to B. For a call from B to A, B allocates SDR0.48 to its own costs and SDR0.72 as an outpayment to A. This is meant to cater to the cost differential (eg B is a larger developed country, A is a smaller less developed country experiencing lesser economies of scale). This is a good mechanism in principle, but rather unsurprisingly it has tended not to be effected very often, and the developed world has not exactly co-operated in using it. We'll come back to this. As you would expect, it is not exactly going to make sense for every single administration in the world to have direct circuits to every other - some of these relations are going to be a few hundred minutes per month and less. So the accounting rate mechanism supports the introduction of one or more transit admins into the relation. Suppose A and B agree to relations via an admin C which provides a transit facility, with a published rate of SDR0.3. This figure is not added to, but taken out of the total figure agreed between A and B (eg above SDR1.20): note that the agreement is still between A and B, and traffic transiting C is still declared as originating at A or B. 1. Appearance of 'sex lines' and the like Typically the 'inpayment' is profitable (this should be the case, otherwise there is no benefit to a carrier investing in high quality facilities) - and if it is profitable enough, then an admin may choose to pass some of this profit on to a third party. One example would be if two international admins compete in the same country. VPN services are often used to take international traffic out of the general pool (and typically they will have different accounting rates), so a carrier may well reward its customer for incoming traffic either by a direct discount or, more commonly, by low outbound 'on-net' rates to promote use of the facility. Another example is 'audiotext', where the call is to a service, and the service provider receives income from the incoming calls it generates, in very much the same way as, say, a 900 number in the USA. The customer receives the benefit of the service (which presumably exceeds the price of the call), the admin sending the call charges as normal and makes the normal return, the admin receiving receives a return less the 'payback'. None of this is especially sinister or unusual, although clearly bilateral agreements and codes of practice are often desirable to ensure the services are not offered where they violate international comity or in a manner which rewards fraud (again, just like domestic Premium Rate services). 2. Proportional Return and its many effects Where there are competitive international operators, sometimes bilateral agreements specify that traffic will be returned to correspondents in the same proportion as it is received. The FCC normally 'requires' this in all US relations, although it is debatable whether it has the authority in theory to do so. The major effects of Proportional Return are (a) to ensure that a dominant operator cannot close off the market to licensed competitors, and (b) to encourage violent price competition by smaller carriers. Suppose there are two carriers A1 and A2 in country A, working with a single carrier B. The accounting rate is $1.00 divided equally. A1 sends 90,000 minutes to B, and A2 10,000; while B sends 60,000 divided proportionally. Suppose all the carriers are pricing calls at $0.75. That gives us the following picture (I'm simplifying by ignoring other costs, own or domestic outpayments, but remember that true telecom costs are predominantly fixed, so attempts to apportion them per-minute rely on volume stability):- B Bills its customers 60,000 minutes = $45,000, Sends to A1 54,000 minutes = ($27,000) Sends to A2 6,000 minutes = ($3,000) Receives from A1 90,000 minutes = $45,000 Receives from A2 10,000 minutes = $5,000 Net income is $65,000 A1 Bills its customers 90,000 minutes = $67,500 Sends to B 90,000 minutes = ($45,000) Receives from B 54,000 minutes = $27,000 Net income is $49,500 A2 Bills its customers 10,000 minutes = $7,500 Sends to B 10,000 minutes = ($5,000) Receives from B 6,000 minutes = $3,000 Net income is $5,500 Suppose A2 captures another 10,000 of the outgoing minutes, pricing them at $0.30, giving the following outcome:- B Bills its customers 60,000 minutes = $45,000, Sends to A1 48,000 minutes = ($24,000) Sends to A2 12,000 minutes = ($6,000) Receives from A1 80,000 minutes = $40,000 Receives from A2 20,000 minutes = $10,000 Net income is $65,000 Change is $0 A1 Bills its customers 80,000 minutes = $60,000 Sends to B 80,000 minutes = ($40,000) Receives from B 48,000 minutes = $24,000 Net income is $44,000 Change is ($5,500) A2 Bills its customers 10,000 minutes at $0.75 = $7,500 plus 10,000 minutes at $0.30 = $3,000 Sends to B 20,000 minutes = ($10,000) Receives from B 12,000 minutes = $6,000 Net income is $6,500 Change is $1,000 and customers in A save $4,500. Note (a) that the business remains very profitable for all concerned, (b) A2's profit on the marginal business is still good, but (c) the $0.30 price if offered to all customers in A would eliminate all profit. Now, suppose instead that A2 captures 10,000 of the _incoming_ minutes, acting as or through a callback operator, pricing them at $0.50, giving the following outcome:- B Bills its customers 50,000 minutes = $37,500, Sends to A1 40,909 minutes = ($20,455) Sends to A2 9,091 minutes = ($4,545) Receives from A1 90,000 minutes = $45,000 Receives from A2 20,000 minutes = $10,000 Net income is $67,500 Change is $2,500 A1 Bills its customers 90,000 minutes = $67,500 Sends to B 90,000 minutes = ($45,000) Receives from B 40,909 minutes = $20,455 Net income is $42,955 Change is ($6,545) A2 Bills its customers 10,000 minutes at $0.75 = $7,500 plus 10,000 minutes at $0.50 = $5,000 Sends to B 20,000 minutes = ($10,000) Receives from B 9,091 minutes = $4,545 Net income is $7,045 Change is $1,545 and customers in B save $2,500. Note (a) that the business remains very profitable for all concerned, (b) A2's profit on the marginal business is still good, (c) B has gained by the deal (because profit from incoming calls is greater than profit on outgoing calls - the reverse would be true otherwise), and (d) the regulator in A, _looking only at settlements_, sees an increased imbalance of minutes (was 40,000 minutes or 10:6, is 60,000 minutes 11:5) and therefore increased net settlement (was $20,000, now $30,000). All of this may help you to understand... 3. The double-bind by the developed world on smaller and developing nations Typically the developed world can experience lowest average costs, but uses negotiating power to insist on uniform divisions of rapidly declining accounting rates. The combination is clearly unfair, but often justified by 'until accounting rates are cost-reflective we'll use a 50:50 division' which sounds reasonable but doesn't work out that way. Smaller and developing countries will almost inevitably experience higher costs, as the costs of operating international facilities are spread among a smaller group of customers, and the admin cannot achieve such good prices for facilities, switches etc - the domestic network may well be more expensive for similar reasons. In the case of the developing world particularly, this is exacerbated by the necessity to heavily subsidise the domestic network out of international income in order to achieve good penetration levels (imagine the affordable price if GDP per capita is, say, $4,000). Now see the vicious circle. If the country relies on international call prices to generate the necessary subsidy, market structure arbitrage such as callback service will tend to restrict this to the level where profit is about equal on incoming and outgoing service - in other words, inpayments are the backstop for this subsidy. On the other hand, price elasticities are typically very low. Over time, the apparent traffic imbalances will tend to grow, and with them pressure for accounting rate reductions. Sooner or later, the carrier is forced either to 'rebalance' prices to more closely reflect costs, which brings telephone service out of reach of many, or investment must be reduced so that service quality must be allowed to degrade and while service remains affordable the waiting lists will grow and grow. Prospective competitors line up at the door to serve the high international calling customers - easy to do profitably because they are the providers of the subsidy. 4. Some more interesting examples In what has gone above, the assumption is that traffic from A to B is declared as such, even if it is routed through C. Here are some more examples of how the developed world has its cake and eats it too. a) Transit discounts Transit service is competitive. The developed world has the best economies of scale. Discounts are offered on the published rates to the originating country. This has the effect of adjusting the division so the sender keeps more of the rate. Eg A/B rate of $1.00, equal division, transit through C published at $0.40. A is a larger/more developed country than B, and (a) sends more traffic to B than returns, and (b) through total business with C gets an 'invisible' discount of $0.25 on outgoing and $0.10 on incoming calls, while B does little business and gets no 'discount'. Without transit, A would be sending B $0.50 per minute; with transit it sends only $0.30 to B, plus $0.15 to C - it has gained $0.05 per minute at a cost to B of $0.20 per minute. B, on the other hand, instead of outpaying $0.50 to A now outpays $0.70, of which C receives $0.40. The principle of cost-basis has been flipped on its head - A has achieved a higher 'division' than B, although its costs are lower. A can under-price B very easily, and B is in a greater fix. If traffic volumes get high enough, it will eventually become economic for B to establish direct circuits - but how far will A co-operate? And if A is a competitive environment then B will have to establish direct links with several carriers, not just one transit administration. b) Re-origination Simple one, this. A sends to B via C (a large developed country) other than by the usual bilateral arrangements. The accounting rate from A to C is higher than C to B. A saves the difference, less C's charges for hosting the service. B loses the difference. C gains from its fees, plus uses the increased imbalance to pressure B for accounting rate reductions, increasing the difference in rates and giving A an increased incentive to send even more traffic that way (the B/C route may end up balanced, or even with C outpaying to B). This can involve carriers, or it can be invisible to them albeit using their facilities. 5. The consumer... In much of what goes above, consumers can potentially benefit, especially if they are wealthy, or in a developed country. Economically, this may even be 'efficient' in some sense - but what about economic development and the critical role of telephony? However, just consider the example that while US accounting rates have declined significantly in the last few years, US international call prices continue to rise year-on-year. 6. Fixes... There are a lot of things which could be done to move this along, most of which require multilateral co-operation and therefore many years (one obvious point - when all this was put into place why weren't transit fees set as additional to the base rate, which would promote efficient routing and avoid one of the most tasteless issues above). The often-forecast 'meltdown' really means poorer countries are pressured into operating a small number of direct links to large countries, at lower and lower rates. But within the existing mechanism, the division already accommodated could play a major part. If all the specious objections were swept away, divisions could very easily be set in a way which used some straightforward measures as 'cost' indicators (GDP per capita would be appropriate, possible combined with total country lineage as a measure for possible economies). For instance, suppose a scale something like this were used to set the difference between the outpayments in each direction:- GDP per capita bands: $0-$4,000; $4,001-$8,000; $8,001-$15,000; $15,001+ SDR0.00 GDP/cap in the same band SDR0.06 One band apart SDR0.12 Two bands apart SDR0.20 Three bands apart so if A was at $5,000 and B at $20,000, and the accounting rate SDR1.00, A would outpay SDR0.44 and receive SDR0.56 per minute. This would create a buffer against many of the pernicious effects described. Suppose costs at A equate to SDR0.15 and an additional contribution of SDR0.15 was required for domestic subsidy. B, on the other hand, has costs of SDR0.05 and makes a contribution of SDR0.02 to universal service. The profitability of incoming calls has been roughly equalised between the two, so while price arbitrage is still possible, it is only now a threat to high profits, not to basic service provision. Of course, part of the point of this would be specifically to allow accounting rates to fall much more quickly towards cost, with a large drop possible at the initial adoption of the divisions policy. And that really would allow consumers to benefit, but no longer at the cost of universal service. So where does the developed world stand on this? Well, the US FCC, for one, effectively excludes this approach in its 'policing' of accounting rate agreements. In the name of preventing the US carriers (note AT&T, MCI and Sprint are all in the top 20 world carriers) from being 'whipsawed' by the poorer nations of the world. Naivete, nationalism or malice? Either way, sometimes I wonder how they sleep at nights. Jeremy Parsons ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 10:06:17 CDT From: Mark J Cuccia Subject: ATIS, Canadian Telecom Standards: Webpages ATIS (Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions), the "umbrella" organization in Washington DC for the various North American telecom industry forums (many of them associated with Bellcore as far as secretarial and administrative functions) now has a webpage: http://www.atis.org This URL/domain name has been reserved for them, but had simply an "under construction" type notice for a few months. But as of Saturday 26 April, it is now up and running! There still are a few parts which are "under construction", but you can see lists of the various forums under ATIS/Bellcore, their mission statements, and for some forums, pointers to their own websites. Some of the "under construction" regards documents or "minutes" of the forums or their meetings. Eventually, I would hope that one can view and/or download the actual final documents or meeting notes of the INC (Industry Numbering Committee), ICCF (Industry Carriers' Compatability Forum), NOF (Network Operations Forum), etc. OBF (Ordering and Billing Forum) has many of its issues and documents available already at the ATIS website. Also, many of the Canadian telecom standards forums, such as the "Telecommunications Standards Advisory Council of Canada" and the "Canadian Interconnection Liason Committee" (these forums are very much similar to Bellcore and ATIS) have their issues and documents now available through the Canadian Government's "Industry-Canada" website: http://www.tsacc.ic.gc.ca/index.html 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: excess@onramp.net (R.A.Y.) Subject: Nortel Datapath ISDN NT4X25 SPID? Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 16:30:20 GMT Organization: On-Ramp; Individual Internet Connections; Dallas/Ft Worth Reply-To: regyoung@main.globallink.net I purchased the TA (I think it's a TA?). The line is installed, but I can't find where to enter my SPIDS. Please help! Thanks, Reg ------------------------------ From: Lou Person Subject: Frame Relay or Point to Point Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 13:20:03 -0400 Organization: Intellitech Corporation We have the fortunate opportunity to extend our network. Does anyone have and suggestions regarding Frame Relay vs. Point to Point? We are thinking about renting a frame relay circuit, but we don't know if we should go Frame Relay or Point to Point. Thanks, Lou http://www.mcny.com ------------------------------ From: Ed Ellers Subject: Re: New-Fangled Phones on a Two-Party Line Date: Mon, 6 May 96 10:03:06 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Pat O'Neil writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You can't insure those things, which is > why under FCC regulations it is *completely forbidden* to put any sort > of attachment or phone on a multi-party line other than the nice black > POTS phone telco gives you when you sign up for that asinine service. That's not always the case -- in some areas phone companies are installing special devices at the drop that make conventional devices appear as though they were specially wired for that party on the line, meaning that calls placed would appear to come from that party and ringing would only be passed through for that party. (I still remember finding out in 1984, right after divestiture, just how difficult it was to get a phone fixed on a party line in a Bell area. When my grandmother had trouble with her 500 set -- leased from AT&T -- only AT&T could fix it of course, and they sent her a replacement phone by mail with a meter stamp for postage to send the old one back. However, that phone was wired for a normal line, so before she could use it the Bell company had to send its technician out to rewire the ringer on the AT&T phone, and install the modular jack for the new phone. She didn't have to pay extra for any of this, but it did take a few days during which she didn't have a phone to use.) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 10:31:51 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: New-Fangled Phones on a Two-Party Line Pat: While some telcos have completely eliminated multi-party service (existing customers/lines were probably by regulatory tarriff continued to be charged the cheaper multi-party as long as they didn't move service, etc), some telcos have stopped offering it to new or moving customers. The last time I checked with the service reps of South Central Bell (BellSouth), I was told that *existing* multi-party customers continued to have the service "grandfathered", of course charged at the cheaper rate. Usually if you want to upgrade to single-party service, you are charged a "one-time installation" fee, similar to changing between flat-rate, EAS or measured-rate offerings, adding CLASS or custom calling features, etc. which "could" be a discouragement to upgrading. ("Why should I have to *pay* telco a fee, even a one-time fee, if I will be paying them a higher monthly rate anyhow?" could be a rationale.) Many rural or isolated areas probably still have a lack of enough copper loop between the central office and the customers, therefore you have to be on a "waiting list" to get single-party service. As for CPE, about ten years ago (post-divestiture), I asked a SCBell service rep about party line service and CPE. I was told that for new partyline customers or new CPE declared on a partyline, a repairman would have to make a visit to the location and "check" the phone for the proper side of the party line (tip or ring). Most Western Electric phones were traditionally factory wired for the "ring" half of a party line from what I've seen. Bell would charge an extra "fee" for the repairman visit to check the phone and possibly re-wire it. The "fee" would also apply if the phone were a new style phone which couldn't be easily opened up and re-wired (if it needed to be re-wired). If the phone *had* to be re-wired and couldn't be easily opened up and/or re-wired, you were *forbidden* to attatch the phone to the line! Recently when I checked with a BellSouth service rep, I was told that in many locations these days, the differentiation between tip or ring, with respect to ground, can be handled at the box on the exterior wall of the house, at the green pole in the backyard, or on the box on the pole! Therefore just about *any* kind of phone could be attatched to a party line, without the need for a repairman to even "visit" the CPE itself! A reminder here -- don't attatch answering machines or modems to party-lines. If the other party on the line needs to make an emergency call while the modem (or fax) machine is in use, or answering machine is actually handling a call, a machine cannot understand that the party line is needed for an emergency so as to release the connection. Failure to relinquish use of a party line in a (truthfully) declared emergency violates state and possibly federal laws! Falsifying an emergency in order to gain access to a party line is ALSO a violation! 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 #217 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon May 6 12:29:40 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA12842; Mon, 6 May 1996 12:29:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 12:29:40 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605061629.MAA12842@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #218 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 May 96 12:29:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 218 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Big Problems With AT&T WorldNet Service (John Mayson) Re: Big Problems With AT&T WorldNet Service (Al Varney) Re: MFS Purchases UUNET (lr@access1.digex.net) Re: MFS Purchases UUNET (Russell Blau) Re: MFS Purchases UUNET (Barry Margolin) Re: Possible Work-Around to Avoid 911 ANI? (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: Need Basic Information On Direct Link Microwave (TELECOM Digest Editor) PTT Voice Mail Outside the US (David Yewell) Paying More and Getting Less? No Way! (David M. Seldon) Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop (Mike Fox) Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop (Manuel Maese) Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop (Mike Morris) GSM Datacard Under Linux? (Roman Maeder) 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: jmayson@p100dl.ess.harris.com (John Mayson) Subject: Re: Big Problems With AT&T Worldnet Service Date: Mon, 6 May 96 10:04:29 EDT The debate over AT&T Worldnet Service continues, so I thought I'd get my two cents in before Pat kills this thread. ;-) I had to request my Worldnet software FOUR times before I received it. I had basically given up, then it arrived one day in the mail. I opened it up and discovered there is no local number for Melbourne/Cocoa, Florida. When I got to work the next day, I e-mailed them explaining how a Cocoa number is dialable by over 350,000 residents of one of the most technologically advanced counties in the nation, Brevard County, Florida, home of Kennedy Space Center. I don't know if anything will come of this. I called BellSouth and asked if there is any way I could call Orlando or Daytona at a reduced rate, or a plan to call those cities as if it were a local call. They said such plans do exist, but not for Melbourne. I decided to sign-up anyway, use their toll-free 1-800 number sparingly, and wait for a local number someday. Signing up was a nightmare. I started before dinner and didn't actually have a sign-on until around midnight. The sign-up program resembles a stripped down version of Netscape and the whole process was very, very, very, very slow. It was at this time I realized my mail didn't work. I kept getting "connection timed out {10060}". It would take five days of phone call after phone call to get this problem remedied. I finally decided to reload the software from scratch and the problem went away. I must've flubbed something up while installing it the first time. I was pleasantly surprised to discover other mail programs work with AT&T Worlnet, as do various telnet and ftp programs. This is a true PPP service, not some cheesy "on-line, info superhighway, get people wired" service like AOL or Prodigy. I'm sticking with Worldnet for a number of reasons. One is the nationwide portability. This is a nationwide service. They even have a number for San Juan, PR (with a 787 NPA listed to boot!). Second is the 24/7 help line. Now, we do have many, many, ISPs in this area (perhaps why AT&T has no number here), but they tend to come and go and at best people at work say they're all "okay". They "usually" don't get a busy signal and "sometimes" it's not too slow. So far I've never had a busy signal and everything seems really fast. If you can survive the sign-up process, Worldnet is worth the trouble. John Mayson | Palm Bay, Florida | john.mayson@harris.com ------------------------------ From: varney@ihgp4.ih.att.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Big Problems With AT&T WorldNet Service Date: 5 May 1996 23:18:23 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies (partially-owned by AT&T) In article , wrote: > In , Greg Eiche com> writes: >> Does anybody have any insight in the problems that AT&T WorldNet has >> been having in registering new accounts? I tried to register for a >> new account today with the software they just sent me, and was >> unsuccessful. When I called AT&T's tech support, I was told that >> their server was overloaded with people trying to sign up and that >> they were having major problems. I couldn't help but laugh when I >> recalled all the reports that AT&T was going to give the ISPs a real >> run for their money. It's quite amazing that the world's largest >> telecom can't get it right!! I, for one, plan to stick with my local >> ISP ... > Except for the fact that no "local ISP" could handle thousands or tens > of thousands of registrations PER DAY either. It's when you get a > *busy* signal calling AT&T Worldnet that you should feel free to > laugh ... Not an excuse, just a data point: AT&T's quarterly report indicates calls to WorldNet for new accounts ran 212,000 in the first two weeks, or a new call every 4 seconds, 24 hours a day. Probably more than estimated ... Al Varney - not an official spokesperson for anyone/anything ------------------------------ From: lr@access1.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: MFS Purchases UUNET Date: 6 May 1996 13:48:51 GMT Organization: Intentionally Left Blank TELECOM Digest Editor (ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu) wrote: > In a press release Tuesday, the companies said the merger will create > a single source for Internet, voice, other data and video services > over its international fiber optic network. Thanks, but no thanks. I've been a UUNET customer since practically it's inception, first with UUCP service and then with Alternet. When they started service was exemplary. In the past two years customer service has gone in the toilet. We've had numerous unexplained outages. Network Operations *never* returns calls or e-mail. One time I called and they just put the phone down on the desk without even speaking a word. They put a nice web page in for outages, but when their entire DNS system went to pot one day, they never bothered to mention it there. > I am wondering what Digest readers think of this, and what differences > they see in the months ahead in the performance of the two companies. > In particular, what about UUNET and its long standing role with the > net for many years. Comments welcome. I think we ought not let UUNET rest on it's glory from being one of the first commercial providers but demand a level of service competitive to the industry. ------------------------------ From: RussBlau@cris.com (Russell Blau) Subject: Re: MFS Purchases UUNET Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 16:38:20 GMT On Thu, 2 May 96 11:40 CDT, rem@dsiinc.com (Ron Mackey) wrote: > Frankly, I'm more concerned with the smaller ISP's that currently use > MFS as their primary Internet connection. If I'm not mistaken, all of > the major ISPs in the Chicago area currently use MFS's services, in > one form or another. My question is "Now that MFS owns their own > major ISP, what is going to happen to all the other independent ISP's > currently serviced by MFS?" I suspect that they will find service as good as ever, if not improved. The reason is quite simple. As pointed out earlier in this thread, there are a few other telecommunications carriers (AT&T, MCI, Sprint to name a few) that have a little bit of Internet expertise as well as some modest network facilities. :-) I'm sure these guys would be more than happy to provide service to any ISPs that become dissatisfied with MFS. So, expect MFS to provide top-flight service at highly competitive prices. The UUNET merger should be a positive development for other ISPs. Disclaimer: My firm represents MFS in regulatory matters, but the above opinions are my own. Russell M. Blau RussBlau@cris.com Swidler & Berlin, Chtd. Phone: 202-424-7835 Washington, D.C. Fax: 202-424-7645 ------------------------------ From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: MFS Purchases UUNET Date: 5 May 1996 18:28:11 -0400 Organization: BBN Planet Corp., Cambridge, MA In article , Ron Mackey wrote: > My question is "Now that MFS owns their own > major ISP, what is going to happen to all the other independent ISP's > currently serviced by MFS?" Most likely, very little. Supplying circuits to other ISP's is a major source of MFS's income, and it's unlikely that they would abandon that market. MFS isn't the only circuit provider that has gone into the ISP business. Last year, AT&T started selling our Internet connectivity service (it's their "Worldnet MIS Plus" service). Yet they continue to sell circuits to other ISP's. To me, this seems about the same as the recent mergers between telephone and cable companies. They'll make little difference to cable and telephone customers. The purpose of the mergers is to take advantage of synergies that are possible in the emerging technologies. Barry Margolin BBN PlaNET, Cambridge, MA barmar@bbnplanet.com Phone (617) 873-3126 - Fax (617) 873-6351 ------------------------------ From: jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com Subject: Re: Possible Work-Around to Avoid 911 ANI? Date: Mon, 06 May 96 06:11:48 PDT Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. In article , writes: > If I do *67 and call the local non-emergency number, and then get > transferred to the dispatcher; and assuming that the non-emergency > number does not have ANI but the dispatch number does, can the > dispatcher do ANI after the call has started? > PS. Um, I know how CID works and when -- that's why I'm asking. I think you are confusing Caller ID with Automatic Number ID. 911 calls deliver ANI using MF signaling to a 911 Operator. *67 is used with CID to prevent display of the caller's calling number, not the caller's ANI. *67+1800numbers deliver ANI to the 800 owner, but not the caller's calling number to the party that answers the 800 call. A separate data line is needed to deliver ANI to the party that answers the 800 call. Where are all these parties anyway ;-). CID uses privacy bits to indicate whether the delivered calling number is to be displayed or not. Only 1 bit is needed but 2 are used anyway. 00+CID means "OK to display my number and if you use that to look up my name then it's OK to display my name, too." 01+CID means "Display Private or Anonymous, not my name or number." Also, *67 will not prevent your calling number from being delivered to the called switch for tracing or reporting the call to law enforcement officials. It will only prevent its display to the called party who can use *56 at the end of the call to cause a printout of the calling number at the called switch. CID has never been delivered to a 911 center since CID requires ISUP signaling for inter-switch calling and, at least as far as I know, emergency centers only have MF signaling. Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com ------------------------------ Date: 06 May 1996 08:57:08 GMT From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Re: Need Basic Information On Direct Link Microwave Someone wrote me over the weekend with the following response to the subject line which appeared last week. Unfortunatly the header information got botched up; I do not know who sent it, but it seems to make some good points. PAT ------------------ Theresa Riter wrote on the subject: Need Basic Information On Direct Link Microwave. Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 11:22:18 -0500 > I would like to find out some basic information about direct link > microwave. We got a price quote on a T-1 from South Dakota to > Arizona ... ouch! A friend suggested that we look into direct link > microwave for voice and data transmission. Any information would be > appreciated. Theresa: Watch your back! Although I have an admittedly biased perspective, there are a lot of things radio salesmen forget to mention. 1. Insurance, for the physical equipment, and for loss of businees when it breaks (notice I said "when", not "if"). 2. Periodic calibration and checks by licensed technicians. 3. Air Rights. Never heard of them? What if someone puts another building/tower/billboard in your microwave path? If you don't own the "air right", you're stuck with moving your microwave to a higher tower or even buying a mid-point location to put in a relay. 4. Power requirements: a rainstorm can turn a perfectly good link into a perfectly useless radio. Be sure your system is engineered by an independent professional who'll tell you the class of equipment you need up front, instead of selling you an underpowered "starter" unit and bumping you after the first failure. 5. FCC rules changes. If the technology changes to allow higher channel density, the FCC will order you to upgrade so more users can get licenses. You have no say in this. 6. Backups. Sooner or later, you'll take a lightning hit. If you don't have signed contracts in your pocket that specify prompt response and prices, you'll be buying new houses for the people who come to fix it. And if you think I'm joking, ask yourself how many men you know that are willing to climb a two hundred foot tower. 7. Complaints of interference: if your antenna is on leased space, as most are, you'll be forced into expensive arbitration if any other user complains that your signal interferes with theirs. Even if you own the site, others can complain to the FCC or even sue you if their system's performance changes when you turn yours on. ------------------------------ From: David Yewell Subject: PTT Voice Mail Outside the US Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 14:49:49 -0700 Organization: Netcom I'm interested in learning about the availability of PTT supplied voice mail or voice messageing services in Europe, specifically in Germany, France and Holland. Very simply, 1. Is PTT provided voicemail available? 2. How long has it been available, is it successful? 3. Are there technical barriers to introducing voice mail? I would appreciate any info you could e-mail me. Thanks, Dave Yewell yewell@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 19:29:38 -0700 From: dseldon@ix.netcom.com (David M. Seldon) Subject: Paying More and Getting Less? No Way! On May 1, 1996, TUrner-7 writes; > As an individual consumer, not a telco employee/provider/beneficary -- > I fail to see how we consumers have benefited from long distance > competition. In the mid 1970s, I made lots of long distnace calls, > and AT&T rates were quite modest back then -- and it wasn't competition > that forced them down. > Rationalize it any way you want, thanks to divesture, I'm paying more > and getting less. Consider the facts - Example: An 11 minute, 700 mile interstate phone call, placed in the evening (not nights/weekends) on AT&T residential service. The cost of such a call over time has been as follows: 1975 $2.52 1982-3 $2.95 (Divestiture 1987 $2.08 1992 $1.54 1993 $1.65 1994 $1.76 1995 $1.87 These costs are undiscounted -- since about all one needs to do to get a 25% discount is ask, a more realistic 1995 cost would be $1.40. Discounts were not available for small residential customers from pre-divestiture AT&T. So the cost of a call these days is approximately 1/2 of the cost of the same call at divestiture. If one considers the effects of inflation, today's effective cost is only about 30% of the cost at divestiture. Calls placed for other distances, and at other time periods, as well as calls placed with other carriers rates have followed a similar pattern. The example above is not "rationalization", but simple math. I am paying less, and getting more. The current system is certainly not perfect -- what system is? But because of divestiture, costs of the long haul portion (POP - POP) of long distance calls have been stripped of "fat" by market competition. The only fat remaining is in the costs of the local access portion, which are paid to the monopoly local exchange carriers. These costs are under tremendous pressure, and are bound to come down as local competition increases. We're soon to see increasing chaos and confusion in the telecom marketplace, perhaps similar to the first years after divestiture. Competitive markets are messy and confusing, but they are the only way the customer gets to vote with dollars every day. Those votes really count -- they are what has dragged the cost of long distance calling down so drastically. Dave Seldon TeleCom Consultants dseldon@ix.netcom.com 615-646-1649 ------------------------------ From: Mike Fox Date: 6 May 96 12:47:59 GMT Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop > Take the money! > If the endorsement states that, by cashing the check, you are giving > your consent to have your service switched it seems like a legitimate > contract. > The fact that your consent is not sufficient to switch is something > that is not within the four corners of the agreement. The phone companies are getting more and more sophisticated about this. The check he got probably says that 1) he certifies that he is the person authorized to change LD on the line (not true in this case) and 2) he agrees to the switch. At least that's what was on an MCI check I recently received. They had screwed up and sent me one of these checks for someone else's phone line. I examined it very carefully before deciding to toss it. BTW, the check also required that I call them from the line in question to get an authorization code that had to be written in a box on the front that says "void if incorrect code here" -- though how the bank could verify that I have no idea. I bet it would sail through my bank and bounce at their bank, which is probably a captive institution like AT&T Universal Bank and therefore trained to verify the codes. So I think it's getting harder and harder to screw the phone companies on these checks, as each time they get burned they react in the next bunch they send out. Later, Mike ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 21:01:51 -0500 From: Manuel Maese Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop Dear Atri, Lucky one! I lived for three years in a similar situation (college dorms), but despite similar pestering dinner-time calls, I never got any check. My two cents: go ahead and cash the check. But don't assume that the telemarketing calls soliciting your switch to AT&T will stop. The department responsible for switching you may not be in perfect communications with their marketing department. Who knows, you may eventually get yet another check! Enjoy the extra cash! Manuel Maese mmaese@geotek.com ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Mon, 5 May 1996 05:35:33 GMT Atri Indiresan writes: > Here's another twist on checks for LD switching. > I live in University housing, and we have to use their phone service > for local and long distance. However, this has not stopped AT&T from > calling me at least three times asking me to switch to them. Each time > I explained to them that given the nature of my phone service, it was > not possible to me to make the switch to them, or anyone else. > Yesterday, I received a check for $100 which, if I encash, authorizes > them to switch me to their LD service (with 40% True Reach savings for > the first 6 months). I really have no objection to being switched to > AT&T - their rates seem better than what I get now. Do you think I > should encash the check, and let them try to switch my LD service? > Once they realize that I cannot be switched, maybe they will stop > pestering me by phone? The way I see it, in spite my of telling them > more than once that I cannot be switched, if they send me a check for > $100, they deserve to lose the money. You've done your best to educate the idiots, go ahead and cash the check, but deposit in a savings account. Wait six or nine months, if they ask for it back, give it to them, but keep the interest. If they don't then have fun with it. Mike Morris morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us #include I have others, but this works the best. Looking for CDA-banned material? Try the bible: Genesis 19:30-38, or Ezeikel 23:20. ------------------------------ From: Roman Maeder Subject: GSM Datacard Under Linux? Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 13:49:36 +0200 Organization: MathConsult Dr. R. Mder Reply-To: maeder@inf.ethz.ch GSM cellular phones (which operate almost the world over, with the notable exception of the USA; GSM info is at the end of this post for those who have never heard of it before) can be connected to laptops using a special PCMCIA "data card". Such cards come with Windows software only. Before I buy my laptop and get Linux for it, I need to know whether it will be possible to drive this card. It is not listed in the list of supported PCMCIA cards in the Linux docs, but some Modem and ISDN cards are (GSM is compatible with ISDN, but the data rate is lower). How difficult would it be to write the necessary driver, starting with existing code for modem or ISDN cards? I am grateful for any hints you can give me. If you send me email, I will summarize the responses I got if something useful turns up. Roman Maeder About GSM: GSM is a European standard for mobile communication that is now adopted in many countries even outside of Europe (Australia, far east, etc.). Communication is digital and encrypted. World-wide roaming is standard. The system is similar to ISDN in its operation and supports data transmission. The identity of a subscriber is contained in a small chip card that can be inserted into any GSM phone. Phones and cards are password-protected and stolen phones can be traced or disabled if they are used. Some links about GSM: GSM/Network Information PTT GSM Info. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #218 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon May 6 13:51:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA21080; Mon, 6 May 1996 13:51:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 13:51:25 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605061751.NAA21080@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #219 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 May 96 13:51:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 219 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Fire in PDX US West Office Kills Phone Service (foole@earthlink.net) Re: US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees (Leonard Erickson) Re: US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees (Elana Beach) Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? (Lynne Gregg) Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? (Steven Bradley) Information Wanted on "Cordless Miracle" (Dub Dublin) Does Sprint Provide NYC Local Service? (Vasos Panagiotopoulos) Re: ANI Information From D-Channel (Brett Frankenberger) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (Eric Kammerer) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (Babu Mengelepouti) 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: foole@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Fire in PDX US West Office Kills Phone Service Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 15:53:06 GMT Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc. On Sun, 28 Apr 1996 15:34:15 GMT, elana@netcom.com (Elana who?) wrote: > Sometime last week, there was a fire in a Portland, Oregon (PDX in > airport lingo) US West office ... it burned thru some phone cables and > knocked out phone service in most of the northeastern part of the > city. > The outage lasted about eight hours. One of the ISPs I have an > account with, agora.rdrop.com, temporarily lost their Internet > connection as well, even though they are physically located rather far > south of the outage area. (go figure). > The reaction of the locals, according to the paper, seems to be that > this is the last straw for a lot of these Portlanders. US West has > already angered a lot of people here because of incident upon incident > of bad service and too-long waits for new numbers. And now this. > Hmmm ... US West has not yet annoyed me at all ... (cautiously fearful > emphasis on "yet") > I have no idea about this incident other than what I've scanned in the > local paper. Perhaps a fellow Webfoot ( that the Oregonian > slang for other Oregonians) who more technical than I, *and* knows > more about this incident can post more news about it. I work for a company whose service was completely severed by this outage. My account exec at USWest informs me that an electrician was cutting a power cable that everyone KNEW to be off. Guess, what? It wasn't. There was no information forthcoming from USWest as to the condition of the electrician, but he was injured. Western Electric was brought in to complete the repairs. The incident happened around 10 am on Wednesday, April 24th. Service was restored about eight and 1/2 hours later. This outage was sheer negligence on the part of USWest and the electrician. There is test equipment that would have told them that the cable was live, if they only would have chosen to use it. Tom Lynn ------------------------------ Subject: Re: US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 18:08:05 PST Organization: Shadownet Another thing you don't hear regarding the downsizing is that (at least here in Portland) the "technical" folks have been working *mandatory* 12 hour shifts (60 hour weeks) for over a year. I have this from a friend who works there (and who shall remain nameless as he'd like to keep his job!) I've worked at places that used 12 hour shifts. But it is normally used for areas that need 24 hour a day, 7 days a week coverage. And they work things so that nobody does more than 4 days in a row, and the average hours per week are around 48. But US West seems to be doing this *solely* to avoid having to hire more people. I rather suspect that overtime comes under a different category than "base" per employee expenses. That would allo management to look good for cutting the "base" expenses, even though the overtime pay was eating up all the savings. US West just doesn't get it. We have local competition coming, and they are providing *lousy* service. BTW, the fire here in Portland was due to *outside* contractors who had been hired to install some new switching gear. They cut a power cable that was "live" and the resulting short is what started the fire. They also managed to disconnect the battery backup! There was very little damage, mostly just the one cable that got hot enough for the insulation to catch fire. It didn't damage adjacent cables, but they had to check that anyway, clean up the cable run, and get the power back to the areas that lost it. So it only took a couple of days to get it all straightened out. But this too shows the sort of problems the downsizing has caused. Why else would outside contractors be installing switch gear *without* some phone company techs keeping an eye on things? Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow) shadow@krypton.rain.com <--preferred leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com <--last resort ------------------------------ From: elana@netcom.com (Elana who?) Subject: Re: US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 18:08:53 GMT In article , Tad Cook wrote: Quote from some US West VIP-type: > "In order for us to be competitive in this new environment we had to > increase service and reduce costs," Miller said. WAITAMINNIT!!! "Competitive" with whom?? If ever I have a problem with US West, I can't go calling some other local telco like I can with long-distance companies and say "Hi! I am tired of having US West as my local telco! Sign me up with your outfit instead!" They are the only game in town and they know it. Is this a case of corporate doublespeak or is there something I don't quite understand here??? E. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think what you don't understand is that competition is >thisclose< to becoming reality. It already is in place for very large telecom customers, which is all most of the telcos care about anyway. There may not be any competitors out there now soliciting your business, but they will be soon enough. The existing or 'traditional' telcos all see it coming, and in their various ways are digging in and trying to reform themselves to meet the challenge. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? Date: Mon, 06 May 96 08:01:00 PDT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: (excerpt) > Cellular phones usually do not send or receive caller-id, regardless > of what features you have on your landline phones. PAT] Just to clarify, AT&T Wireless and a few other cellular carriers offer TRUE Caller ID services. This means that the cellular number *is* sent on outbound calls. It also means that cellular subscribers having a proper cellphone can subscribe to Caller ID service and see inbound calls. One advantage of Cellular Caller ID is that it operates today with Call Waiting. Very nice for call screening, if you handle many inbound calls on your cellular phone. Now as to forwarding, the intermediate point or points (lines) DO NOT have to subscribe to Caller ID in order for the originating caller's number to be passed. What's needed is ISUP connectivity end-to-end. I only have Caller ID on my cellular phone. I forward my desk phone and my residential phone to my cellular. Both of those wired lines are ISUP to and through the CO. Therefore all calls coming to my cellular show the number (except when blocked or out of area). In order to decrease the number of "out of area" displays on business calls, I instruct frequent callers to have their Telecom Managers configure their PBX's to send either the main office number or station numbers of system users. By doing this, the vast majority of my inbound calls actually DO display numbers. AT&T passes Calling Party Number on long distance calls, so many of my out-state calls display Caller ID, too. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: steven@bbbcfl.oau.org (Steven Bradley) Date: Mon, 6 May 96 06:21:27 EDT Subject: Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? Organization: The Better Business Bureau of Central Florida, Inc. Rich Chong wrote: > Let's say I have two lines. A and B. Line A doesn't subscribe to > caller-id. Line B does. If line-A busy is set up to hunt to line-B, > what caller-id info if any is presented to B? Same question for a > call-forwarded line. Oh, lets toss in the same question for cell > phones (as line A) immediate, busy, and no-answer call-forwarding. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No information is provided to B since > it is only being used as an overflow/alternate for A, and A does not > subscribe to the service. The 'decision' in the software as to which > custom calling features to extend to a subscriber with an incoming > call are made before any 'decision' is made how to dispose of the > call if the specifically called line is unavailable for whatever > reason. As long as you *never* have incoming calls which were dialed Pat, I take exception to this, as I have caller ID on my _last_ line with fwd/busy on two lines ahead of it. If those two lines are busy and it is forwarded to line three, which has caller id, I will receive the caller id information, even though the call came in on line one or two and that line was unavailable. I know for a fact (DMS 100 I think, for switch) this works for my Sprint/United lines as I have used it before -- take lines one and two off hook and all calls come to line three and provide caller id data, hence a persistent caller of line one or two can be indentified (ie if a nuisance call) with only caller id on the last line. Steven Bradley Better Business Bureau of Central Florida, Inc. Systems Administrator 1011 North Wymore Road, Suite 204 Winter Park, Florida 32789 steven@bbbcfl.oau.org (407) 621-3300 x310 Fax (407) 629-9334 ------------------------------ From: Dub Dublin Subject: Information Wanted on "Cordless Miracle" Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 18:20:33 -0500 Organization: infowave.com I'm looking for some information on the "Cordless Miracle" (goofy name, huh?), a $300 (4 line) or $400 (8 line) box that lets a cordless phone (or any other analog single line device, one supposes) pick up or access for dialing any of the lines going through it. I have a photo of the box in Damark's new catalog, and it looks like the CO lines feed into the unit and are passed on to your regular office KSU (or distribution for a regular analog loop?), and there is a single jack marked "cordless phone" which is somehow switched between the 4 or 8 lines available. If anyone has info on exactly what this thing does and how it works, I'd appreciate it. First-hand reports would be especially nice, since web and news searches have turned up pretty empty. (There was one web hit saying that someone at a college in Oklahoma gave it an award as an innovative product at a show there.) Thanks, Dub Dublin -or- ------------------------------ From: vjp2@dorsai.dorsai.org (Vasos Panagiotopoulos) Subject: Does Sprint Provide NYC Local Service? Date: 6 May 1996 06:00:47 -0400 Organization: Samani Marions Panyaught NYC 11357-3436-287 USA Does anyone know anything about Sprint providing local service in NYC? Any chance I can get a Sprint local line call forwared automatically (ie no physical connection) to an existing nynex-connected number? Anyone have any telephone numbers? (pls cc e-mail..tnx) Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bioengineer-Financier, NYC Bach-Mozart ReaganQuayleGramm Evrytano-Kastorian Cit:MarquisWhWFinanc&Indus [0003536867@mcimail.com , 76530.1430@CompuServe.Com, vjp2@dorsai.org] ------------------------------ From: brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger) Subject: Re: ANI Information From D-Channel Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 03:54:53 GMT In article , Dishu wrote: > I'm a lab supervisor for a Macintosh Lab at the University of > Connecticut. In the very near future, this lab is going to be > connected to the rest of the campus via a 56.6 ISDN network. It is my > understanding that the D-Channel provides an ANI service that can be > linked to telephones for the purposes of Caller ID. > Is it possible to pass this information to a program residing on my > server, perhaps? I wish to basically monitor incoming calls, to > discern whether or not my staff is taking a greater number of personal > calls or work related calls. The short answer is yes. But what you really want is more of a CDR type thing, as you don't need the info in real time. There are lots of ways to do that. But this hits on one of my pet peeves :), which is my real reason for responding. This is a waste of technology and resources. Technology is very useful for many things, and I am a big proponent of its use in such cases. But to "check up" on employees like this is not one of those uses, IMO. So you implement this caller-ID thing to track personal calls. What do you plan to do to make sure they don't instead talk in-person with people about on-work-related things. Who makes sure *you* don't take too many personal calls on the job? How do you monitor your staff now? Or do you not monitor them now? And if not, does that make you an incompetent manager? If you aren't monitoring them now, and there are no problems, why do you need to start? What happened to telling them not to take too many personal calls, then trusting them, and if a problem turned up, firing or reprimanding them? Are you such an aloof manager that you couldn't notice that there was a problem except with a CDR listing? If you don't trust them, what are you doing hiring them in the first place? (This is not a personal flame of you ... It's just a sample of some of the questions I think people ignore when they jump to a technological solution to their classical managerial problems.) Also, from a technical stand-point, it's trivial to defeat what you are talking about. I am assuming that you will generalize that, for example, calls from on-campus numbers are work related and off-campus numbers are personal. Ok, so staff member #1 gets a ton of off-campus calls and is reprimanded (or fired) by you. Now the staff knows you are monitoring CDR (or, in the alternative, you tell them in advance, so they know from the beginning. Either way, they end up knowing). So what do they all do now? Stop getting personal calls? I doubt it. Instead, then tell everyone to, instead of calling direct, to call "person X" (who is in on the operation) at an on-campus number, and person X (whose incoming calls are presumably not being monitored) can then transfer them. The result is that the calls appear to come from person X's on-campus number (at least with most switches), and don't look like personal calls to you. Bingo! They've circumvented your technological solution. (That might not really work in this situation ... for example, all the calls from "X" ight look suspicious ... or your switch might pass the true originating number instead of the number doing the transfer ... but my point is that they will find a way around your technological solution, even if the example I gave above isn't they way that they untimately come up with. Remember, they don't all have to be smart enough to think it up ... just one of them does, and that one can tell the rest.) Brett (brettf@netcom.com) Brett Frankenberger [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This reminds me of the case of a very large centrex here (so large, it has two prefixes on it; for internal calls five digits are required) which has a number of special arrange- ments on it. Some of the numbers on the centrex are set up for outgoing calls only; some for incoming calls only; and in a couple of cases for *internal use only*. That is to say, if you dial into those extensions from outside the organization (i.e. I call from my house to that organization dialing the full number) you get an intercept from telco which says "the number you dialed, xxx-xxxx cannot be reached from outside the customer's premises". The number can place/receive calls only to/from other extensions at the organization. I've heard of restricted extensions which could not make outside calls, but never on incoming calls and never on calls both ways not part of the centrex. The switchboard is large enough the operators have no particular knowledge of what extension goes where except by rote training and their experience after working there for awhile, handling a large number of incoming calls each day. If you call the main number and then ask for one of the restricted to within the customer's premises extension numbers the call still fails to complete, with the centrex operator getting the same recording you would have gotten had you dialed it (as you probably tried to do) direct. What is annoying is the operators work so quickly they leave the line the instant they have dialed the five digits. They assume if it is BY/DA the call will come back to them anyway in a few seconds, but these don't. It rings a few times and goes to that same old intercept you would have gotten by dialing direct. You can listen to it repeat itself or you can hang up and dial into the centrex operator all over again. The operator never will return to the line otherwise. Furthermore, if you dial direct into an extension which is not restricted to internal use and ask them to transfer you to the restricted extension, they cannot do it either. But for some reason, if you call the centrex operator and ask for an unrestricted extension and then get on that line only to ask that line to further transfer you to a restricted one it will go through. I assume somehow whatever controls are in place which the system 'sees' to prevent the connection get lost in the network by that point. The restricted-to- premises extensions are used for workers in the organization who would have absolutely no legitimate reason to receive calls pertaining to business from outside; i.e. lookup clerks who search microfilm records for other departments making inquiries, etc while the other department waits on hold for the information, i.e. file number or account number they are seeking, etc, from the lookup clerks. I have no idea how they wire the centrex to accomplish this. The only other time I have seen anything similar was one day when I had to place a call to a point in the Carribbean; some little island country down there which was on area 809. They discriminated against international calls. When I dialed the phone number of the person I wanted, a recording came on saying, "The subscriber you are calling does not accept international calls. This is a Cable & Wireless recording." I have no idea why they did not accept international calls on that number or how C&W was able to differentiate one incoming call from another. This was about six years ago. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 96 10:43:25 PDT From: erick@sac.AirTouch.COM (Eric Kammerer at Sac Net) Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? > Incidentally ... what if you were to do this from a cellphone? An > interesting loophole exists where in areas that SS7 isn't linked to > the cell switch. One can call a Sprint operator, have the Sprint > operator bill a call to anywhere in the *world* to the "number you're > calling from," and the *cell carrier* gets the bill -- because Sprint > gets the number of the trunk you're calling from rather than your > mobile number. Even more murky if you were to third-party bill a > number using Sprint or another carrier from your cellphone -- Sprint, > like AT&T, often doesn't verify acceptance of third-party billed > calls. Of course, all of this is patently illegal and there's no way > of knowing whether you'll get away with it or not without first trying > it (minor technicality), which could result in an unpleasant surprise. > You also still will be billed for airtime on those calls -- even > though you might manage to get around long distance. I haven't tried > this -- a naughty phreak suggested I try it, and I politely declined. Actually, the cellular carrier can request blocking of collect and 3rd-party calls. We certainly do (for obvious reasons). Anyone can request such blocking from their LEC. Any calls that are 3rd-party billed to our trunks are the LECs problem, not ours -- we aren't required to pay for them, and we won't. Cellular calls _are_ flagged as such for the IECs, and their employees do get a screen pop which indicates a cellular call. AT&T, Sprint, and MCI all claim that their system won't allow operators (or even supervisors) to connect a 3rd-party call without a valid calling card -- a defense against "social-engineering". SS7 is _not_ required for this to work. It'll be interesting to see what happens with 3rd-party calls when the cellular carriers start providing caller-ID... Long distance billing is separate from airtime billing. Regardless of how you bill the long distance, you will get charged for airtime. In most cases, the billing is generated from two different switches owned by two different companies. However, if you are subscribed to a long distance service provided by your cellular carrier, the billing may be generated by the same switch. Eric Kammerer erick@sac.AirTouch.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:11:00 -0500 From: walkerrb@www.hendrix.edu (Babu Mengelepouti) Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? Eric writes: > Actually, the cellular carrier can request blocking of collect and > 3rd-party calls. We certainly do (for obvious reasons). Anyone can > request such blocking from their LEC. Any calls that are 3rd-party > billed to our trunks are the LECs problem, not ours -- we aren't > required to pay for them, and we won't. Of course -- it's added to the lidb, but that assumes that the ld carrier honors the lidb. The carrier in question in this case was Sprint. Incidentally WilTel doesn't have a Canadian lidb and I've heard that it's possible to collect bill calls to Canadian phones... I have a friend in Canada with a cell and we should try it and see how the billing works. The Canadian lidb apparently blocks this type of call because such calling isn't possible through AT&T/MCI (1800-COLLECT). In areas where you've deployed SS7 is there still an actual pots number associated with your trunks, or is the mobile number dynamically assigned? In that case, how would it be possible to "bill your trunks" b23 or collect? Or does this only apply in the areas in which you've not yet deployed SS7? > Cellular calls _are_ flagged as such for the IECs, and their > employees do get a screen pop which indicates a cellular call. AT&T, > Sprint, and MCI all claim that their system won't allow operators (or > even supervisors) to connect a 3rd-party call without a valid calling > card -- a defense against "social-engineering". SS7 is _not_ required > for this to work. Incidentally this is being used currently in both US Cellular and Century Cellunet (which I think is an offshoot of Sprint, am I correct?). Sprint operators do *not* get a screen pop indicating cellular in those areas. They can claim all they like, they *are* getting phreaked for international calls. Most cell carriers (for obvious reasons) block international calling; Sprint has no such block and in those areas is not aware that the calling phone is a cell. Even worse, I am not sure if they actually get the cell number as the number being billed or the carrier's TRUNK as the number being billed--as this is being used from (cloned) roaming phones. > It'll be interesting to see what happens with 3rd-party calls when the > cellular carriers start providing caller-ID... Hmmm ... that would be interesting. Do you think the "third" number will show up? > Long distance billing is separate from airtime billing. Regardless of > how you bill the long distance, you will get charged for airtime. In > most cases, the billing is generated from two different switches owned > by two different companies. However, if you are subscribed to a long > distance service provided by your cellular carrier, the billing may > be generated by the same switch. In my cell carrier's case, they don't allow equal access and they bill for AT&T -- all the billing is done through their switch, to make it "easy" so they claim. The only thing that isn't "easy" is paying the outrageous charges! The rates billed are AT&T's basic rates and AT&T won't allow any discount plans because the carrier is "not equal access" -- meaning, I guess, that they know you have little or no choice, so why do they need to be nice about it? I'm calling from Saudi Arabia ... walkerrb@www.hendrix.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #219 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon May 6 15:54:13 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id PAA03252; Mon, 6 May 1996 15:54:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 15:54:13 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605061954.PAA03252@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #220 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 May 96 15:54:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 220 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson RF ICS for Wireless Comm. Deadline 5/15 (Takao Inoue) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Gabe M. Wiener) Re: An Intelligent Phone? (Dave Keeny) Re: Information Wanted on Tymnet (Ben Combee) Re: The Right to Television Signals (Robert P. Shannon) Re: Non-LEC Payphones (Matthew Stone) Re: Further Notes to Those Who Ordered Clocks (Mike Morris) Re: Bits Don't Go High to Some 800s (Steve Forrette) Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper (Mike Morris) Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper (And a Bit More Telco History) (Gabe Wiener) 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: inoue@ece.orst.edu (Takao Inoue) Subject: RF ICS for Wireless Comm. Deadline 5/15 Date: 6 May 1996 17:43:32 GMT Organization: Oregon State University We are pleased to announce a five day intensive course in RF ICS for Wireless Communications. Please apply or contact us ASAP if interested. The deadline is 5/15 to participate. Looking forward for your participation. Info also at http://www.ece.orst.edu/~inoue/RFICS96/ for recent updates. RF ICS FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION A 5-Day Intensive Course June 10-14, 1996 World Trade Center, Portland, USA This course will cover practical aspects of RF design for wireless applications. The course is intended to give engineers a wider perspective and practical understanding of RF design, testing, measurement, and implementation for wireless systems. The topics covered are RF Transceiver design, front-end RF circuits, Mixers, LNA's, IF vs. Zero If vs. low-IF, Homodyne RF Front End Design, Frequency Synthesizers, CMOS, Bi-CMOS, and GaAs RF Circuits, and RF measurement and testing This course is sponsored by OCATE and Oregon State University. For registration info and a workshop brochure, call OCATE at 503-725-2200. SPACE IS LIMITED. REGISTER ASAP (BEFORE MAY 15th) To Get in . Monday June 10 RF System Issues AM: 8:30-10:00 Ken Hansen Motorola Inc. RF Transceiver Overview 10:30-12:00 Ken Hansen Bi-CMOS RF Circuits PM: 13:00-14:30 Ted Rappaport Virginia Tech. Mobile Radio Propagation & Fading 15:00-16:30 Ted Rappaport Modulation and Multiple Access ==================== Tuesday June 11 Front End: Mixers, LNA, PA AM: 8:30-10:00 Micheal Steyaert Katholieke University CMOS Front End Receiver Circuits 10:30-12:00 Micheal Steyaert Low Phase-Noise GHz CMOS VCO's and Presacalers PM: 13:00-14:30 Steve Cripps Hywave Associates High Efficiency RF Power Amplifiers I 15:00-16:30 Steve Cripps High Efficiency RF Power Amplifiers II ==================== Wednesday June 12 Frequency Synthesizer AM: 8:30-10:00 Behzad Razavi HP Labs. Homodyne RF Front End Design 10:30-12:00 Behzad Razavi Phase Noise in CMOS Oscillators PM: 13:00-14:30 Fred Martin Motorola Inc. Frequency Synthesizers I: Fundementals 15:00-16:30 Fred Martin Frequency Synthesizers II: Circuits ==================== Thursday June 13 GaAs Circuits RF Testing AM: 8:30-10:00 Stewart Taylor TriQuint Biasing of GaAs MESFET RF Circuits 10:30-12:00 Vijay Nair Motorola Inc. GaAs RF and MIMIC Designs PM: 13:00-14:30 Doug Kent Rytting HP Labs. RF Measurement and Testing 15:00-16:30 Eric Strid Cascade Mircotech. Fixturing Issues in RF IC Testing ==================== Friday June 14 RF Data Comm & Technologies AM 8:30-10:00 Behrooz Abdi Motorola Inc. Mixed-Signal ICs for Data Communication I 10:30-12:00 Behrooz Abdi Mixed-Signal ICs for Data Communication II PM: 13:00-14:30 Fred Wiess Analog Devices High-Frequency Technologiy Options for Wireless Comm. 15:00-16:30 Ken M. Lakin TFR Tech. Inc. Miniature Filters RF ==================================================== Course Organizers: Dr. Sayfe Kiaei ECE Dept. Oregon State University kiaei@ece.orst.edu; Phone: 503-737-3118 Dr. Vijay Tripathi ECE Dept. Oregon State University vkt@ece.orst.edu; Phone: 503-737-1868 SPACE IS LIMITED. REGISTER ASAP (BEFORE MAY 15th) To Get in . Course Fee: $1595 ------------------------------ From: gabe@pgm.com (Gabe M. Wiener) Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Date: 6 May 1996 10:58:31 -0400 Organization: PGM Recordings / Quintessential Sound, Inc. In article , Alan Toscano wrote: > On the other hand, if you've been using an LEC calling card to place > calls over the AT&T network, you might soon be out-of-luck! To add another permutation to all of this: I usually use my AT&T calling card to place intra-NYNEX calls when at payphones and out of change. Today I was told that "AT&T calling cards can no longer be used on the NYNEX network." Great. Now I need to get ANOTHER calling card. Gabe Wiener Dir., PGM Early Music Recordings |"I am terrified at the thought A Div. of Quintessential Sound, Inc., New York | that so much hideous and bad Recording-Mastering-Restoration (212) 586-4200 | music may be put on records gabe@pgm.com http://www.pgm.com | forever."--Sir Arthur Sullivan ------------------------------ From: Dave Keeny Subject: Re: An Intelligent Phone? Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 07:30:02 +0500 Organization: Telecommunications Techinques Corporation Dale.Robinson@DWNPLAZA.NCOM.nt.gov.au wrote: > With the different long distance billing plans available, I wonder if > anyone has make an intelligent phone to exploit this? > I would like a phone that would: > Select the least-cost billing plan for any given time of day. > (ie. if Telco Y is cheaper than Telco X between 9 -> 10pm, then the > phone would place the call with Y). > Maintain log of calls made and cost of them, for bill comparison. > [snip] Years ago, before intelligent PBXs became the norm, I wrote the software for a least cost router (assembly language, Z80 processor ... funny, I didn't feel old when I came to work this morning). It was to be placed between the PBX and the outside world, and would select the outgoing line and/or access code based on time of day, area code, exchange, etc., and would spit out a priced call record at the end of the call. Unfortunately, the market for smart PBXs was just starting to take off and this product never made it past beta testing. I've often wished I had kept one of the prototypes so I could use it at home as you describe. It would be a nice conversation piece, at any rate (and the sound of 64 relays being de-energized during an emergency shutdown was a *real* attention getter). Man, now I *really* feel old. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 96 07:46:03 CDT From: combee@sso-austin.sps.mot.com (Ben Combee) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Tymnet Reply-To: combee@techwood.org (Ben Combee) >> At some point, Tymnet jumped into it with an offering of their own >> which was quite competitive. I do not recall which company owned >> Tymnet, although I beleive there are some very old files in the >> Archives which discusses it and makes a comparison study between it >> and Telenet's PC Pursuit. > Actually, we olny sold directly to corporate accounts. The mass > market edition was a company reselling the service. (Sorry, the name > of the company escapes me.) I seem to remember the name of the service being Starlink. There were a lot of articles in the computer hobbiest press about it and the older PC Pursuit at the time. I never got into it, as my hometown, Dalton, GA, wasn't large enough to warrent a dialup. The only online service there was GEnie, and that had a $2/hour surcharge. Around 1993, when I still had a GEnie account, it cost the same for me to call their 800 number and connect at 9600 as it did to call the local access number and be limited to 2400. Ben Combee combee@techwood.or [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bingo! That is the name I was trying to recall all last week. Starlink it was. That service was started specifically to be in competition with PC Pursuit after PCP had made some changes in the terms of service many users were angry about. And now both of them are long gone from the scene. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Robert P. Shannon Subject: Re: The Right to Television Signals Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 08:52:57 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, USA We had the same problem but eventually resolved it. We were notified by "mailgram" from Primestar saying WRIC Channel 8 - ABC affiliate in Richmond had challenged our reception of Primestars ABC offering (from Miami at the time) and that Primestar would have to delete ABC in 30 days. WRIC claimed we were in their "grade B" contour and should be able to get adequate reception with outdoor antenna. "Adequate" is a rather subjective term -- we are 50 miles from the transmitter in a low area and at times reception of channel 8 was adequate and sometimes it was unacceptable. I guess you could say that LP records are "adequate" but personally I find only CD's acceptable -- same with analog antenna vs digital dish. Anyway, we called the local affiliate's number mentioned in the mailgram and spoke to a representative from Channel 8 who said they would check it out. Apparently they did and we recieved a letter from WRIC's VP and General Manager saying they were waiving the challenge. This took longer than 30 days but we were never cut off. I guess the bottom line is that the Satellite Home Viewer Act has more to do with protecting business interests (rightly or wrongly) than ensuring consumers can avail themselves freely to technical advances. If you have a legitimate reception problem then I suspect that the local station should be able to offer you a waiver too. I bet the local ABC station that Primestar re-broadcasts nationally isn't complaining! Bob Shannon ------------------------------ From: mstone@io.org (Matthew Stone) Subject: Re: Non-LEC Payphones Date: 6 May 1996 09:36:46 GMT Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada In comp.dcom.telecom, scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) wrote: > The major problem with COCOTs seems to be poor upkeep of the routing > tables in the phones. I have repeatedly run into payphones that don't > allow calls to new NPAs (such as 770, 423, etc.), that don't allow > calls to new prefixes (read: prefixes established in *1992*, etc.), > that don't allow any calls to cellular phone prefixes, and don't allow > calls to areas served by independent telcos that are otherwise local. > The major payphone vendors (Intellicall of Texas, and Elcotel of > Sarasota, FL) have fixes for the NPA problems; it's up to the COCOT > vendor to fix the others. Actually I ran into the same problem not too long ago. I live in 905 area code (Ontario, Canada) which until early 92 as I can remember correctly was 416. Well I went down to visit a friend of mine down in Lansing, Michigan for a few days. We were out and I wanted to make a call back to Toronto. I can't remember the company name, but it was not Ameritech/ Michigan Bell; it was a COCOT. I tried dialing 0+905+my home number and couldn't do it. Got some synthesised voice saying it was an invalid number. I ended up calling 800-CALL-ATT and billing the call through them. I didn't bother calling the customer service for the company, but I doubt I would get anywhere with them anyway. Matthew Stone, 23 Roosevelt Drive, Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada L4C6V1 Pager (416)339-9052 ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: Further Notes to Those Who Ordered Clocks Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 05:31:07 GMT > in rebuilding my others, etc. I love the way they wind up also! The > soft 'whirring' noise is pretty neat. I wish I could find a master > clock somewhere; I have enough slave clocks. PAT] Pat - I'm looking for a WU clock. Please provide a pointer. If you have a all-news radio station in your area that has an "hour beep", a NE567 chip could be wired to decode the beep, trigger a 555 timer chip which could close a small relay and provide the pulse you need. The whole thing could fit in a box the size of a couple of 9v batteries, and run off a 9v wallwart. Add one more chip and it could provide the running voltage for the clock motor. Mike Morris morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The referral I made this last time for the clocks was to Jim Hill in Lompoc, CA. He is eli@seldon.terminus.com. He had a source for a few WUTCO clocks in various stages of useability. None -- or maybe one or two -- were in really good shape. With his, all the works were functioning, but many of the cases were in great need of cosmetic work. His source had them in a warehouse where most of them had been stacked unused for about thirty years. You can write him and see if he still has any. He told me recently he could get a few more, but from 'an old man who wants an arm and a leg for them.' If you go through him, you are probably looking at $150-200 for one in working condition but in need of cosmetics. If you want a perfect one -- one that might be called 'mint condition' I'd expect to pay around $300-400. Write him and see what he has to say. Interesting you mention the radio station 'beep' on the hour. One station which has done that for decades is WGN, at 720 on the AM dial. And guess how they did it: in the days when all radio stations were required by FCC regulation to have at least one WUTCO clock on their premises for accuracy in station operations, WGN wired a circuit off the little red light bulb of their studio clock. When WUTCO pulsed the clock every hour to set the time, the light bulb would flash; WGN took that through a relay which sounded the tone you heard over the air. WGN still does it; I do not know what time source they use now to get the beep tone. This has really come full circle hasn't it? From using a WUTCO clock to provide a beep tone on the radio which others could use to set their watches, etc to the point of a beep tone being used which can set WUTCO slave-clocks. If anyone who got one of the clocks Jim Hiull had available has questions about making them work, I'll try to answer as best I can from my own experience. I doubt there are any schematics anywhere. If anyone knows where the Self Winding Clock Company entrusted their documents, etc when they went out of business, please let me know. A lot of those old and now defunct clock makers turned their schematics over for safekeeping to Timex or General Time Company, but no one I know can locate anything on Self Winding Clock, which was the manufacturer of the ones WUTCO used. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Bits Don't Go High to Some 800s Date: 6 May 1996 02:14:48 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , jensoft@blarg.net says: > One of our local paging companies in Bellevue, Washington, doesn't > return supervision on calls to pagers until *after* the data entry > phase and a "thank you for calling" annoucement. So, if you can get > in, dial in your message, and hang up before the terminal announcement > is made, you've made a free call. I've often wondered about this. > What do they care if they gyp US West or GTE out of a quarter? The paging company's customers might care when they find out that their pagers can't be called over AT&T long distance. This is because AT&T blocks the forward talk path until after answer supervision occurs. Because of this, the paging company won't hear any DTMFs from the caller until after supervision occurs. But if supervision doesn't occur until after the DTMF entry is complete, then it would appear that there's a stalemate. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 04:51:32 GMT Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> writes: > Friday I got a call from a small independent telco in NE Ohio, in New > Bavaria. As soon as I answered the phone, it was like a blast from > the past. I could hear a step-by-step switch clattering away in the > foreground. The caller said it was an old Stromberg-Carlson switch. I'd love to get a video tape of a step, crossbar, and panel office, with some basic commentary telling what was going on, and a walkthrough on call setup, etc. I bet that woud be a popular tape in trade schools, showing "how it was" ... I have a friend who teaches basic electronics, in a high school, and tells me that todays kids have no idea just how versaitle relays can be. Something like this videotape would open a few eyes. Mike Morris morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us ------------------------------ From: gabe@pgm.com (Gabe M. Wiener) Subject: Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper Date: 6 May 1996 10:15:36 -0400 Organization: PGM Recordings / Quintessential Sound, Inc. [Moderator writes] > At the turn of the century, small telcos were like ISPs are today. One > or two in every town; all kinds of informal arrangements on exchange > of traffic, etc. How, then, did these independents provide any sort of long distance service? If they and AT&T were such fierce enemies, would AT&T provide them with long-distance trunklines? Was AT&T required to do so? Gabe Wiener Dir., PGM Early Music Recordings A Div. of Quintessential Sound, Inc., New York Recording-Mastering-Restoration (212) 586-4200 gabe@pgm.com http://www.pgm.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, that was one of the catches. Some small local telephone exchange would start. You might liken them to one of the early BBS' about 1979-81. All they did was their own thing with their own customers. At some point they got the idea to have a method to exchange traffic between themselves. This might be likened to how Fidonet came into existence in the early 1980's. It was a hodgepodge of connections between small towns in close proximity to one another, etc. I am now talking of the 1900-1910 time period. AT&T comes along and sees a profitable exchange. They attempt to purchase it. If the owner sold, all well and good. The exchange soon found itself part of the overall network. If the owner was very independent and did not like the reputation Bell was already getting among the telcos as being very pushy and agressive, then for whatever reasons of his own he would refuse to sell. AT&T already had lots and lots of money back then, and they did offer a good, fair price for the exchange. It was not that they tried to buy the owner off cheap; it was that they *insisted* on buying him out. So the guy stalled. He refused to sell. Finally AT&T would respond by saying, "okay, then don't sell to us. See how worthless your exchange becomes when you cannot connect with anyone except right in your own community." AT&T would not only make a point of refusing to interconnect with him (remember how Fidonet 'authorities' would use petty rules to cut off or refuse to connect with BBS's whose sysops they did not like?) they would often times start a competing telephone exchange right in the same town and undercut the original guy on his pricing. With their less expensive telephone service (often times the subscribers got one, two or three months of *free* service as an inducement to sign up) AT&T included access to their network, such as it was back then. Before long, all the customers had switched to the AT&T exchange because not only was it cheaper, but you had to have one of theirs in order to call other subscribers on theirs. AT&T would not even connect on a local basis with the other guy and his subscribers, all of whom soon ditched him anyway. Now when the guy had lost all or most of his business to the new local telephone exchange run by AT&T, then AT&T would go back to him and offer him pennies on the dollar. Then they would stiff him good, since he was about bankrupt at that point anyway thanks to AT&T's tactics. In the early years of this century Bell caused many tiny little local-exchange only telcos to go bankrupt and out of business using these techniques. I might add, how many small, single line independent BBS's do you see around now? Does anyone much use them? The ISP's have all that business; internet connectivity is where things are at now-days. Soon enough, the big players will start to horn in on the small ISP, then eventually the very, very large players will merge with those, etc. As business people in other towns (usually the local telephone exchange was run by the banker, or the drugstore, or some other merchant as a part time thing) heard about this happening, some either agreed to sell out to Bell immediatly rather than risk losing their investment in the same way, or -- if they had any business ethics or conscience or what- ever you want to call it -- their resolve became even stronger and they banded together to keep AT&T from causing their financial ruin as well. AT&T told them all point blank you won't be able to use our long distance network unless we own the local exchange. Even as early as 1910 AT&T had *so much money* they could do this easily, even it it took months or a year before they drove the competitor out of business completely. The first *transcontinental* long distance phone call was not until the early 1920's. Prior to that, there were small portions of the network in place all over the country built by AT&T. Around here somewhere I have a copy of the famous photo taken out in the middle of the Dakotas with the guy on the telephone pole hooking the wires together which completed the network from the east coast to the west coast and the caption saying it was now possible to call all the way to California from New York for just a matter of a few dollars per minute. Ted Vail, chairman of AT&T in the first part of this century is credited with coining the phrase 'Bell System'. He often said, "There is one way of doing things; my way. My system for doing things." And later, AT&T in describing the Bell System often made similar remarks: "One system for telephones; one way of doing things right; the Bell System". So either do it thier way or you won't be in a position to do it at all ... that simple. The little guys who felt differently banded together in their own organization called USITA -- the United States Independent Telephone Association. Bell was their enemy. Bell and GTE also hated each other and would not connect each other's long distance calls, so many of the very small guys found comfort in joining the consortium GTE had put together. Remember from history you were taught that one of the early people in GTE swore to his dying day that Alex Bell had ripped him off of the patent for the telephone in the first place, claiming Bell got to the Patent Office a matter of hours or maybe a day before he got there. The Patent Office chose to honor Alex Bell's claim as the inventor instead of the other guy. GTE started 'Automatic Electric' as a laboratory/manufacturing facility in direct competition with Bell's Western Electric. All the small independents chose to buy their telephones from Automatic Electric, mainly because part of AT&T's thing was only their exchanges could purchase from Western Electric. It was part of the 'one Bell System ... one way of doing things if you want them done right ...' philosophy. Finally sometime in the 1920's the United States Supreme Court said Bell had to interconnect with the others (the others were already quite willing to interconnect among themselves) subject only to technical standards as they were in those days. They all still kept fighting and squabbling among themselves but they did start handling each other's traffic. Oh! You thought the telephone wars only started when MCI and Sprint went into competition with AT&T ... Fast forward to the 1970's ... the independents hand almost all their long distance traffic to AT&T; they are all the best of friends or at least on speaking terms. At one of the annual meetings of USITA in the late 1970's or early 1980's a historic first: the featured main speaker was a top executive from AT&T. I think under the by-laws at USITA -- does it still exist? I have heard little about them in recent years -- 'Bell Companies' still are forbidden to have membership in the organization, as if it mattered any more. Technically I guess the Bell Companies are now 'independents' also, although we don't think of them that way. The whole history of telephone companies and networks in America is a fascinating one, and one that people are not often very aware of. All that has changed are the names of the players and the roles they have with one another. From the day Alex Bell and the 'other guys' with thier crew realized how this invention would transform the world and both rushed off to the Patent Office to get their claim in first, they have been at each other's throats since. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #220 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon May 6 18:11:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA15739; Mon, 6 May 1996 18:11:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:11:37 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605062211.SAA15739@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #221 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 May 96 18:11:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 221 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Open Distributed Systems" by Crowcroft (Rob Slade) The Reasons PC Pursuit Was Discontinued (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) Bellcore TRA Downloadable Files (Mark J. Cuccia) How Widely Available is 911? (Mark Brader) Analog to Digital & International INET Access Providers (kotterink@un.org) Canada Looks at Junk Calls (Fred Ennis) Directory Assistance Charges (jlance@usa.pipeline.com) New Internet Peer-Reviewed Journal Released (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? (Kevin R. Ray) Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? (Danny Bain) 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, 06 May 1996 15:47:45 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Open Distributed Systems" by Crowcroft BKOPDSSY.RVW 960403 "Open Distributed Systems", Jon Crowcroft, 1995, 0-89006-839-9 %A Jon Crowcroft %C 685 Canton St., Norwood, MA 02062 %D 1995 %G 0-89006-839-9 %I Artech House/Horizon %O 617-769-9750 800-225-9977 fax: +1-617-769-6334 artech@world.std.com %P 386 %T "Open Distributed Systems" This is more of a collection of papers than a book. After an initial series of overview chapters, the details are covered by specialists in the various fields. Most such works can vary a great deal in both content and quality. This text, however, maintains a consistent standard of both information and readability throughout. After a discussion of "open"ness and distributed systems, there is an introduction to the concepts of modularity, communication and concurrency, as well as a look at real time systems and reliability. Then comes coverage of security, formal methods, communications support, CORBA (the Common Object Request Broker Architecture), multimedia, network management, distributed file systems and load balancing issues. There is a final look at future trends and challenges. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKOPDSSY.RVW 960403. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca | "Hey, when *you* have the Institute for rslade@vanisl.decus.ca | box, *then* you can give Research into Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca | us geography lessons. User rslade@vcn.bc.ca | Until then, Tahiti is in Security Canada V7K 2G6 | Europe." - Sneakers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 14:50:21 -0500 From: c23st@eng.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) Subject: The Reasons PC Pursuit Was Discontinued Organization: Delco Electronics Corp. Hi Pat, a couple of additional trivia facts about PC-PURSUIT: > who were just fooling around, so what they were selling all day long for > $4-5 per hour to large computer sites they decided to sell for $25 per > month for unlimited usage to 'home computer users' via the dialups at > night and on weekends. They called their program 'PC Pursuit'. You were > specifically NOT authorized to connect with of the large mainframes; Actually with anything except their dial ins. We had a corporate Telenet account back then and I was pretty careful :-) > their daytime customers got pretty antzy about that. You were only > authorized to call through the network to other dialups, which when > used from the network side were called 'dialouts'. So if you wanted > to call a BBS in Chicago from New York, you called the New York City > dialups with your modem and did @C 312 or some similar command. You @C ,userid,password. What was changed drastically as new cities were added. > then reached a modem over here which let you do ATD and the desired > local number. For only $25 per month for unlimited use between 6:00 PM > and 6:00 AM daily plus all day Saturday and Sunday, it was an excellent > deal. Some people literally stayed connected from 6:00 PM Friday > through 6:00 AM Monday and because of the extreme amount of use the > personal PC users gave Telenet's 'PC Pursuit' program, eventually the > rates were changed and the terms were changed. That was what they said; I had a PCP account back then and in reality what happened was that people were using it for business, most of the time, multiplexed adult chat lines (sort of a pre-cursor to IRC). They did a study and found out that a few people (mostly the chat line operators) would connect straight, as you said, all night, and all weekend, tying down the dialouts for the rest of us. There were people (individual users) who'd use it the same but according to Telenet's stuff (wonderful tech support, btw) the chat lines were the biggest problem. Not to mention bugs in the billing software that allowed 24/7 dial in free as long as one connected during plan hours :-) Finally a study was comissioned and determined that the average use was 30 hours a month. New terms and agreements were done to reflect 30 hours a month, with extras billed at some $$$/hour. The billing turned out to be a spectacular problem in itself ... Another problem was that the Telenet founding fathers had all placed their dial out modems in locations close to their business users, i.e. downtown. This created a problem since most BBS's turned out to be in suburbs. For a few months to a couple of years no one really realized it but the dialout exchanges could call local TOLL numbers and cost Telenet some pretty serious money :-). i.e. I would call Detroit, and connect to a BBS in Rochester Hills (same area code, toll call). and it would be ok! They finally figured it out and actually added a few dial outs to cover suburbs (mostly in California). > At some point, Tymnet jumped into it with an offering of their own > which was quite competitive. I do not recall which company owned > Tymnet, although I beleive there are some very old files in the > Archives which discusses it and makes a comparison study between it > and Telenet's PC Pursuit. Eventually, Sprint bought Telenet from GTE > and renamed it SprintNet. They continued to operate the PC Pursuit > program for a couple years after that, but the immense popularity > of the program led to its downfall. It became so popular the network > suffered from extremely slow connections and transmission. The night > and weekend thing toward the end had thousands of customers where the > original service for which the network was configured and had been > in operation for many years never had more than a few hundred large > corporate accounts. This is absolutely true. I was using it during the day for work once in a while and performance was wonderful compared to evenings/weekends. > At some point Tynmet either went out of business or changed its name > our was bought out. I know the very same phone numnbers from the Tymnet > days are still in service as dialups, and to a large extent by AOL. Yes. > The fastest baud rate you can get on any of those older dialups is > 1200. You get to pick that or 300, your choice ... ... also the Some were 2400, and there was a whole bunch of 9600 numbers available. Most of the popular cities dialin were 2400; both the in and out numbers had to be 2400 :-). > PC Pursuit program allowed those two choices of baud rates. I think > Tymnet may still be around, but you do not connect with them per se ... > you use software from the service you subscribe to which places a call > via the dialups and handles all the login (to Tymnet) details transpar- > ently. SprintNet is still around, and I notice in the Compuserve phone > number listings quite a few of their dialups are shown as ways to > connect with @C 614something, the Columbus, Ohio location of CIS. I > cannot imagine who would use it at 300/1200/2400 baud when there are > now so many other methods of connection at speeds much greater. I actually tried the 9600's and they were pretty decent (for AOL) and also for Official Airline Guide. Worked very well. > So the person you talked to at SprintNet was partly right and partly > wrong. They did have PC Pursuit when they called their network Telenet. > They no longer offer it and have not for a few years. It has nothing to > do with Tymnet, which was a competitor with a similar program for small > PC users, who I have no idea where they went or when, just that they > are not around now. PAT] Tymnet was a bit more expensive but had FAR more cities; the support BBS for PC-Pursuit did not allow any messages related to the OTHER service :-) Eventually they stopped accepting new subscribers and it went downhill. Spiros Triantafyllopoulos Kokomo, IN 46902 (317) 451-0815 (8-322) Corporate Software Technology Email: c23st@eng.delcoelect.com Delco Electronics Corporation URL: http://expert.cc.purdue.edu/~strianta/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the very beginning early days of PCP, we could not even use the regular dialups. They had a special group of numbers you called in and gave your user id and password. You then were disconnected, and you awaited their callback at the *phone number of record* for your account. That was intended to prevent hackers from getting on with your account. After awhile they changed it so we just called in on the regular dialups. Do you remember when they started adding some large BBS sites with their own @C aliases for direct connection so you no longer had to go to that city and dial out? The large one in Milwaukee comes to mind as does Portal Communications in San Jose, CA. You could reach both of those using your unlimited PCP account by entering something like @C PORTAL on the command line. The thousands of smaller BBS sites had to be reached through the dialouts however. I wrote an article which appeared in Usenet and several BBS's back about 1987 which Telenet thought was scandalous. They were very annoyed with me for writing it. The article was entitled, "Let Your Fingers do the Walking" and discussed all sorts of very obscure things people with PC Pursuit accounts were able to do which they were not supposed to be able to do, i.e. mouse around on the international network 'for free' using their unlimited connection account with PCP during overnight hours. In my list of addresses to connect with, I included the master clocks of several networks. For example, one could do @C something which was essentially an international call to an address in the UK which connected with the British Telecom Master Clock. The display on the user's screen was similar to what one gets now when dialing the NAVOBS modem number. I also included some addresses in Japan which got the same results from a data network there. Just like the telcos used to do years ago, Telenet also had some special addresses that were just 'loop arounds' for testing purposes. If you did @C (that address) it would connect and everything you typed would be repeated back to you. Also, many international data networks had 'manual help terminals' assigned network addresses of their own. If you did @C (those addresses) it connected to someone sitting at a terminal (usually a network technician) at the international point. One I was fond of connected to the technical support employees of the Hong Kong Telephone Company. Still another @C (address) we found was simply a gateway to Canada DataPak as it used to be called. They had in/outdials of their own all over Canada, and we found that by connecting with that address, we could then give instructions to DataPak and use their outdials to make modem calls to the few BBS's which were in Canada in those days. ... it was all pretty wild. Telenet had @C addresses to all the other major networks of the day including Western Union, Compuserve and many others. PC Pursuit users were **never** supposed to go anywhere near any of those. They had a gateway into Arpanet which we know as the forerunner to what we are on now. It just went on and on and on ... my article discussed all those -- one of my infamous 'tutorials' I used to print from time to time. Since PC Pursuit (and Telenet in general) were very popular 'toys' among hackers, getting a valid account id and password were the thing to do. Just as Compuserve and AOL today are getting hacked constantly with some hackers so bold as to go right into chat rooms, pretend to be employees and ask people to give them their passwords ... (yes! and do you know how many users are dumb enough to do it? Enough to make it one of the easiest scams around) ... well, I digress. What they did in those days was someone posted a list of the @C addresses for the dialups into the network. They would connect to that address but instead of taking the modem off hook to make a call out, they would just sit there and wait ... sooner or later, and usually sooner, a call would come in from some unsuspecting person from the other direction; someone using a dialup to get in and log on. The hacker would give them a 'please enter your password' request and then sit there and watch on their side as the caller who had 'glared' at them from the other side typed it in unwittingly. The hacker would then send a message back saying 'network problems, please hang up and dial again ...'. The person would do so, but in the meantime a new victim would hit the line the hacker was hiding behind and while he was tricking that one out of a password, the first one would dial in and land somewhere else on the rotary and go about his business thinking nothing was wrong. When Telenet found out about that, they flipped! They changed the network addresses on all the dialups and also did something to fix them so you could not call them from on the network; they would always be busied out or something from the network side. That ended that little hacker scheme. And do you remember Telemail, which was Telenet's email system for subscribers? If you did @C MAIL you were requested to enter a user name and password. If you entered name: phones and password: phones you got several large files which listed all the network dialup/dialout numbers, their network addresses, etc all over the world. A feast for a poor hacker's eyes. Included were the protocols used for connection to all the international data networks which gatewayed or interconnected with Telenet as well as all the domestic networks such as Western Union, Arpanet, etc, the network addresses used for those connections, etc. The best part of all was the bug in the software which allowed PCP users to tamper with all of it and not get caught. Telenet and the PC Pursuit admins were not at all pleased that I published a very detailed article on the whole thing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 14:23:39 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Bellcore TRA Downloadable Files Bellcore's TRA (Traffic Routing Administration) has now added downloadable files to their webpage. TRA maintains the databases of NPA-NXX codes and similar items for the North American Numbering Plan, and they sell various products regarding the NANP available on paper, fiche, diskette, datatape, data-transfer, CD-Rom, etc. The new downloadable files are available from the TRA webpage: http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/tracat.html Near the bottom of this page is an item for Numbering Information Plan Changes (NIPC). Clicking on the line to initiate the download (http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/legal.html) will bring you to a terms and conditions "legal" notice, which allows you to click on a line to continue the download. It is a compressed .exe file which when downloaded and expanded contains a list of new NPA-NXX codes announced for the month. A "readme" file is included, as well as a listing of Operating Company Numbers. It is my understanding that this file will be *REPLACED* with a new one on a monthly basis and that the new monthly file will contain *only* those codes which are still in the process of being changed or taking effect. Some of Bellcore TRA products (available for a fee) will contain "master" listings of NPA-NXX codes as of a certain date and subscriptions to packages (or "one-time" orders of such) which contain updates to NPA-NXX information for that month, quarter, etc. And Bellcore TRA products are usually divided into "routing/switching/ network" information (such as "wirecenters" with their V&H co-ordinates and CLLI codes) and "rating/billing/accounting" information (such as "ratecenters" with their V&H co-ordinates and CLLI codes). The UK's (government) regulatory agency and numbering administrator (OFTEL) has maintained an Internet site for almost a year now, containing similar numbering and code information for the UK. http://www.open.gov.uk/oftel/oftelwww/oftelhm.htm and click to Numbering along with ftp://ftp.open.gov.uk/pub/docs/oftel/oftelwww The ftp site contains downloadable files which are replaced monthly, but their files usually contain all of the earlier information even if it hasn't changed. 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: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Subject: How Widely Available is 911? Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 16:59:06 GMT How widely available is the emergency number 911 in the US and Canada these days? Are there any large telcos that don't support it, or where it is supported only in some areas? Are there any that have implemented the new international emergency number, 112, in addition to 911? (Ideally, I'd like to see an answer of the form "911 can be called from 91% of all prefixes in the US and Canada. The largest company not offering it is AcmeTel, of Acme, XX." Well, really I'd like to see the answer that 911 now works from everywhere, but somehow I doubt that!) I'll throw in a few other questions in case someone has answers: * How much territory where 911 works has enhanced 911 (i.e. the caller's address made available automatically to the dispatcher)? * How widespread is the spelling-for-idiots version 9-1-1? * Is 911 used in the Caribbean countries that formerly were all in area code 809? Mark Brader \ "Nitwit ideas are for emergencies. The rest of the msb@sq.com \ time you go by the Book, which is mostly a collection SoftQuad Inc., Toronto \ of nitwit ideas that worked. -- Niven & Pournelle ------------------------------ From: kotterink@un.org Date: Mon, 06 May 96 15:38:37 EST Subject: Analog to Digital and International INET Access Providers Does anyone know if it exists a kind of 'universal' converter to make it possible to connect an analog modem to a digital office phone system (something with an analog and digital jack). The PBX office system is INTECOM ITE 12S digital. While I'm at it, I'm looking for a good (the best?) International Internet Access provider (large number of local access numbers and low cost long distance dial-in option). What about AT&T's World Access? TIA. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 21:10:16 EDT From: Fred Ennis Subject: Canada Looks at Junk Calls You have until June 3, 1996 to make the CRTC aware of your feelings on telemarketing phone calls. The Commission has the right to control junk calls, but they haven't really used it. If you wish you had the right to stop those calls, without interfering with the rights of others to receive the calls if they so wish, you may want to let the CRTC know. Bell Canada and BC Tel have asked for "limits" on unsolicited calls. The phone companies, in a letter to the CRTC have asked for a tariff change that would do two things: * to require telemarketers to add your name to their "do not call" list within 7 days rather than the current 30 day grace period. * to limit unsolicited faxes to the hours between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, and between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Currently there is no limit on when unsolicited faxes may be sent. Info is on my website, including how to make your comments heard legally: http://www.nepean.com/phone ------------------------------ From: jlance@usa.pipeline.com Subject: Directory Assitance Charges Date: 6 May 1996 20:20:28 GMT Organization: PSINet/Pipeline USA I call toll-free directory assitance (800-555-1212) frequently to obtain toll-free listings. Starting two months ago, my phone company began charging $.75 for each call. I was never told of this change in charges until I received my bill. After much complaining, they removed most of the charges. I thought phone companies can't charge for 800 and 888 numbers. Is this true? ------------------------------ Subject: New Internet Peer-Reviewed Journal Released Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 13:13:32 PDT From: rishab@dxm.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Reply-To: rishab@dxm.org New Internet Journal Released Paris, France, 1996 May 6: Coinciding with the opening of the International World Wide Web Conference, a new journal dedicated to the Internet was released today by Munksgaard International Publishers. The journal is called "First Monday" and it is a peer-reviewed, electronic journal dedicated to the Internet, and only available on the Internet. It is the first electronic journal from Munksgaard, publishers of over seventy scientific journals in dentistry, medicine, and other fields. "First Monday" will appear on the first Monday of each month. Each issue will contain five to six full-length articles, plus regular features such as interviews and reviews. The inaugural May issue contains articles by notable specialists such as David Johnson and David Post, co-directors of the Cyberspace Law Institute, and John Seely Brown, vice-president and chief scientist of Xerox Corporation and director of Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. The journal is available at http://www.firstmonday.dk The editorial team of "First Monday" is widely experienced in computing, telecommunications, and the Internet. Chief and Managing Editor is Edward J. Valauskas, author and editor of several widely recognized books on computing and the Internet, including "Internet Troubleshooter" and "Internet Initiative." He is joined by Esther Dyson as Consulting Editor and Rishab Aiyer Ghosh as Inter-national Editor. Esther Dyson is president of EDventure Holdings in New York City and chairperson of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Rishab Ghosh, based in New Delhi, is editor and publisher of the Indian Techonomist, a newsletter on India's information industry. The editorial board of "First Monday" includes Vinton G. Cerf, founding President of the Internet Society and currently Senior Vice-President at MCI; Ed Krol of the University of Illinois, author of several books including the highly popular "The Whole Internet User's Guide & Catalog"; Bonnie Nardi of Apple Computer, author of the book "A Small Matter of Programming" and editor of "Context and Consciousness"; Rich Wiggins of Michigan State University, author of "The Internet for Everyone"; Tony Durham, Multimedia Editor of the Times Higher Education Supplement in London and a member of the team which has developed THESIS, the newspaper's Internet service; Ian Peter, consultant in information technology, media and communications policy, based in Australia; and Robert Hettinga, a digital commerce consultant in Boston. "First Monday" publishes articles on the Internet and the Global Information Infrastructure. It follows the political and regulatory regimes affecting the Internet, and examines economic, technical and social aspects of the use of the Internet on a global scale. There will also be reports on the use of the Internet in specific communities, the development of Internet software and hardware, and the content of the Internet. "First Monday" was released today on diskette, distributed at the International World Wide Web Conference in Paris, and on the First Monday Internet server at http://www.firstmonday.dk. In the future it will appear in three formats: as an electronic mail posting to subscribers; on the World Wide Web; and as an annual CD-ROM archiving all articles that have appeared in "First Monday." Munksgaard was founded in 1917. Over the years Munksgaard has expanded to become a publishing house that is internationally recognized for its scientific journals devoted to servicing the international scientific and scholarly communities. Editorial Office: Editor-in-Chief: Edward J. Valauskas (valauskas@firstmonday.dk) First Monday is published monthly by: Munksgaard International Publishers Nxrre Sxgade 35, P.O. Box 2148 DK- 1016 Copenhagen K Denmark e-mail: publishers@firstmonday.dk ------------------------------ From: kevin@eagle.ais.net (Kevin R. Ray) Subject: Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? Date: 6 May 1996 11:14:57 GMT Organization: American Information Systems, Inc. Rich Chong (U41602@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU) wrote: > Let's say I have two lines. A and B. Line A doesn't subscribe to > caller-id. Line B does. If line-A busy is set up to hunt to line-B, > what caller-id info if any is presented to B? Same question for a > call-forwarded line. Oh, lets toss in the same question for cell > phones (as line A) immediate, busy, and no-answer call-forwarding. > Cellular phones usually do not send or receive caller-id, regardless > of what features you have on your landline phones. PAT] Incorrect in the Chicago land area with Cellular One and Ameritech land line. My Ameritech (home) has CID. My cell phone is setup to call forward on RNA, BUSY, OUT-OF-AREA, or OFF and it passes along the CID information no problem. I do NOT subscribe to CID for the cell phone either. Also, my cell phone (when making a call from it) DOES pass along the CID informaiton for those who can recieve it. It shows up as "Cellular Call" with my number listed. Originally it did come up as "Anonymous" but I asked to have that switched as my home line blocks blocked calls ... Also, with land line phones I tried the following: forwarded calls from a line (no CID service on that line) at the office to my home. Office is Centrex and home is POTS. Caller id on the POTS line showed up from calls originally placed to the Centrex line but was passed along to the POTS. I'm not sure about hunting though ... can't do that test easily (yet :-) as we don't have CID on the line(s). That will be coming shortly as our phone system and phones have displays and can handle the info. ------------------------------ From: danny.bain@pobox.com (Danny Bain) Subject: Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 17:29:04 GMT Organization: AltNet - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net Reply-To: danny.bain@pobox.com On Thu, 2 May 1996 22:54:29 -0500, doc_dave@bga.com (David Brod) wrote: > Rich asked: >> Let's say I have two lines. A and B. Line A doesn't subscribe to >> caller-id. Line B does. If line-A busy is set up to hunt to line-B, >> what caller-id info if any is presented to B? Same question for a >> call-forwarded line. Oh, lets toss in the same question for cell >> phones (as line A) immediate, busy, and no-answer call-forwarding. > Pat responded: >> TELECOM DIGEST Editor's Note: No information is provided to B since >> it is only being used as an overflow/alternate for A, and A does not >> subscribe to the service. > It has been my experience that line B DOES get the caller info. Any > call that rings into line B, whether line B is direct dialed, or > subjected to line A overflow, will result in a caller ID read. Just > like if line B has call waiting. The feature is active when line B is > called, regardless of the method. What wasn't mentioned here is that when a call is passed from Line A to Line B via this hunt process, the call will hit Line B with caller information for Line A rather than the actual calling party. This is true in my telco, at least. The call id information for the calling party is only shown if the first line answers and is subscribed to caller id. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #221 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon May 6 18:57:26 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id SAA20221; Mon, 6 May 1996 18:57:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:57:26 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605062257.SAA20221@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #222 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 May 96 18:57:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 222 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Numbering Plan Script For New Zealand (Martin Kealey) How Will Local Telephone Competition Work? (Craig A. Fringer) PIN Operation and Non-Traditional Cell Phones (John Gilbert) Wanted: Email to GSM Notification (Frederick Saunders) 1-800 Number Calling Cards: What to Get? (Neil Bardhan) 10-Digit Dialing is Easy (Thomas Lapp) CDPD in Los Angeles (Blair Shellenberg) Re: GSM Datacard Under Linux? (Shane Potter) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Zev Rubenstein) Re: ADSI Standards and Devices (Gerry Wheeler) 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: martin@kurahaupo.gen.nz (Martin Kealey) Subject: Numbering Plan Script For New Zealand Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 01:58:20 +1200 Here is a script you may find useful for detirmining the location of telephone numbers in New Zealand. # "LCA" == "Local Calling Area" case ${1%%x*} in #64?9??????) echo "NZ - payphone callback" ;; +6421??????) echo "NZ - Bellsouth Cellphone" ;; +6424099???) echo "NZ - Antartica - Scott Base" ;; +6425??????) echo "NZ - Telecom Cellphone" ;; +64252??????) echo "NZ - Telecom Cellphone" ;; +642610????) echo "NZ - Telecom Pager Service" ;; +6426???????) echo "NZ - Telecom Pager Service" ;; +643206????) echo "NZ - Edendale LCA" ;; +64320[1234578]????) echo "NZ - Gore LCA" ;; +64321?????|\ +64322[14]????|\ +64322[56]????) echo "NZ - Otautau LCA" ;; +643234????) echo "NZ - Riverton LCA" ;; +643236????) echo "NZ - Winton LCA" ;; +64323[0159]????) echo "NZ - Invercargill / Stewart Island LCA" ;; +643246????) echo "NZ - Tokanui LCA" ;; +643248????) echo "NZ - Lumsden LCA" ;; +643249????) echo "NZ - Te Anau LCA" ;; +6432??????) echo "NZ - Southland ?" ;; +643304????) echo "NZ - Akaroa LCA" ;; +64330[238]????) echo "NZ - Ashburton LCA" ;; +643314????) echo "NZ - Amberlea LCA" ;; +643315????) echo "NZ - Culverden LCA" ;; +643318????) echo "NZ - Darfield LCA" ;; +643319[28]???) echo "NZ - Cheviot / Parnassus" ;; +643319[56]???) echo "NZ - Kaikoura" ;; +64331[23]????) echo "NZ - Rangiora LCA" ;; +6433??????) echo "NZ - Canterbury ?" ;; +6433[2345678]?????) echo "NZ - Christchurch LCA" ;; +6434128???|\ +6434139???|\ +643415[78]???|\ +643417????) echo "NZ - Milton LCA" ;; +643418????) echo "NZ - Balclutha LCA" ;; +6434350???) echo "NZ - Twizel LCA" ;; +6434351???) echo "NZ - Mt Cook LCA" ;; +64343[12479]????) echo "NZ - Oamaru LCA" ;; +64343[68]????) echo "NZ - Kurow LCA" ;; +643442[1369]???) echo "NZ - Queenstown LCA" ;; +643443????) echo "NZ - Wanaka LCA" ;; +643444????) echo "NZ - Ranfurly LCA" ;; +643445[012]???) echo "NZ - Cromwell LCA" ;; +6434473???|\ +643448????|\ +6434492???) echo "NZ - Alexandra LCA" ;; +643465[0127]???) echo "NZ - Palmerston LCA" ;; +6434859???) echo "NZ - Lawrence LCA" ;; +64348648??) echo "NZ - Waipori Falls LCA" ;; +64348[126789]????) echo "NZ - Dunedin LCA" ;; +6434??????) echo "NZ - Otago / McKenzie ?" ;; +6434[567]?????|\ +6435211???|\ +6435224???) echo "NZ - Nelson LCA" ;; +643523[89]???|\ +6435248???|\ +6435258???|\ +6435259???|\ +643526[678]???|\ +6435278???|\ +643528????|\ +6435294???) echo "NZ - Murchison LCA" ;; +6435295???) echo "NZ - Golden Bay LCA" ;; +6435296???) echo "NZ - Motueka LCA" ;; +64354?????|\ +6435716???|\ +6435765???|\ +64357[2345789]????) echo "NZ - Picton LCA" ;; +6435??????) echo "NZ - Marlborough ?" ;; +64361?????|\ +643685????) echo "NZ - Fairlie LCA" ;; +643689????) echo "NZ - Waimate LCA" ;; +64368[468]????) echo "NZ - Timaru LCA" ;; +64369?????) echo "NZ - Geraldine LCA" ;; +6436??????) echo "NZ - South Canterbury ?" ;; +64373[1268]????|\ +6437500???) echo "NZ - Haast LCA" ;; +6437510???) echo "NZ - Fox Glacier LCA" ;; +6437520???) echo "NZ - Franz Josef LCA" ;; +6437533???) echo "NZ - Hokitika LCA" ;; +643755????|\ +64376[28]????|\ +643782[168]???|\ +643789????) echo "NZ - Greymouth LCA" ;; +643789[56789]???) echo "NZ - Westport LCA" ;; +6437??????) echo "NZ - West Coast ?" ;; +64396?????) echo "NZ - Christchurch - Clear local service" ;; +643???????) echo "NZ - South Island" ;; +64429?????) echo "NZ - Kapiti" ;; +64438?????) echo "NZ - Wellington" ;; +64447?????) echo "NZ - Wellington" ;; +644499????) echo "NZ - Wellington" ;; +64456?????) echo "NZ - Wellington" ;; +64480[12]????) echo "NZ - Wellington" ;; +64491?????) echo "NZ - Wellington - Clear local service" ;; +644???????) echo "NZ - Wellington ?" ;; +64508??????) echo "NZ - free 0508 service call" ;; +645??*) echo "NZ - Alternate carrier service" ;; +64627[2348]????) echo "NZ - Hawera LCA" ;; +64630[4678]????) echo "NZ - Featherston LCA" ;; +646322[01]???) echo "NZ - Marton LCA - Bulls" ;; +646322[89]???) echo "NZ - Marton LCA" ;; +646327????|\ +64632[345689]????|\ +64634[23456]????) echo "NZ - Whanganui LCA" ;; +64635?????) echo "NZ - Palmerston North LCA" ;; +64636[23478]????) echo "NZ - Levin LCA" ;; +646374????) echo "NZ - Dannevirke LCA" ;; +64637[02789]????) echo "NZ - Masterton LCA" ;; +64637[56]????) echo "NZ - Pahiatua LCA" ;; +646385????) echo "NZ - Ohakune LCA" ;; +646387????) echo "NZ - Waiouru LCA" ;; +64638[28]????) echo "NZ - Taihape LCA" ;; +646752[59]???) echo "NZ - Mokau LCA" ;; +64675?????) echo "NZ - New Plymouth LCA" ;; +64676[13]????) echo "NZ - Opunaki LCA" ;; +64676[245]????) echo "NZ - Stratford LCA" ;; +64683[04569]????|\ +64683[78]????) echo "NZ - Wairoa LCA" ;; +64684[34]????|\ +64685[5678]????) echo "NZ - Waipukurau LCA" ;; +646864????) echo "NZ - Ruatoria LCA" ;; +64686[23789]????) echo "NZ - Gisborne LCA" ;; +64687[0456789]????) echo "NZ - Napier / Hastings LCA" ;; +646???????) echo "NZ - Taranaki ?" ;; +64730?????|\ +647312????|\ +64732[23]????) echo "NZ - Whakatane LCA" ;; +647332????|\ +6473339???|\ +647333[1278]???) echo "NZ - Rotorua LCA" ;; +6473[12]5????) echo "NZ - Opotiki LCA" ;; +6473[456]?????|\ +6473[78]?????) echo "NZ - Taupo LCA" ;; +6475??????) echo "NZ - Tauranga ?" ;; +6475[3457]?????) echo "NZ - Tauranga LCA" ;; +6478??????) echo "NZ - Hamilton" ;; +647???????) echo "NZ - Waikato" ;; +64800??????) echo "NZ - free 0800 service call" ;; +64830?????) echo "NZ - conference service" ;; +64832??) echo "NZ - mailbox service" ;; +64832?????) echo "NZ - mailbox address" ;; +64900?????) echo "NZ - chargable 0900 service call" ;; +649232????) echo "NZ - Pukekohe" ;; +6492334???) echo "NZ - Pukekohe - Pukekawa" ;; +649233????) echo "NZ - Pukekohe" ;; +649235????) echo "NZ - Pukekohe" ;; +649236????) echo "NZ - Pukekohe" ;; +649238????) echo "NZ - Pukekohe" ;; +649256????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Airport" ;; +64926?????) echo "NZ - Manukau" ;; +649270????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Panmure / Mt Wellington" ;; +649273????) echo "NZ - Auckland - East Tamaki" ;; +649275????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Mangere" ;; +64927[124]????) echo "NZ - Auckland - South-east suburbs?" ;; +64927[6789]????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Papatoetoe" ;; +6492924???) echo "NZ - Papakura - Hunua" ;; +6492928???) echo "NZ - Papakura - Clevedon" ;; +649296????) echo "NZ - Papakura" ;; +649297????) echo "NZ - Papakura" ;; +649298????) echo "NZ - Papakura" ;; +649299????) echo "NZ - Papakura" ;; +64929?????) echo "NZ - Papakura ??" ;; +649300????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Urgent Services" ;; +649302????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City" ;; +649303????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City" ;; +649307????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City" ;; +6493085???) echo "NZ - Telecom Auckland head office, extn 9${1#+649308}" ;; +6493089???) echo "NZ - Auckland - City" ;; +649309????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City" ;; +64930?????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City?" ;; +64933?????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Radio competition lines" ;; +649356????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City" ;; +649357????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City" ;; +649358????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City" ;; +64935?????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City?" ;; +649360????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Grey Lynn" ;; +6493668???) echo "NZ - Telecom Auckland head office, extn 9${1#+649366}" ;; +649366????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City" ;; +649367????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City" ;; +64936?????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City?" ;; +6493728???) echo "NZ - Auckland - Waiheke Island" ;; +649372????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Waiheke Island?" ;; +649373????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City" ;; +649376????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Grey Lynn" ;; +649377????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City" ;; +649378????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Grey Lynn" ;; +649379????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City" ;; +6493??????) echo "NZ - Auckland - City?" ;; +64940[157]????) echo "NZ - Kaikohe LCA / Kerikeri" ;; +64940[234]????) echo "NZ - Kawakawa LCA / Paihia / Russell" ;; +64940[689]????) echo "NZ - Kaitaia / Northland LCA" ;; +649410????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Campbells Bay / Castor Bay" ;; +649412????) echo "NZ - Kumeu" ;; +649413????) echo "NZ - Greenhithe" ;; +649415????) echo "NZ - Albany" ;; +649416????) echo "NZ - Whenuapai" ;; +649418????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Northcote Birkenhead" ;; +649419????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Northcote Birkenhead" ;; +64941?????) echo "NZ - Auckland North Shore??" ;; +649420????) echo "NZ - Helensville" ;; +6494226???) echo "NZ - Warkworth - Matheson Bay, Leigh, Goat Island, Pakiri" ;; +6494227???) echo "NZ - Warkworth - Matakana" ;; +6494228???) echo "NZ - Warkworth - Kawau Island" ;; +649422????) echo "NZ - Warkworth Districts" ;; +649423????) echo "NZ - Wellsford" ;; +649424????) echo "NZ - Hibiscus Coast" ;; +6494258???) echo "NZ - Warkworth" ;; +6494259???) echo "NZ - Warkworth" ;; +649425????) echo "NZ - Warkworth Districts" ;; +649426????) echo "NZ - Hibiscus Coast" ;; +6494290???) echo "NZ - Great Barrier Island" ;; +6494312???) echo "NZ - Warkworth - Kaiwaka" ;; +649431[45]???) echo "NZ - Warkworth - Mangawhai" ;; +649431[678]???) echo "NZ - Maungaturoto" ;; +649439????) echo "NZ - Dargaville" ;; +64943[02-8]????) echo "NZ - Whangarei" ;; +649443????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Glenfield" ;; +649444????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Glenfield" ;; +649445????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Northcote" ;; +649446????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Northcote" ;; +64944?????) echo "NZ - Auckland North Shore ??" ;; +649473????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Torbay" ;; +649478????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Browns Bay / Mairangi Bay" ;; +649479????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Browns Bay / Mairangi Bay" ;; +64947?????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - East Coast Bays??" ;; +649480????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Northcote Birkenhead" ;; +649482????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Birkdale" ;; +649483????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Birkdale" ;; +649486????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Takapuna" ;; +649488????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Takapuna" ;; +649489????) echo "NZ - Auckland NS - Takapuna" ;; +64948?????) echo "NZ - Auckland North Shore - Inner?" ;; +649520????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Inner Eastern Suburbs" ;; +649521????) echo "NZ - Auckland - East City Bays" ;; +649522????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Inner Eastern Suburbs" ;; +649523????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Inner Eastern Suburbs" ;; +649524????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Inner Eastern Suburbs" ;; +649525????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Ellerslie" ;; +649527????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Panmure / Mt Wellington" ;; +649528????) echo "NZ - Auckland - East City Bays" ;; +649529????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Inner Eastern Suburbs" ;; +64952?????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Near Eastern Suburbs?" ;; +649530????) echo "NZ - Howick - Whitford" ;; +649534????) echo "NZ - Howick" ;; +649535????) echo "NZ - Howick" ;; +649536????) echo "NZ - Howick - Beachland" ;; +649537????) echo "NZ - Howick" ;; +64953?????) echo "NZ - Howick District?" ;; +649570????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Panmure / Mt Wellington" ;; +649573????) echo "NZ - Auckland - East Tamaki" ;; +649575????) echo "NZ - Auckland - East City Bays" ;; +649576????) echo "NZ - Pakuranga" ;; +649579????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Ellerslie" ;; +64957?????) echo "NZ - Auckland - South Eastern Suburbs?" ;; +649620????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Mt Roskill" ;; +649622????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Onehunga" ;; +649624????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Hillsborough" ;; +649625????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Hillsborough" ;; +649626????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Blockhouse Bay" ;; +649627????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Blockhouse Bay" ;; +649629????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Mt Roskill" ;; +64962?????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Inner South-West?" ;; +649630????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Mt Eden" ;; +6496315???) echo "NZ - Auckland - Mt Eden" ;; +649634????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Onehunga" ;; +649636????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Onehunga" ;; +649638????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Mt Eden" ;; +64963?????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Inner South?" ;; +649810????) echo "NZ - Auckland - West Coast" ;; +649814????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Waiatarua" ;; +649815????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Mt Albert" ;; +649817????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Titirangi" ;; +649818????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Glen Eden" ;; +64981?????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Western Suburbs" ;; +649820????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Avondale" ;; +649826????) echo "NZ - Auckland - New Lynn" ;; +649827????) echo "NZ - Auckland - New Lynn" ;; +649828????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Avondale" ;; +64982?????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Inner Western Suburbs" ;; +649832????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Massey" ;; +649834????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Te Atatu & Te Atatu North" ;; +649836????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Henderson" ;; +649838????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Henderson" ;; +64983?????) echo "NZ - Auckland - North Western Suburbs" ;; +649846????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Mt Albert" ;; +649849????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Mt Albert" ;; +64991?????) echo "NZ - Auckland - Clear local service" ;; +649???????) echo "NZ - Auckland / Northland ??" ;; +64??*) echo "NZ ??" ;; *) echo "+64 confused!" ;; esac ------------------------------ From: fringer@midget.towson.edu (Craig A. Fringer) Subject: How Will Local Telephone Competition Work? Date: 6 May 1996 20:43:34 GMT Organization: Towson State University, Towson, MD I am replying mostly to Pat's response to the original posting. I agree, and further I believe that the customer is the least of anyone's worries. The customer will get lost in the finger pointing of who is to blame for the service outage, when it occurs. Since I can't imagine that each company wishing to compete will constructing outside plant facilities I have to assume that the existing plant will support the competition. So when a customer has trouble, their serving company will be able to say "Hey, all our stuff checks out -- the problem is with the cable which is the Bell Company's responsibility." The Bell Company will then say "Not us, you aren't getting dial tone from your service provider." The customer will not know who to go to and will get caught in an endless run around. On another front, in terms of research and technology, I don't see customer satisfaction as the drive behind development. I installed Business Key Telephone equipment for two years, working for a small company and came to believe that the state of the art in key equipment was beyond the scope of most customers. Certainly, the systems we sold and installed were feature packed and well engineered. But, 90% of what the equipment was capable of was never tapped by the customer. They just didn't see a need for all the bells and whistles. It is my humble opinion, based on some study of AT&T's history that they put a great deal of emphasis on moving the process ahead. From cord operated situations to the digital switching of today, they were driven by a desire to provide better service to the customer, efficiently and affordably. Certainly, competition will create a more affordable climate, but is anyone concerned today about more efficient? I am still and AT&T Long Distance Customer and intend to stay with Bell Atlantic when competition comes to my area. Although I can point to some specific service deficiencies to date, I do not anticipate the competitors being able, or even willing to provide better. Craig Fringer Towson MD ------------------------------ From: johng@comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) Subject: PIN Operation and Non-Traditional Cell Phones Organization: Motorola LMPS Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 17:12:34 -0500 I know how regular cellular phones operate with a PIN. What effect does PIN operation have on burgular alarm systems via cellular, RJ-11 backup devices using cellular and cellular data modems? Are manufacturers of these devices having to install new firmware to deal with PINs or are the carriers not mandating PINs on these numbers? I found Ameritech to be extremely inflexible with their PIN policy -- very understanding at all levels, including the VP I spoke to, but unwilling to allow any level of service without a PIN. John Gilbert johng@comm.mot.com Motorola Trunked Systems Architecture Schaumburg, IL. ------------------------------ Date: 05 May 96 21:36:54 EDT From: Frederick Saunders <101657.2300@compuserve.com> Subject: Wanted: Email to GSM Notification Do you know of any one ofering a service / software where by you can receive notification to a GSM when you have Email waiting. Regards, Frederick Saunders New Business Development / Technical Director Gulf Faxcast UK 101657,2300 ------------------------------ From: jbardhan@demon.ceh.servtech.com Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 18:10:19 -0400 Subject: 1-800 Number Calling Cards: What to Get? This summer, I will be attending a three week academic program on a college campus. The organization that is in charge of the program suggests that students of the program (IAAY) should bring a 1-800 number calling card. This confuses me. THe college is in NYNEX territory, and I live in this area. What exactly is this type of card, and what should I get? Thanks, Neil Bardhan (nbardhan@pennynet.servtech.com, jbardhan@cyber2.servtech.com) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think all he means is bring a phone credit card of your choice which you can use with your preferred carrier by dialing into the carrier's 800 number. Most likely the phone service at the college restricts long distance calls from their phones and they probably also block out 10xxx codes. This will provide you a way to make calls from the college phone system if you wish to do so. PAT] ------------------------------ From: thomas@menno.com (Thomas Lapp) Subject: 10-Digit Dialing is Easy Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 12:56:10 EDT I've been following the postings about how 10-digit dialing will soon become common in overlay areas with some amusement. I've been living in the Delmarva Valley for several years now, and there are five area codes within 25 miles of the northern county of Delaware. Around here is it very common to give area code with phone number, since your co-worker could be in MD (410), PA (610, or 215), DE (302) or NJ (609). I think that last year Delaware went to mandatory ten-digit dialing for all in-state long-distance calls as well, so it will make it easier if I dial ten digits all the time rather than trying to figure out if I need seven- or ten-digits to reach a party. Of course, when everything is ten digits, it will make it more difficult to know if I'm inter-LATA or intra-LATA or local dialing area. tom internet : thomas@menno.com or : lapptl@a1.wmvx.umc.dupont.com Location : Newark, DE, USA ------------------------------ From: blair@instep.bc.ca Subject: CDPD in Los Angeles Reply-To: blair@instep.bc.ca Organization: InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 18:40:07 GMT Hi there, I am interested in whether or not anyone knows if there are plans for CDPD deployment in the Los Angeles area in the near future. Please contact me via e-mail at . Sincerely, InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Blair Shellenberg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 19:12:53 +0000 From: shane potter Subject: Re: GSM Datacard Under Linux? Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd. In article , Roman Maeder wrote: > GSM cellular phones (which operate almost the world over, with the > notable exception of the USA; Hi there: Just wanted to clear up this misconception - GSM is indeed in operation in the United States, though not exactly under the moniker you might be familiar with. Motorola's ESMR/IDEN has been in use for quite a while, albeit in a fairly limited region. Additionally, many of the companies implementing PCS (personal communications systems/services) here in the U.S. have chosen GSM as their protocol, although it will operate at 1900 MHz as opposed to the 900 range. The first PCS system was developed around Washington D.C., and Voicestream Communications recently went live in the Hawaiian Islands. Shane Potter Nortel (Northern Telecom) GSM Field Support, N.A. Market Region spotter@bnr.ca ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 17:47:50 -0500 From: zev@wireless.attmail.com (zev) Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Gabe M. Wiener wrote: > In article , Alan Toscano > wrote: >> On the other hand, if you've been using an LEC calling card to place >> calls over the AT&T network, you might soon be out-of-luck! > To add another permutation to all of this: I usually use my AT&T > calling card to place intra-NYNEX calls when at payphones and out of > change. Today I was told that "AT&T calling cards can no longer be > used on the NYNEX network." Great. Now I need to get ANOTHER calling > card. Correction: you can still use your AT&T calling card: just dial 102880 (1-0- ATT-0) first, or dial 1-800-CALL-ATT first. AT&T will handle local calls, as will any other IXC these days. Zev Rubenstein Independent Telecommunications Consultant ------------------------------ From: gwheeler@gate.net (Gerry Wheeler) Subject: Re: ADSI Standards and Devices Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 21:52:21 GMT Organization: SpectraFAX Corp. Reply-To: gwheeler@gate.net Klaus Zuenkler wrote: > Can anybody give me a pointer to the definition of the ADSI standard > and sources for compatible devices? The Dialogic voice cards can generate the ADSI signalling, so there is some coverage of the technique in their manuals. Dialogic has a WWW site, so you might find a lead to a manual there. Gerry Wheeler gwheeler@gate.net SpectraFAX Corp. Phone: 941-643-8739 Naples, FL Fax: 941-643-5070 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #222 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon May 6 23:14:14 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id XAA13339; Mon, 6 May 1996 23:14:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 23:14:14 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605070314.XAA13339@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #223 TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 May 96 23:14:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 223 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson USITA and Some Bell History (was Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper) (M. Cuccia) Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper (And a Bit More Telco History) (John Levine) Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper (And a Bit More Telco History) (F. Goldstein) Small Independents and the Bell System (James H. Haynes) Re: Suing AT&T/Nynex For Credit Card Charges (Richard Harris) Re: PIN Operation and Non-Traditional Cell Phones (Danny Burstein) Re: PIN Operation and Non-Traditional Cell Phones (Lynne Gregg) Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News (Peter Morgan) 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, 06 May 1996 17:30:09 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: USITA and Some Bell History (was Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper) At the time of divestiture, the USITA (United States Independent Telephone Association) became the USTA. The logo is still the modern "angled" standard desk telephone. The /I/ for "Independent" was dropped, and the seven regional Bell corporations are now members, along with the two "semi-Bell" companies of Cincinnati Bell and Southern New England Telephone. USTA also has a website: http://www.usta.org Another organization is NECA, the National Exchange Carriers' Association. It was formed at the time of divestiture, or in the plannings for divestiture in the early 1980's. NECA is located in Whippany NJ. Its original name was the ECA (Exchange Carriers' Association), but shortly after divestiture in the mid-80's, the word "National" was added to its name. One of NECA's original tasks was to take over the old "Bell-Independent" rate settlements. Pre-divestiture, there were toll settlements for division of revenues when traffic went between Bell/AT&T and independent companies' networks. These were negotiated between "The Bell" and the independents, usually represented by the USITA, probably under the review of the state regulatory agencies and/or the FCC. After divestiture, NECA developed a set of "Access Tarriffs". Copies of NECA tarriffs can be purchased from companies such as CCMI. NECA tarriff lists usually include a lot of the same material that AT&T rate tarriffs contain, both pre and post divestiture, such as NPA-NXX listings, V&H co-ordinates, and CLLI codes. Bellcore TRA materials contain much of the same as well. I haven't found a website yet for NECA. (They probably don't yet have one, but I would *assume* that when/if they do it would be something like www.neca.org. When I put that in as a URL, I get "unable to locate server; does not have a DNS entry." And I really don't get anywhere when doing some netsearches.) In 1912 or 1913, the Independents and "The Bell" agreed to the "Kingsbury Committment". I think that AT&T (Bell) was under some government pressure to do so. If I remember right, Kingsbury was a top executive with AT&T. Some of the provisions of the Kingsbury Committment was that if there were no local Bell company in a region, AT&T would connect their toll lines with the independent operating there. Bell would not buy out any more independents unless there were an overall good in doing so. Also, I think that Bell/AT&T's actual ownership of stock in Western Union Telegraph was dissolved at this time. Bell was to stick to voice telephony, while WUTCO would be involved with the Telegraph. Bell and Western Union remained "good friends" for decades since, but it was a rather rocky situation. Bell (AT&T) introduced a manually connected 5-level 60 speed Baudot (Murray code) TWX service in 1931, which was an outgrowth of the telegraph! Bell owned the Teletype Corporation, which was placed under Western Electric. By the 1950's, AT&T was always trying to get into "data processing", and this was *one* of many disputes which eventually led to the 1956 Consent Decree to end the dormant 1949 DOJ suit against AT&T. This suit began under the Truman administration, but was "put aside" shortly after being filed, as the Korean "War" was just starting along with the "Cold War". The Pentagon (and Eisenhower) didn't really want to see *ANY* tampering with the friendly relationship between the government/military and Bell. (Does the phrase Military/Industrial Complex sound familiar here? Does it "ring" any "Bells"?) And Teletype/WECo began to manufacture modems in the late 1950's ("DataPhones"), but were not to provide any *actual* data processing functions themselves. As for the Bell/Independent relationship, even as late as the 1920's, there were still many independents not connected to "The Bell", as they were in direct competition with an operating Bell company in that location. Some locations had *several* independents (and a Bell) competiting against each other. The last "known" competing independent was "The Keystone" in the Philadelphia area. By the 1930's and 40's, it mainly catered to business customers. There is an article in a 1946 {Bell Telephone Magazine} regarding the 1945 consolidation of "The Keystone" into Bell of Pennsylvania and Diamond State (Delaware) Telephone (Bell), and "Keystone's" New Jersey affiliates into New Jersey Bell. Bell Telephone Magazine: v.24 (1945) #4 (Winter '45/46) - Dual Telephone Service Ends in Philadelphia, by Peter L. Schauble (begins on p.311 of v.24/1945) "The Keystone" did *NOT* connect with any of these BOC's or AT&T. There was even a toll service for those parts of PA, NJ and DE known as something like the "Eastern Atlantic Telephone & Telegraph Company". The {Bell Telephone Magazine} article has some pictures of "open-wire" toll lines crossing rural New Jersey of this competiting toll service associated with "The Keystone". The article goes on to describe how the various state regulatory agencies and the FCC approved the take-over and consolidation of Keystone into "The Bell System" after some "filings" and public hearings. As for divestiture which took place some twelve years ago, (it actually took place legally as of 12:01am January 1, 1984, although there were many preparations going on for two years prior), the DOJ originally sued AT&T ten years earlier, in 1974, and there were some "dormant" spots in those earlier years. I think that the original Federal Judge overseeing the suit either died or might have retired or recused himself for health considerations. Pat, you are *certainly* correct in that the history of telephone companies and networks in America is a fascinating one! And so is Canada's; although while theirs' certainly parallel's the US' telco history, it is not quite as "complex". There are many other aspects to discuss about these early years of US Telco history, but I'll leave that to others. 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: Mon, 6 May 96 20:08 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > How, then, did these independents provide any sort of long distance > service? If they and AT&T were such fierce enemies, would AT&T > provide them with long-distance trunklines? Was AT&T required to do so? PAT says, among other things: > Finally sometime in the 1920's the United States Supreme Court said > Bell had to interconnect with the others ... Not really. Bell was indeed squeezing the independents pretty hard in the early 1900s, to the point where anti-trust murmurings from the government started to get pretty loud. In 1913 AT&T wrote a letter to the government known as the Kingsbury Commitment (named after the V.P. who signed it) which agreed: 1. To interconnect with independents in a non-discriminatory way. 2. Not to buy up non-competing telcos, that is, whose territory didn't overlap with Bell's, without ICC (later FCC after the FCC was created) approval, which in practice meant that they only bought telcos that would otherwise have gone out of business. 3. To sell off their stock in Western Union, which at the time they controlled. In return the government agreed not to attack them with anti-trust, a stance affirmed by the Graham-Willis Act of 1921. In the meantime, the government had nationalized the phone system in 1918 for WW I, then gave it back in 1919. This had little practical effect other than to make the government the guarantor of AT&T stockholders' dividends, and to quash any subsequent thoughts about government operation of telephones. The Kingsbury Commitment kept the government at bay until 1949, when the first anti-trust case against AT&T was filed, leading to the consent agreement in 1956. Then the government filed again in 1974, and the rest, as they say, is history. > Remember from history you were taught that one of the early people > in GTE swore to his dying day that Alex Bell had ripped him off > of the patent for the telephone in the first place, claiming Bell got > to the Patent Office a matter of hours or maybe a day before he got > there. That was Elisha Gray, there's no argument from any side that Bell filed a few hours before he did and that he did invent a working telephone about the same time that Bell did. There were lengthly court battles about the patents, and for better or worse, Bell won. But it wasn't GTE, it was Western Union, the same Western Union who'd earlier passed up an opportunity to buy up Bell's patents. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing I distinctly remember seeing as a child was an in-service pay phone -- on Southwestern Bell lines yet! -- which said on its box that it was manufactured by the Gray Pay Station Telephone Company, which I guess was one part of Automatic Electric. This phone was in a phone booth with one of the accordion type doors on the front, and a little seat inside to sit on when using the telephone which had its mouthpiece mounted on the front of the main box facing you, and a separate piece you held up to your ear to listen. This would have been in the 1950's sometime, and it cost five cents to make a call which went through an operator and a manual switchboard. I seem to recall it was in a drugstore. No armored cable like now, and three slots on the top to deposit nickels, dimes or quarters as requested by the operator. The phone was dead until you put the nickle in; that caused it to ground one side of the line and you immediatly heard battery at that point for a few seconds until the operator came on to ask 'number please?'. A little picture frame with glass on the front of it had something called 'Instructions For Use of This Instrument' and among other instructions was an admonition to 'kindly refrain from using profanity when speaking with the operator about your connection ... would you want the operator to curse at you when she was unable to make the requested connection because the called line was already engaged or did not respond?'. And indeed, in the days of manual service, people would get angry because the line they were trying to reach was busy for hours on end and they would cuss out the operator thoroughly because of it. They would cuss the operator and then in the most profane language tell her to 'cut in on the line, and tell them to can the sh** and give someone else a chance to talk.' Sometimes the subscribers would simply demand that the operator 'cut off' the other ones who were talking and put their call through instead. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 21:06:42 -0400 From: Fred R. Goldstein Subject: Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper (And a Bit More Telco History) A nice history from Pat of the early swashbuckling days of AT&T! I do remember (from reading, I'm not that old!) a few different details though. > Remember from history you were taught that one of the early people > in GTE swore to his dying day that Alex Bell had ripped him off > of the patent for the telephone in the first place, claiming Bell got > to the Patent Office a matter of hours or maybe a day before he got > there. The Patent Office chose to honor Alex Bell's claim as the > inventor instead of the other guy. GTE started 'Automatic Electric' > as a laboratory/manufacturing facility in direct competition with > Bell's Western Electric. All the small independents chose to buy > their telephones from Automatic Electric, mainly because part of > AT&T's thing was only their exchanges could purchase from Western > Electric. It was part of the 'one Bell System ... one way of > doing things if you want them done right ...' philosophy. I think that is a portmanteau of two stories. The real inventor of the telephone was Elisha Gray. Bell's "phone" had no mouthpiece; you shouted into the one moving-coil earpiece and then listened to it. I doubt it would be intelligible in the real world. The first call ("Come here Watson, I need you") was between two floors in one little building in Scollay Square, Boston. Watson might have heard the shouting up the stairs more clearly than over the phone! But Bell had a better lawyer. I always remind my students of this with the maxim, "Have you hugged your patent lawyer today?" Gray (and Barr) started Graybar Electric, which AT&T eventually bought. He did hold the patent on the microphone, part of every telephone. Automatic Electric was built, I think, on Strowger's 1893 invention of the dial phone (and stepper exchange). The independents (and GTE) had dial long before Bell, who refused to license Strowger's patent. > Finally sometime in the 1920's the United States Supreme Court said > Bell had to interconnect with the others (the others were already > quite willing to interconnect among themselves) subject only to > technical standards as they were in those days. They all still > kept fighting and squabbling among themselves but they did start > handling each other's traffic. Oh! You thought the telephone wars > only started when MCI and Sprint went into competition with AT&T ... I think this was 1912, and known as the "Kingsbury Commitment" after the Attorney General (or some such office-holder) who negotiated it. Bell's respect for anti-trust laws was pretty awful even then. Kingsbury had two parts. One, the independents could connect to Bell's toll network, and two, Bell coudn't buy up independents unless they were already in trouble (which happened now and then) through no fault of Bell's. I'm not sure the official wording but you get the idea ... that was when most of today's Bell/non-Bell lines were drawn, though they've been shifting again lately. Of course the USITA renamed itself the USTA after AT&T got rid of the Bells. "Independent" didn't seem to mean the same thing any more. But between you, me and the lamppost, I think there is still a difference. Fred R. Goldstein k1io fgoldstein@bbn.com +1 617 873 3850 Opinions are mine alone. Sharing requires permission. ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (James H. Haynes) Subject: Small Independents and the Bell System Date: 7 May 1996 01:25:19 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz I guess it was the summer of 1956 that I had a job as a cable splicer's helper with Southwestern Bell. We were laying a buried toll cable that later became known as the Little Rock-Texarkana Water Hose, for reasons that are another story. In the little town of Fulton, about 15 miles from Texarkana we ran a branch, 12 pairs as I recall, to a house where there was located a magneto switchboard serving the town. I don't remember the name of the telephone company there at the time. The last time I was in that area they had dial phones, so I suppose GTE or Bell now serves that town. There was another little town named Trigg near Texarkana. I wasn't involved in running cable there so don't know what kind of pair count they got. One of my college profs who was also a telephone consultant said that Trigg had a Leich crossbar switch, so at least they had more modern service than Fulton did. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In the early days and clear up into the 1940's or maybe early 1950's there were lots of small independent telcos which operated out of the owner's private residence. It looked like any other house in the town except that you would see a convergence of telephone poles coming from all directions in the town terminating around the side of the house somewhere. A big thick bundle of wires entered the house on the side somewhere and one of the rooms was where you would find the switchboard. Some of them only had two employees (wife and husband) with him doing the maintainence and her running the board and sending out the bills in her spare time. People in town understood that she closed the board at 10 pm when they went to bed and re-opened at 7 in the morning. If you had an emergency in the middle of the night you could use the phone; lifting your receiver would cause the board to buzz. If you did, she would get out of bed and go answer it, but you were only supposed to do that if it was an emergency such as needing the doctor or the firemen. If her board started buzzing at 2 in the morning and woke her up, she knew it meant there was some kind of trouble in the little town. Eventually they all had to go to 24 hour service and if there was not someone in the family able to stay up all night and take care of the board then they would usually hire a young woman to come over to their house each night. Usually the switchboard was in a room where it would not disturb the rest of the family and they could have thier privacy. Something forgotten for years and just now recalled: I was speaking with a directory assistance operator once in a town far away I do not recall. It would have been 25-30 years ago. While the operator was looking up the number for me, she had a heart attack and died, within a few minutes. She had said to me, "just a minute; I'll get the number for you." I heard no more for more than a minute and I spoke up asking if she was there. I got no response, and continued sitting on the line waiting. After more than a minute, a different operator came on the line and said, "excuse me, please hold on, we have an emergency here and I will be right with you ..." Another twenty or thirty seconds passed and I heard talking in the background saying, "I called the medical department and someone is coming up right now." Someone else said, "try to make her comfortable, put your jacket under her head." The operator who had interjected herself on the line came back at that point saying she was sorry I was kept waiting and could she start my request again. She gave me the number and was about to leave the line when I asked her what had happened there. Sort of reluctant to speak about it she finally said, "it appears the oper- ator who was assisting you had a heart attack." I was a bit taken aback by that and the next day I called the same place and asked to speak with a supervisor. I told her I had been on the line the night before. She told me that it had been a heart attack and that the operator had died 'almost instantly'; by the time an ambulance arrived a few minutes later she had passed away. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Suing AT&T/Nynex For Credit Card Charges From: richard@jyacc.com (Richard Harris) Organization: JYACC, Inc. Date: Mon, 06 May 96 17:51:10 PST > A criminal will "rent" a phone number from an answering service and > then order a calling card from AT&T. They provide the number we give > them, and AT&T sends the card without checking if they are sending it > to an address that matches the phone number. They use the card and we > get billed. Long distance takes as much as two months for billing via > our local phone company, Nynex. So the thief gets two months of free > calls before we find out about it. Whose names are the phone numbers in, and who gets the bill for calls made on those lines? If the phone numbers are in your name, and you are a business account, then AT&T would normally only issue calling cards when authorized by you. Otherwise, employees could call up and order a calling card billed to their office number -- and most corporate TMs don't like that prospect. I would think the same thing would apply here, and, if the phone numbers are in your customers' names, then they should be getting the calling card bills instead of you. Richard ------------------------------ From: dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) Subject: Re: PIN Operation and Non-Traditional Cell Phones Date: 6 May 1996 21:08:37 -0400 Organization: mostly unorganized In johng@comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) writes: > I know how regular cellular phones operate with a PIN. What effect > does PIN operation have on burgular alarm systems via cellular, RJ-11 > backup devices using cellular and cellular data modems? Are > manufacturers of these devices having to install new firmware to deal > with PINs or are the carriers not mandating PINs on these numbers? I would hope (sigh) that the cellular companies could and would maintain a list of emergency numbers that could be dialed without a pin, such as the 911 system. Then again, _do_ these companies allow 911 to go through without a PIN? If not, that could be a pretty big problem when you're in a car crash and someone tries using your phone to call for help ... Hmmmmmmmmmmm. A Worthy Question indeed: If your cellular company requires a PIN, can you dial 911 without it? Inquiring minds want to know. (Please email responses back to me, dannyb@panix.com, and I'll summarize the results. Oh, and please try _not_ to bother the 911 folk if you can find out through other means) dannyb@panix.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 5:22pm From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: PIN Operation and Non-Traditional Cell Phones johng@comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) wrote: > I know how regular cellular phones operate with a PIN. What effect > does PIN operation have on burgular alarm systems via cellular, RJ-11 > backup devices using cellular and cellular data modems? Are > manufacturers of these devices having to install new firmware to deal > with PINs or are the carriers not mandating PINs on these numbers? John, my suspicion is, just as you suggest, manufacturers will need to adjust firmware to allow the customer to enter the PIN so it will be pre-pended to the dialed number on an outcall. This requires some effort on behalf of the manufacturer, but shouldn't be that difficult. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: nagrom@enterprise.net (Peter Morgan ) Subject: Re: Sprint Sense Free Fridays - More Good News Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 20:05:09 GMT Organization: Enterprise PLC - Internet Services John Higdon wrote: > 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. Thanks for explaining the abbreviation, for this here Limey :-) In the UK, we have a completely different system, where the majority of residential lines (21 Million) go to BT, and so far as I know, only one of our cities (Kingston-upon-Hull), which never became part of BT, offers customers the choice between BT and Mercury ( a subsidiary of Cable & Wireless), in a similar manner (a default, which can be overridden on each call). We therefore don't get any "loyalty" offers :-( and our charges seem always to be higher for international (33c/min minimum, and as much as $2/min for some calls) There are some cable companies offering phone service, but none serve rural areas and I therefore have no knowledge of them, though they are, in the main, cheaper for local calls and _if_ one subscribes to their film channels, some offer off-peak cable/cable calls free, though they've generally thwarted ISPs and BBS from allowing loads of free access. The cable company decides which long distance carrier to use, and determines the charges. All our calls are charged (excepting some cable calls) on a time/distance/duration basis, and BT has competition for non-local (over 20 miles) calls from a few companies. It is because we do not have the local/national split that you have, that we don't have a chosen national service provider ... though people making few long distance calls, or using a payphone, probably only use BT unless they read UK.TELECOM newsgroup. For anyone with a BT line, there are access codes to go out to non-local destinations, and while the codes are fixed, the user decides (or has a smartbox to preselect). Thus, I can make national/international calls using BT, ACC, Energis, and (if I paid about $18/year) Mercury. these companies will accept calls to local numbers, but charge very high rates (presumably to compensate for using two ports at a single interconnect site, which isn't necessary). ACC and Energis currently have no fixed charges, just a minimum call cost of about 5c. Mercury has an annual charge, and for most residential users, a per call connection cost plus cost by duration. These other services use three or four digit codes (which BT _must_ allow) and then use either the calling number for ident, or expect a customer id and PIN. The smartboxes can either send just the short code, or be programmed with the remainder (slows the call down with the extra 13 digits). Caller ident is available on most calls through BT, and Energis, but calls through the other companies sometimes arrive as "number unavailable" or just "withheld". NB BT's Caller Id works in a way quite different to US versions -- we can receive information with _NO_ ring ... (just a tiny "ping" on some phones). Currently undergoing trials is a radio service called Ionica, which will offer homes/businesses one to three "channels" at microwave freq- uencies and use a small octagonal (or similar) dish. They are the newest service to arrive for the UK, and finally offer direct to home links without any cable TV service. The others, previously mentioned, all rely on a BT line (except for Businesses with 30+ "channels", where fibre is used). Peter, North Wales, UK. This might be of interest if you are in the industry, generally take an interest, or will ever work/live in the UK ... For information comparing the cost of calls in the UK, see :http://jumper.mcc.ac.uk:80/~afs/telecom/ (Not my work, but very useful info) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #223 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 8 07:34:20 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id HAA19289; Wed, 8 May 1996 07:34:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 07:34:20 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605081134.HAA19289@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #224 TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 May 96 07:33:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 224 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ISLIP 96 Next Week! (Dr. Edward Ashcroft) Cellular LD Charges (Zev Rubenstein) California Bill Seeks Internet Accountability (Tad Cook) Coda to the "Livingston-Exon" Router Fracas (Robert McMillin) 888 Problem: Callers to Motorola Reaching Hospital (Tad Cook) PBX Acceptance Criteria and Testing (Larry E. Holmen) TMU Level Programming Reference Wanted (Paul Burgess) Programming Cable Pinout For Motorola Bravo (Pat Barron) 1-800 Dealer Locators (We Want to Install One) (Robert Zeff) Zenith Electronics/USR Telco Return RF Cable Modem (cablemodem@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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 17:20:50 -0700 From: Dr. Edward Ashcroft Subject: ISLIP 96 Next Week! Reply-To: Dr. Edward Ashcroft All, ISLIP 96 takes place next week, namely 13 - 15 May, 1996. Here is the program: Detailed Program for ISLIP96 Lectures will be held at the Kaleidoscope Room, Computing Commons at ASU. The Demos will probably be given in the same place. The Dinner will be held at restaurant in Tempe, and the Party (drinks and snacks) will probably be held Chez Ashcroft (sur le lac) in Tempe, possibly followed by a meal at Rosa's, Mesa. (They actually have Habanero Salsa that will be too hot for even John Plaice to handle - but they also have milder salsas.) Monday, May 13, 1996 9:15am - 10:00am Networking and Computing: from The Chip to The Web Peter Kropf and John Plaice Laval University 10:00am - 10:30am Break 10:30am - 11:15am Intensional Intentional Programming Bill Wadge University of Victoria 11:15am - 12 noon Eduction: a General Model for Computing John Plaice and Slim Ben Lamine Laval University 12 noon - 1:45pm Lunch 1:45pm - 2:30pm Implementing GLU on Dynamic Heterogeneous Systems R Jagannathan and C Dodd SRI International 2:30pm - 3:15pm Extensional Intensions Ed Ashcroft Arizona State University 3:15pm - 3:45pm Break 3:45pm - 4:30pm Visual Java, Anyone? Visual Java, Everyone! Tony Faustini Arizona State University 7:00pm Dinner Tuesday, May 14, 1996 9:15am Demo 12 noon - 1:45pm Lunch 1:45pm - 2:30pm Knowledge-Based Modeling Methodology for Simulation of Distributed Computation Using Chronolog(MC) Chuchang Liu and Mehmet Orgun Macquarie University 2:30pm - 3:15pm Time-Parameterized TemporalLogic-Based Framework for Discrete-Event Simulation Quan Nguyen and Tu Van Le University of Canberra 3:15pm - 3:45pm Break 3:45pm - 4:30pm Explicit Choice Higher Dimensional Automata, Omega-Multigraphs, and Process Algebra Operations Richard Buckland and Michael Johnson Macquarie University 7:00pm Party Wednesday, May 15, 1996 9:15am - 10:00am 8 1/2: Data-Parallelism and Data-Flow Olivier Michel, Dominique De Vito, and Jean-Paul Somsonnet LRI 10:00am - 10:30am Break 10:30am - 11:15am Type Safety for Versioned Object-Oriented Programs Xue Li Queensland University of Technology 11:15am - 12 noon Software Reuse in Intensional Programming Weichang Du University of New Brunswick If you haven't already done so, PLEASE E-MAIL ed.ashcroft@asu.edu IMMEDIATELY TO INDICATE THAT YOU WILL BE ATTENDING. On receipt of your mesage, and unless otherwise directed, he will make a reservation for you at the Twin Palms Hotel, 225 E Apache Blvd, Tempe (telephone 602 967 9431, FAX 602 968 1877). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 16:49:08 -0500 From: zev@wireless.attmail.com (zev) Subject: Subject: Cellular LD Charges Babu Mengelepouti writes: > In my cell carrier's case, they don't allow equal access and they bill > for AT&T -- all the billing is done through their switch, to make it > "easy" so they claim. The only thing that isn't "easy" is paying the > outrageous charges! The rates billed are AT&T's basic rates and AT&T > won't allow any discount plans because the carrier is "not equal > access" -- meaning, I guess, that they know you have little or no choice, > so why do they need to be nice about it? Actually, carriers that bill for both air time and AT&T long distance on the same bill fall into two categories: "A" side carriers that are buying AT&T LD in bulk (very cheaply) and "B" side carriers (which were, before the Telecom Act "equal access" carriers) who have billing and collections (B&C) agreements with AT&T. The B side carriers that do have B&Cs are merely billing on AT&T's behalf, and usually there are discounts available on the LD portion of the bill -- similar to the wireline environment where LECs usually include LD carrier billing. B side carriers without B&C agreements will not have an LD portion on the bill, and AT&T bills the customer separately, and AT&T's discount plans can be applied to the LD bills. The A side carriers that are reselling the AT&T LD put AT&T on the bill to look good, but in fact (as you pointed out) charge the customer the full AT&T rate even though they have paid a discounted rate to AT&T. So they not only are getting margin on the airtime, but on the LD as well. The exception, after merging with AT&T, is the old McCaw (Cell One) now AT&T Wireless Services, which was an A side carrier but converted to equal access as part of the deal with the DOJ to merge with AT&T. So, it sounds like Babu's carrier is an A side carrier that locked him into a high-priced LD structure, and makes it appear that the high cost is due to AT&T, when in fact the carrier is making additional profit. Zev Rubenstein Independent Telecommunications Consultant ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: California Bill Seeks Internet Accountability Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 10:55:30 PDT Bill seeks Internet accountability; First legislation to address electronic consumer fraud. By Rebecca Smith Mercury News Consumer Writer SACRAMENTO -- The Internet is in its Wild West days, says Assemblywoman Jackie Speier. Now she and Attorney General Dan Lungren want to introduce a little law-and-order through a bill that would apply California mail-order laws to commercial transactions conducted over the Internet. If the bill passes, it will be the first of its kind in the nation. In a Capitol news conference Monday, Speier, D-South San Francisco, said AB 3320 is a "gentle approach" to the growing problem of electronic consumer fraud. It would require all vendors using the Internet to disclose their addresses and refund policies on the screen and to provide a toll-free means of resolving disputes. The bill will receive its first hearing before the Assembly Consumer Protection Committee today. While no formal opposition had announced itself Monday, Speier said she was trying to build a coalition behind the bill, of which her pairing with Lungren behind the measure was highly symbolic. Credit card companies, which suffer heavy losses from fraud, should be pleased by the bill. Speier said on-line customers can be cheated in one of two ways. A scam artist may obtain an identification number (credit card, Social Security, driver's license) and buy merchandise with it, or the goods and services consumers buy themselves either aren't delivered or turn out to be shoddy. "The standards for Internet commerce should be just as high as for telemarketers or mail order," said Speier, former chairwoman of the consumer committee. No one knows how many consumers are defrauded each year over the Internet. "We can't even get good numbers on Internet users, let alone fraud. It's just growing too fast," said Steve Telliano, press secretary for the attorney general's office. He said waiting any longer to establish protections makes no sense. Right now, it's nearly impossible for consumers to tell whether a vendor is reputable without conducting a transaction -- which may be risky. For example, one recent advertiser on the Internet claimed to be able to put people in touch with foundations offering huge cash grants. Another promoted high-risk stocks. A third promised a $24 cure for AIDS. Coinciding with the news conference was the release of a new study titled "Consumer Traps on the Internet" by the California Alliance for Consumer Protection, a Sacramento-based consumer organization. "Our report found lots of traps on the Internet," said Michael Ross, study author. "We aren't trying to impede the Internet but to make it a place that's safer for consumers." The report included a list of five common Internet complaints: -- Deceptive marketing practices. -- Inaccurate on-line information. -- Financial scams, frauds and impersonations. -- "Spamming" or the distribution of electronic junk mail. -- Copyright and trademark infringement. Ross said that consumers never should give credit card information via e-mail or register to gain access to free Web sites. "What many people don't know is that there is as big a market for e-mail lists as for mailing lists," said Ross. "This, often, is what these people really are after. Then they sell your name and information." Speier urged consumers to visit two Web sites devoted to alerting the public to Internet fraud. -- The National Fraud Information Center tells consumers about Internet scams and gives tips on how to avoid being victimized. Address: http://www.fraud.org. -- The California Alliance for Consumer Protection maintains a site containing several resources including the full report, "Consumer Traps on the Internet," and "The Top Ten Consumer Complaints," a report issued last autumn by the Assembly Consumer Protection Committee. Address: http://www.consumers.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 11:04:31 -0700 From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Coda to the "Livingston-Exon" Router Fracas; an NSA Sniffing Update Recently, an article in TELECOM Digest relayed an article appearing in {Inter@ctive Week} discussing Livingston's so-called "Exon" router. Internally they call this Choicenet. If you want to hear something approximating Livingston's story on this, check out the URL: This looks like a public news host, so I don't know if this URL is going to be around much longer. Also, it's not clear to me whether the author of this article is really authorized to act as a spokesman for Livingston. To refresh your memory, this router technology was supposed to shut off certain routes based on remote control from trusted users. I'm not generally in favor of such devices in the first place, since they pretty much can be used to treat adults like children, too. Still, if you believe the info at this URL, Livingston started work on this product long before Exon came around; his unconstitutional amendment just happened to be a marketing bonus. I guess we're just supposed to ignore the fact that Uncle Sam could use such technology at a NAP to shut off access to unwanted Internet sites, foreign or domestic. It's bad enough now that we have the NSA snooping on Internet traffic. According to an article in Jim Warren's GovAccess list, {Puzzle Palace} author Warren Madsen says his sources within both ISPs and government have told him that the following routers are being actively monitored by the NSA: FIX East (College Park, MD) FIX West (NASA Ames Research Center, Sunnyvale, CA) MAE West MAE East CIX (San Jose) SWAB ("a northern Virginia router operated by Bell Atlantic") NAP routers that may also be monitored: Pennsauken, NJ (operated by Sprint) Chicago (operated by AmeriTech and Bell Communications Research) San Francisco (operated by Pac Bell) In this case, monitoring equals "'sniffing' for specific key words and phrases", presumably in plaintext or encrypted e-mail. William Marlow, of the Science Applications International Corporation, and Paul Strassman, of the National Defense University (??), both report that the NSA can decrypt messages using keys of less than 1000 bits. They also reported that "a number of anonymous remailers in the US are run by government agencies scanning traffic". Supposedly, the NSA has deals with Microsoft, Lotus, and Netscape to prevent anonymous e-mail, as well as the "introduction of means to prevent the anonymity of Internet electronic mail, the use of cryptographic key-escrow, as well as software industry acceptance of the NSA-developed Digital Signature Standard (DSS)." Your tax dollars at work, friends. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com Ever feel like you're being watched? You will. ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: 888 Problem: Callers to Motorola Reaching Hospital Date: Tue, 8 May 1996 23:08:39 PDT Some Callers Seeking a Cell Phone Are Landing in a Hospital Instead Via AP By QUENTIN HARDY The Wall Street Journal Ordering Motorola's new phone could send you to the hospital. The cellular-telephone maker's ads in large U.S. newspapers for its new palm-sized cell phone, called the StarTac, feature a toll-free number with an 888 prefix that doesn't work on many phones. The problem: Some telephone systems aren't yet programmed for the prefix; the same problem occurs with many of the new area codes that are being introduced as the old area codes fill up. So potential customers have been trying the older toll-free 800 prefix -- and getting the Methodist Physician's Helpline, a service of the Methodist Hospital in Memphis, Tenn. Anna Lee Gaia, the help line's support coordinator, isn't amused. "We got 300 calls a month on this line, then Motorola put an ad in the {Chicago Tribune} and I started getting 200 calls a day," she says. Ms. Gaia frets that doctors who call the hospital for advice can't get through because of the overload. Furthermore, she says, "some people are very rude" when they hear they've got the wrong number, insisting that the Methodist hospital could sell them the telephone. The snafu could be bad news for Motorola, since the programming problem is common among office-type phone networks, and the 3.1-ounce StarTac, which retails for between $1,399 and $1,995, is aimed at business users. On the other hand, the mix-up may also prove that StarTac is the hit Motorola was hoping for. Even with problems getting connected, real Motorola operators have been swamped with calls since the campaign started in early April. In Memphis, Ms. Gaia has steered so many people to a correct 800 number for Motorola sales (which unlike the current number doesn't spell "StarTac" but does spell "Edmgjo," among other possibilities) that she thinks Motorola "ought to be paying me a salary." So far, though, Motorola's telemarketers have only called to thank her "for being so nice to their customers," she says. Motorola initially wasn't aware of the wrong-number problem, but, when informed, Jim Cale, vice president of marketing, said of the Methodist Hospital operators: It is "nice they have patience with us ... that was a pun." ------------------------------ From: Larry.E.Holmen@cdc.com (larry.e.holmen) Subject: PBX Acceptance Criteria and Testing Date: 7 May 1996 18:44:35 GMT Organization: Control Data Systems, Inc. My company is evaluating moving from a CO based Centrex system to an in-house PBX. We have little if any PBX experience or expertise. One of the questions that has come up in our discussions has been "how is acceptance defined and measured?". If it were a mainframe we could easily come up a suite of test jobs and benchmarks, but its not. How are PBXs measured? I am sure that is not this the first time this question has been asked. Does anyone out there have any thoughts on this, experiences, examples, that they would be willing to share? The system will be a Nortel Meridian 1/81 system with about 1200 users. Regards and thanks, larry holmen control data systems leh1@cdsmail.cdc.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 14:32:58 +1000 From: paulb@geko.net.au (Paul Burgess) Subject: TMU Level Programming Reference Wanted Hi, I am looking for a good reference of TMU level programming of switches and equipment, Can anyone adivse a suitable text or URL? Paul Burgess Mobile: +61 414 414 375 Fax : +61 2 256 6057 Work: +61 2 256 6019 paulb@geko.com.au ------------------------------ From: Pat_Barron@transarc.com Subject: Programming Cable Pinout For Motorola Bravo Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 18:53:03 -0400 Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Can anyone tell me how to build one of these? I need to get to the pager via a PC (with the Motorola programming software). I'm guessing that the signals at the pager input are TTL levels, so I'd at least need to convert them to/from RS-232 levels. Assuming I even knew which pin was "transmit" and which was "receive"! :-) Any information would be welcome. Thanks, Pat ------------------------------ From: rz@Nikola.com (Robert Zeff) Subject: 1-800 Dealer Locators (We Want to Install One) Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 00:27:30 GMT Organization: SONNET Networking - Central Valley & Foothills (800)50-ONLINE We have an 800 dealer locator service that sucks. We are thinking it might be possible to do this ourselves with voicemail equipment. Any suggestions would be appreciated! Thanks, Robert Zeff Nikola Systems rz@nikola.com CServe: 70323,1251 ------------------------------ From: cablemodem@aol.com (Cablemodem) Subject: Zenith Electronics/USR Telco Return RF Cable Modem Date: 6 May 1996 23:25:41 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: cablemodem@aol.com ZENITH (Cablemodem), U.S.ROBOTICS JOIN FORCES ON ENHANCED CABLE MODEM SYSTEMS Telco Return Option Benefits One-Way Cable Systems LOS ANGELES, April 29,1996 -- Zenith Electronics Corporation and U.S.Robotics today unveiled a new cable modem system that will enable the vast majority of cable operators with one-way systems to deliver lightning-fast data capabilitiy. U.S. Robotics is one of the world's leading suppliers of products and systems that provide access to information. The company designs, manufactures, markets and supports remote access servers, enterprise communications systems, desktop/mobile client products and modems and telephony products that connect computers and other equipment over analog, digital and switched cellular networks, enabling users to gain access to, manage and share data, fax and voice information. Its customers include Internet service providers, regional Bell operating companies, inter-exchange carriers and a wide range of other large and small businesses, institutions and individuals. The company's fiscal 1995 sales were $889.3 million; sales for the first six months of fiscal 1996 were $819.3 million. Zenith Electronics Corporation, based in Glenview, Ill., has been a leader in electronics for more than 75 years. Zenith's core business -- Consumer Electronics and Network Systems -- is at the center of the company's digital strategy, which includes interactive television, digital video disc players, digital and wireless cable, data communication and HDTV systems. Zenith is the industry- leading supplier of high-speed cable modems to more than 300 cable systems worldwide. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #224 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 8 08:53:15 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id IAA24113; Wed, 8 May 1996 08:53:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 08:53:15 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605081253.IAA24113@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #225 TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 May 96 08:53:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 225 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson MCI True Lies (Michael Quinn) SMS Database Questions (Nicholas Spill) Market Share of Various Vendors (Mike Polischuk) Mobile Phone Radiation / Cancer Link (Simon Johnson) Wireless Phone Jack System (Dawn Reske) H.324 ITU Video Conference Standard (Vidar Alvestad) Small ISDN Phone System (Bob Izenberg) Transparent Callback (Al Niven) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (David Yewell) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (lr@access1.digex.net) Re: Directory Assistance Charges (Babu Mengelepouti) Re: PIN Operation and Non-Traditional Cell Phones (Steve Bagdon) Re: ADSI Standards and Devices (Christoph F. Strnadl) Re: ADSI Standards and Devices (Stephen Knight) Re: US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees (Steve Bagdon) Re: US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees (Ed Kleinhample) 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, 07 May 1996 20:52:00 GMT From: Quinn, Michael Subject: MCI True Lies An MCI rep called me Saturday April 27 about 1PM with a deal which sounded pretty good, and guaranteed rates below Sprint, to which I had shifted a few months back and was happy ($.10 min interstate nights/ weekends, and .22 peak). The package included: - $.08/min nights/weekends, .15/min peak. She specifically cited these rates, said they would be effective for at least six months and asked me if they were lower than Sprint's (and we also chatted about inTER vs inTRA LATA rates, so I know there was no confusion on either of our parts). - 35% discount for the first six months; - "free" 800 number with the first 100 minutes free; - some other minor inducements, like calling cards and covering the cost of shifting PICs, etc. So I shifted; even if it sounded too good to be true; which, as it seems, it was. When I received the intro package today, most of the info therein was consistent with the phone solicitation, but the rates noted above were not posted as they were in the Sprint intro packet, so I called customer service around 6:30 PM Eastern time for clarification. I talked to two different service reps, both of whom told me my rates were time, distance, and volume sensitive, and neither of whom had heard of any "$.08/min program" as described above. There was no supervisor in the entire MCI system -- he was "on vacation this week". And the "100 free minutes" is only good for the next month and a half, etc. So: am I the only person in Northern VA (Springfield) they called, and/or was I the only person dumb enough to shift, and/or was I drowsing/hallucinating after after a hot dog, a beer, and a few too many TELECOM Digests? Or are the marketeers completely disconnected with the customer service reps??? I'm shifting my LD service back to Sprint tomorrow morning. If a supervisor ever shows up at MCI, s/he is welcome to call or email me with his/er side of the story. Mike Quinn quinnm@bah.com, (703)412-7488 ------------------------------ From: ntp@netrunner.net (nikko) Subject: SMS Database Questions Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 01:07:14 GMT Organization: NetRunner, Miami, Florida 305 255 5800 Can the SMS database employ dynamic allocation on the "supra" network level: i.e. 60% AT&T, 30% MCI & 30% SPRINT? Is this possible? And can someone lead me to a FAQ or database or faxback service for SMS database capabilities. I know Database Service Management Inc does the high level organisation. Would appreciate any guidance here. Nicholas Spill telemarketing consultant and strategist nspill@netrunner.net voice 305 532-7565 fax 305 534-0825 ------------------------------ From: beatle@cml.com (Mike Polischuk) Subject: Market Share of Various Vendors Reply-To: beatle@cml.com Date: 8 May 96 02:20:50 GMT I would like to know if there is a source for the following information: 1. Who are the top ten telecom companies by sales dollar volume? 2. Who are the top ten telecom companies by units sold? I would like this information for the US and Canada separately, if available, but if only available combined; that's ok too. A further note: I should clarify that by telecom I mean vendors who sell key and/or PBX telephone systems. Thanks a lot for your help! By the way, I will be changing ISP's in the next day or so; if you could post replies to the group it would be appreciated. ------------------------------ From: Mr Simon Johnson Subject: Mobile Phone Radiation / Cancer Link Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 16:39:21 +1100 Organization: ISP Pty Ltd Hello, I was wondering if anyone had any information on the emissions from digital mobile phones? I was aware that certain ones have been banned from many European countries. Any links on the internet would also be appreciative. I've been using an analog mobile phone for the past two years with no problems. I recently purchased a digital - GH337 about three months ago. Since then I have had the WORST headaches in history and massive sharp pains just above my ears. I rang up the mobile phone company (who's name I won't mention) and they said that "tests are being done at the moment, we know its been mentioned in the media and that they have no comment and its probably not the phones fault and to go and see my doctor". If anyone has experienced this or has any information for me, please reply via E-Mail. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 07 May 96 16:09:34 PST From: dawn reske Subject: Wireless Phone Jack System I'm looking for input on how the wireless phone jack systems that are on the market really work. I purchased an RCA RC926 Wireless Phone Jack system at a local retailer here in town. It appears that the best environment for the wireless system is in a home or small office building. The system works by plugging your telephone line into a base station (A) which is then plugged into an electrical outlet near the wall jack. The extension unit (B) can then be taken anywhere in your home or office, you then plug in the line cord to your phone and extension unit into the electrical outlet and Presto Chango ... you have dial tone. I brought the system to the office and tried it out here in our building. It seems to work well, but I don't understand "what" makes it work. I called the RCA "Wanna Be Helpful Line" and got a few questions answered, however, I'm still baffled. They informed me that the system will work best up to 1000 feet in an ideal situation. When I asked what ideal meant, they stated that ideal was one in which the electrical wiring for the building went through the same meter, same breaker box, with little interference from other devices. A colleague of mine had a reasonable explanation as to how it all works, but we're still not certain. I'd like to be able to use the system for temporary moves and adds here on our campus. Before I do so, I really want to have a handle on the pro's and con's of utilizing this system for emergency temporary use. We are now assuming that since the system won't work when the power is out that it's not sending the information out solely over the electrical wiring, rather the signal is being modulated over the AC current and picked up by the extension unit (B) which is plugged into an electrical outlet. Or do the units themselves require electricity and that's why they don't work when the power is out? If anyone out there can help explain how this works, problems they're aware with the system, or any other experiences with a wireless (not really) phone jack system I would be very grateful. Dawn Reske University of Oregon Telecommunication Services dreske@oregon.uoregon.edu ------------------------------ From: Vidar Alvestad Subject: H.324 ITU Video Conference Standard Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 10:59:17 +0100 Organization: MRT International H.324 ITU Standard Where can I get source code (software development kit) for the H.324 Video Conferencing standard? (OS: DOS or Windows 95). My interest is within: H.223 Multiplex H.245 Control H.263 Codec I have documents covering this standard, but no one seems to have released anything yet. (All I have found is the H.263 codec from Telenor Research.) Thank you everybody for helping me out. Best Regards, Vidar Alvestad vidar.alvestad@ccmail.telemax.no ------------------------------ Subject: Small ISDN Phone System Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 02:52:05 CDT From: Bob Izenberg Reply-To: bei@AUSTIN.sig.net I've been asked by a family member about small home ISDN phone and data services. The existing installation is a three set AT&T set-up serving three phone lines. I'd expect them to either stay with three voice lines, or drop back to two and to add a 2B+D circuit. What equipment might fit their needs? What costs should they expect? bob izenberg phone: +1 (512) 306-0700 sig.net network operations bei@sig.net ------------------------------ From: Al Niven Subject: Transparent Callback Date: 7 May 1996 03:50:19 GMT Organization: Video, Voice, and Data, Inc. The principles for integrating a transparent callback system for a hotel or office PBX are identical to voicemail integration. Dialers like Recall or Vive Synergy sit between telco and PBX. This box sits on the station side and can provide voicemail too. With the proper Dialogic cards, it can even provide fax to fax via email. Transparent callback for large office or hotel: PC approximatly $2,000; Used dialogic board approximatly $500 per four ports up to 20 ports in one pc (voicemail and transparent callback only); Transparent callback software and integration $2,500; Voicemail software - depending on features. I got paid to write a manual "voicemail made easy" by the largest reseller of AT&T equipment in the world, to teach his distributors how to put voicemail on pbx's. The second half of that manual is available for free (the first half described pc's!) in the callback resellers library in the compuserve telecom forum. Rather than kludging a non-pc based system for hotel and large office for transparent callback, one could provide a pc based system that would satisfy many needs: transparent callback, fax to fax via email, voicemail, and whatever else the hotel or large office may want: fax on demand, faxmail, etc. Al Niven Video, Voice, and Data, Inc. 292 Fifth Avenue, #201 NY NY 10001 212-714-3531 ------------------------------ From: David Yewell Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 21:28:17 -0700 Organization: Netcom zev wrote: > Correction: you can still use your AT&T calling card: just dial 102880 > (1-0- ATT-0) first, or dial 1-800-CALL-ATT first. AT&T will handle > local calls, as will any other IXC these days. Zev, could be that way in your part of the world, but I was in Monterey CA yesterday, and could not use 102880 to call within the area code. The LD provider on the pay phone was not ATT, so I thought I could get ATT access with 102880 - no luck, just "sorry your call cannot be completed as dialed". Dave Yewell ------------------------------ From: lr@access4.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Date: 7 May 1996 20:26:31 GMT Organization: Intentionally Left Blank zev (zev@wireless.attmail.com) wrote: > Correction: you can still use your AT&T calling card: just dial 102880 > (1-0- ATT-0) first, or dial 1-800-CALL-ATT first. AT&T will handle > local calls, as will any other IXC these days. Nope sorry, 10ATT0 + local call doesn't work here. Does work through 800 Call ATT. Ron ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 20:21:22 -0500 From: walkerrb@www.hendrix.edu (Babu Mengelepouti) Subject: Re: Directory Assistance Charges jlance@usa.pipeline.com wrote: > I call toll-free directory assitance (800-555-1212) frequently to > obtain toll-free listings. Starting two months ago, my phone company > began charging $.75 for each call. I was never told of this change in > charges until I received my bill. After much complaining, they > removed most of the charges. I thought phone companies can't charge > for 800 and 888 numbers. Is this true? I've heard of Sprint/United Telephone doing this. A friend of mine in Sprint/United Telephone territory in Florida had the same problem (coincidentally, he got slammed to Sprint long distance at the same time). He refused to pay and contested it with the Florida PUC; the following month, they'd stopped charging (I have to wonder how much money they made from these fraudulent billings, however). 800 and 888 numbers are toll-free. There were some 800 numbers in the past that billed based on ANI, such as phone sex lines and 1-800-GET-INFO (remember that?). However, all of those services clearly stated what the charges were before you got billed, and have since gone to alternate billing mechanisms. I am not sure whether this is by FCC rule or not. The only 800 number I'm aware of that you still get billed for calling is 800-855-1155 which is AT&T TDD Directory Assistance. I made the mistake of calling that from home with a modem, thinking that it was still free, and not only did I get billed (a charge I successfully contested because I was never told that I would be billed and never agreed to pay anything), but AT&T put me on their TDD Relay mailing list so I got solicitations from them oriented toward TDD users until I moved. I don't know if they still charge for calls to this number or not, but oddly enough it is dialable at no charge from a payphone. I'm calling from Saudi Arabia ... walkerrb@www.hendrix.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 19:40:40 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: PIN Operation and Non-Traditional Cell Phones dannyb@panix.com (danny burstein) said > In johng@comm.mot.com (John > Gilbert) writes: >> I know how regular cellular phones operate with a PIN. What effect >> does PIN operation have on burgular alarm systems via cellular, RJ-11 >> backup devices using cellular and cellular data modems? Are >> manufacturers of these devices having to install new firmware to deal >> with PINs or are the carriers not mandating PINs on these numbers? > I would hope (sigh) that the cellular companies could and would > maintain a list of emergency numbers that could be dialed without a > pin, such as the 911 system. > Then again, _do_ these companies allow 911 to go through without a > PIN? If not, that could be a pretty big problem when you're in a car > crash and someone tries using your phone to call for help ... > Hmmmmmmmmmmm. A Worthy Question indeed: > If your cellular company requires a PIN, can you dial 911 without it? > Inquiring minds want to know. > (Please email responses back to me, dannyb@panix.com, and I'll summarize > the results. Oh, and please try _not_ to bother the 911 folk if you can > find out through other means) I dialed *611 (a PINless number) and asked the Detroit Ameritech rep, and they stated that I can dial 911 *without* a PIN. Short of dialing 911 (haven't had a reason to yet), there is no way to verify. Logic would dicate (and so would your example) that 911 should be a free call, PINless, and even attainable from *any* cell phone at all - those in service, those not in service, and even those that are confirmed stolen (*that* should start a lively debate). Concerning the PIN problem. To the best of my knowledge, Motorola's Cellular Connection (their intelligent RJ-11 adapter for the Bag/car, Brick and Flip) has a DTMF sequence that will *force* a SEND. Using '***' as an example of the force, you would dial 810-555-1212*** (to dial), wait for four seconds, then dial 1234*** (to send the PIN). Can anyone *confirm* this? I don't have a working Cellular Connection lying around, but will stop by the provider's office to find out for sure. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net http://www.rust.net/~bagdon Katharine aNd Steve Bagdon (KNS) ------------------------------ From: cstrnadl@austria.cp.philips.com (Christoph F. Strnadl) Subject: Re: ADSI Standards and Devices Date: Tue, 07 May 96 20:20:40 GMT Organization: Philips C&P In article , gwheeler@gate.net (Gerry Wheeler) wrote: > Klaus Zuenkler wrote: >> Can anybody give me a pointer to the definition of the ADSI standard >> and sources for compatible devices? > The Dialogic voice cards can generate the ADSI signalling, so there is > some coverage of the technique in their manuals. Dialogic has a WWW > site, so you might find a lead to a manual there. ADSI Spec: The ADSI spec is published by Bellcore (www.bellcore.com) in various TRs (Technical References) and SRs (Special Reports). The most prominent and most needed are: TR-NWT-001273 Generic Requirements for an SPCS to Customer Premises Equipment Data Interface for Analog Display Services. SR-INS-002461 Customer Premises Equipment Compatibility Considerations for the Analog Display Services Interface. You will certainly want to purchase these two if you want to get a start on the ADSI. If you want to get *all* of the various Bellcore specs pertaining to the ADSI (and also for CID, Calling Name Delivery, CID/Call Waiting, Call Waiting Deluxe) you may conveniently order it under the Family Requirments option: FR-12 Analog Display Services Interface (ADSI). The 1996 edition sells for USD 1546,-- (+ 15% shipping, I think). We have the 1995 edition: It's really worth its money! ADSI compatible CPEs: I know of at least three Type 3 (see SR-INS-002726 ;-) devices: Philips Home Services: ScreenPhone P100 http://www.philips.com/phs/ Nortel: PowerTouch 350 www.nt.com Alcatel: A 2595 www.alcatel.com Don't hesitate to contact me (off-line) for further information! A Type 3 equipment fully understands the ADSI spec; a Type 2 CPE only decodes Caller-ID information and a Type 1 CPE does not understand anything of the FSK bursts sent to it. Christoph F. Strnadl | "What's a cynic?" Technical Manager/ScreenPhone Services | "A man who knows the price of ORIGIN Information Technology / Austria| everything and the value of Tel +43 1 60101/1752 Fax +43 1 6023568 | nothing." (O.Wilde) cstrnadl@austria.cp.philips.com | #include ------------------------------ From: sdk@cci.com (Stephen Knight) Subject: Re: ADSI Standards and Devices Organization: Nortel Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 16:49:24 GMT In article , Klaus Zuenkler wrote: > Can anybody give me a pointer to the definition of the ADSI standard > and sources for compatible devices? Does anybody know about the > penetration of such phones? Here's some of the info you might want: You can get the documents listed below from: Bellcore Customer Service 8 Corporate Place, Room 3A-184 Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-4156 1-800-521-CORE (2673) (US & Canada) (908) 699-5800 (all others) (908) 336-2559 as listed from ADSI Guide References, SR-2727, Issue 3, June 1995: GR-30-CORE, Voiceband Data Transmission Interface (a module of LSSGR, FR-64 and ADSI, FR-12), Issue 1 (Bellcore, December 1994). TR-NWT-001273, LSSGR: Generic Requirements for an SPCS to Customer Premises Equipment Data Interface for Analog Display Services (a module of LSSGR, Fr-64 and ADSI, FR-12), Issue 1 (Bellcore, Demeber 1992); plus Revision 1, June 1995 and Bulletins. SR-INS-002461, Customer Premises Equipment Compatibility Considerations for the Analog Display Services Interface (a module of ADSI, FR-12), Issue 1 (Bellcore, December 1992); plus Bulletins. SR-2495, Guidelines for Writing Applications Which Use the Analog Display Services Interface (ADSI) For Data Communications (a module of ADSI, FR-12), Issue 1 (Bellcore, December 1994). Hope this helps, steve knight nortel rochester, ny ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 19:40:35 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) said: > Another thing you don't hear regarding the downsizing is that (at > least here in Portland) the "technical" folks have been working > *mandatory* 12 hour shifts (60 hour weeks) for over a year. I have > this from a friend who works there (and who shall remain nameless as > he'd like to keep his job!) > I've worked at places that used 12 hour shifts. But it is normally > used for areas that need 24 hour a day, 7 days a week coverage. And > they work things so that nobody does more than 4 days in a row, and > the average hours per week are around 48. > But US West seems to be doing this *solely* to avoid having to hire > more people. I rather suspect that overtime comes under a different > category than "base" per employee expenses. That would allo management > to look good for cutting the "base" expenses, even though the overtime > pay was eating up all the savings. Bell South (aka Southern Bell) did this in South Florida after Hurrican Andrew. The employees were lucky/unlucky, depending on which side of the equation you were on. Bell South didn't hire any new employees, and the overtime was killing the company. I don't know the intricacies about the union rules, but the employees I knew started telling stories about 12 hour days, 7 days a week, 16 weeks at a time. Anything over 8 hours was overtime, anything over 40 hours was overtime, if the worked more then 10 days in a row it was double time (something about the union declaring a 'default emergency'). It got confusing, but the guy basically worked 80 or so hours a week, and got paid for 150 or so. Long, grueling hours sitting at junction boxes, verifying leads, etc. Those who survived *prosepered*. Steve B. bagdon@rust.net http://www.rust.net/~bagdon Katharine aNd Steve Bagdon (KNS) ------------------------------ From: edhample@sprynet.com Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 11:00:54 -0700 Subject: Re: US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees In Volume 16 Issue 219, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes: > But this too shows the sort of problems the downsizing has caused. Why > else would outside contractors be installing switch gear *without* some > phone company techs keeping an eye on things? It is common in many industries to rely on outside contractors for many specialized jobs. The fact that no in-house supervisors where present is surprising. What alarms me is the seeming incompetence of these contractors. While I do not claim to be a practicing engineer, a good portion of my education was in electrical engineering (including an internship with Westinghouse). Both in my time in class, and in the field during my internship, it was constantly reinforced that you check, double check, and recheck a circuit before touching it. When de-energizing a live circuit, it is standard practice to open the disconnect, and lock it in that position -- it is standard practice for each engineer working on a circuit to place his own lock on the disconnect. In my intern days (which included many hours in telco switching facilities -- many of which have Westinghouse Electric switchgear and UPS's), it was not uncommon to see a disconnect with a dozen locks snapped on the lever insuring that it stayed in the open position. It must also be considered that telcos have their share of not-so- bright techs. I remember watching a telco tech working in a switching room at a building where I once supervised a facilities department. A fuse had blown on a three-phase disconnect panael which connected the telco UPS to the commercial power. The telco tech was struggling to determine which of the three fuses had blown using a voltmeter. He proceeded to place the probes across each of the three fuses, seeing the proper voltage across one fuse, and zero volts across the remaining two fuses. He quickly decided that the two fuses showing zero volts where blown. After replacing the fuses, the UPS still indicated that commercial power was down. It took me and two of my staff people to convince this clown that the fuse showing the voltage was bad (remember that the meter will have greater resistance than the good fuse). I guess a fancy telco title doesn't mean that this guy was awake through electrical theory 101. Ed Kleinhample Consultant - Land O' Lakes, FL. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I thought everyone knew that not only are you to cut the power to some device before sticking your hands in there, you are also supposed to discharge *what is left* stored in the capacitors, etc. Of course, everyone can forget now and then, with results ranging from slightly humorous to extremely disasterous. Now and then, people have asked me to look at their old television sets and radios to try and fix them. Often times it is something quite simple that I can fix. Also, you would be surprised how many people there are -- especially in somewhat rich and wealthy neighborhoods -- who are quick to toss out things for the most minor reason. For example, the electrical cord snaps off on their television set; to them that means 'it does not work any longer' and they set it out on the street at the curb for the garbage people on the next pickup day. Sometimes I get there before the garbage truck does however, and when I see these things with very minor problems which the rich people tossed out I haul them away. Now even if a television set has been unplugged for a couple weeks, you still are wise to get in and discharge those caps before you work. They can store the juice for a long time. Part of the fun in having someone watch the (relatively minor) repairs is having them up close sticking their nose inside while I 'innocently' take a large screwdriver with a very long plastic handle and go 'tapping around' inside the unit shorting those big old capacitors to ground. Sure enough, after a minute or two I touch one that is still loaded: a loud bang, a big flash as fire shoots out of the back of the television. The person watching jumps away in fright. With a little luck, I can get the same unit to do it two or three times before it is completely safe to get in there with my hands to do whatever. I forgot that little safety precaution once myself. I was looking at a RF linear amplifier, a device to take small radio signals and make them larger, i.e. four watts in gives fifty watts out, etc. I stuck my hand in there without thinking, and took that load myself. It knocked me off the chair I was sitting in and left me sort of dazed for a couple minutes, and very confused. Some people would say I must have never recovered because I am still quite confused. I'll tell you this much: that RF can burn and sting; oh, can it! Always remember to never put your hands in something merely because it is unplugged. Make sure it is totally discharged as well. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #225 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu May 9 12:01:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA17259; Thu, 9 May 1996 12:01:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 12:01:04 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605091601.MAA17259@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #226 TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 May 96 12:00:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 226 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson ISP Sharing Protocol (to Compete With Big Money ISPs) (Joseph H. Allen) Book Review: "Web Search Strategies" by Pfaffenberger (Rob Slade) NewsFirst Extra - Nortel and Internet Access (Tara D. Mahon) Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX (Atri Indiresan) Cellular User Saves Suicide Jumper (Tad Cook) Registration Information: IVTTA '96 (Murray F. Spiegel) Editorial: Overlaying Area Codes (Tad Cook) Is There an Auto-Gain Control on my Data Line? (Justin Hamilton) 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: jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) Subject: ISP Sharing Protocol (to Compete With Big Money ISPs) Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 17:43:30 GMT AT&T is now in the dialup slip and ppp business -- other long distance companies and other big money companies are soon to follow. Long distance carriers have a distinct advantage over smaller ISPs: they can provide the travelling internet user with nation (and perhaps world) wide access, without the need for making long-distance calls. Smaller ISPs must deal with this issue, or AT&T and friends will quickly put them out of business. I propose that ISPs adopt a sharing protocol. This protocol will allow a travelling internet user to dial any local internet provider without having to go through the process of signing on and without having to worry about paying multiple bills. Suppose my home internet provider is The World in Boston and I'm visiting Long Island. I should be able to call Li.net say, and log on to the net as follows: li.net login: jhallen home isp: world.std.com (hit return for the local one here?) protocol: ppp (could be 'slip' or 'shell' also) password: xxxxx Li.net would then contact The World (over the net, of course) for password verification and a billing agreement. When the session is completed, Li.net sends a bill to The World, who must pay li.net a fee (which will show up on my bill). A protocol for this would be simple. The remote ISP gets a ticket number from the home ISP for the specific account. When the session is complete, the remote ISP gives the bill and the login time along with the ticket number to the home ISP. Each ISP would maintain a list of ISPs from which users would be accepted. The billing agreement should not be too difficult either. In my example above, li.net should charge whatever their hourly rate is. The World should not charge their hourly rate, but can charge a small remote billing fee (The World isn't giving any system resources here; except for the billing). If the ISPs charge a flat monthly fee, the hourly rate used is that divided by 750 (hours in a month). If the home ISP charges a flat fee, it should subtract the value of the number of remote hours as calculated above. The real problem is one of credit. Which ISPs will you trust to actually pay their remote usage fees? There are two ways to solve this problem: start our own credit reporting agency or use an established one (TRW and the like). There are going to be a small enough number of ISPs so that starting our own will would not be difficult. The credit agency would keep a list of ISPs with good credit. If anyone doesn't pay their fees in 60 days, they are removed from the list. To establish credit, you could get a report from TRW or pay a deposit to the credit agency equalling one month's worth of expected remote usage fees (to be based on the number of modems you have perhaps). If you pay your bills for three months, you get this deposit back. Credit reporting is important because it will allow the system to grow much faster than it would if each company had to make agreements with each other company. I could see cases where colleges, non-ISP companies or even individuals with good credit could enter the system so their students or employers could access the net when travelling. There's no reason to let AT&T put anyone out of business, when all that is needed is a software protocol and a credit agency. A secondary benefit is that the login sequence would be standardized, which would vastly simplify the implementation of 'internet in a box' type products. Comments? Suggestions? jhallen@world.std.com (192.74.137.5) * Joseph H. Allen * [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In other words, all ISPs could pool their incoing traffic through modem banks located in various places and transfer the traffic among themselves. This is an idea which might work and be quite beneficial. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 13:49:30 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Web Search Strategies" by Pfaffenberger BKW3SRST.RVW 960416 "Web Search Strategies", Bryan Pfaffenberger, 1996, 1-55828-470-2, U$29.95/C$41.95 %A Bryan Pfaffenberger bp@virginia.edu %C 115 West 18th Street, New York, NY 10011-4195 %D 1996 %G 1-55828-470-2 %I MIS Press/M&T Books/Henry Holt %O U$29.95/C$41.95 +1-212-886-9378 fax: +1-212-633-0748, +1-212-807-6654 %O 76712.2644@compuserve.com http://www.mispress.com fburke@fsb.superlink.net %P 427 %T "Web Search Strategies" This book does contain a wealth of interesting information, particularly in terms of subject organized Web sites and search engines. The author breaks topical sites down into "Starting Points", "Subject Trees" and "Trailblazer Pages". These divisions appear to be arbitrary, and mean that you have to look in three places to gather the whole set of information, but a good deal of it is there. (New sites, of course, spring up on the net all the time: the publication of the book must have missed AltaVista by a very slim margin.) Strategies, however, are not a major focus. A point always mentioned by experienced searchers is to use a text browser or to turn off images to speed "surfing" time: Pfaffenberger recommends the use of a graphical browser. The actual lists of tactics comprise only two chapters. They are quite helpful for rank newcomers, but don't go into much depth. For example, boolean (logical) operators are covered, but only briefly, and in isolation. There is no coverage of combined boolean algebra (absolutely essential to fine tune your requests on large search engines) and only scant mention of boolean options in the discussions of specific search sites. For newcomers overwhelmed by the size of the Web, this will provide at least a starting point. The sites listed, and procedures suggested, can help you begin to see entry points. Effective use of the Web, however, will require either more information or experience. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKW3SRST.RVW 960416. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters roberts@decus.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 96 16:00:08 -0400 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: NewsFirst Extra - Nortel and Internet Access Part of the NewsFirst Telecom Service < From THE INSIGHT RESEARCH CORPORATION > Telecom Market Research, Analysis, and Consulting Vol. 4 Issue E4 Nortel May 2, 1996 Internet Access: Telco or CATV, Nortel Doesn't Care John Roth, president of Nortel North America and COO of Nortel Ltd., was in an upbeat mood last week when we met him just before a board meeting in Calgary. John had plenty of reasons to be smiling: corporate revenues climbed 16 percent over 1995 Q1 performance, expenses were on the decline, and Roth's North American portfolio was the driving force behind Nortel's corporate comeback. The company was in deep yogurt a little more than three years ago with DMS software glitches dragging down profits from the 11 percent range to the vicinity of three to four percent. Jean Monty, an ex-investment banker with years of Bell Canada background, was brought in by BCE to put the ship back on course. He plucked Roth out of Nortel's wireless group to run the N. American operations and the rest, as they say, is history. Roth began our discussion by pointing out that the current product portfolio positions the company for sustainable growth. "The mix of business is very positive, switching is doing very well, broadband is great, and the data products (which includes the Magellan line of data switches) have doubled their contribution" to revenue. Looking out 24 to 36 months, we believe Nortel is ready to ride the down-market data comm wave as residential and small business users jump onto the Internet. According to Roth, Nortel will be announcing an "ADSL-like" technology for telco Internet access in the next few months. "We couldn't see the business case for broadband TV access for telcos" when TV-enabling high-speed access products were all the rage a few years ago, commented Roth. But things look different when telcos consider the investment needed to upgrade to high-speed access for the more forgiving error-rate requirements of a data application. Roth continued, "We think we can deliver 6 Mbps that is at least as good as what you could do with a cable modem, since the error rate isn't as crucial in the Internet environment as it would be in the broadband TV. " When we asked John to discuss performance and pricing, he declined. Roth also foresees CATV industry Internet access becoming increasingly important, but his starting premise was different. "Internet access will be a great revenue source for the CATV industry," Roth said, "but we want to get them to voice first." Roth maintains that adding voice switching capability to a modern CATV plant is not the big investment; "It's not a big ticket item. The switch serves your entire plant. Where you need cash flow is for the plant upgrades." Nortel views voice switching as its opening gamut; once a DMS is in place it becomes easier to add to the fast-packet ATM switches like Corcorde as the backbone access node. When we asked whether Nortel would consider moving into the set-top box arena, Roth expressed little interest in driving into that muddy water. Reports coming out of the Western Cable show say the big MSOs like Cox and Comcast will be buying 100,000 boxes per year over the next three years from General Instruments. But with end-user pricing at the $400 to $450 range, Insight expects this market to take off slowly. When we asked about Nortel's wireless portfolio, Roth noted that their co-manufacturing arrangement with Qualcomm has given the company a unique advantage in CDMA development. Roth's plant in Calgary is in the midst of a shop floor makeover to accommodate the CDMA ramp up--but the volume shipments are still some months off. The gating factor will be handset. "We're going to go through the same growing pains as TDMA," Roth said. For the market to really take off, "we've got to get the handsets out there ... and we won't be out in volume until Q2 of 1997. We think this is true for all the vendors, including Motorola," Roth concluded. With the DMS problems behind them, wireless growing at nearly 75 percent last year, and excellent prospects in data comm, Nortel is on a roll. John Roth was smiling when we met him in Calgary, and he just may keep right on doing it. < < < N E W S F I R S T <> T E L E C O M > > > Copyright 1996, The Insight Research Corporation 354 Eisenhower Parkway Livingston, New Jersey 07039-1023 USA (201) 605-1400 voice (201) 605-1440 fax reports@insight-corp.com *Electronic Distribution Granted, Provided This Notice Remains Intact* ------------------------------ Subject: Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 22:38:53 -0400 From: Atri Indiresan At the University of Michigan, we need to dial '9' to access external lines. The switch is programmed in such a way that, if while dialing 9-1-(long distance number), the pause is too long after 9-1, it completes the call as 911. The emergency dispatch center gets between 10 and 30 such calls every night, and the caller usually simply hangs up when they realize the error. The dispatch center always calls back to check on the hangup, and since we have a large international population here, many of whom do not speak English well, some are unable to clarify the situation, and the police need to be dispatched to the location. The university police are trying to persuade the phone company to change the external access number to '8', or something else. They have been resisting so far on a plea of cost. We have a Centrex exchange. I suspect that the technical part of reprogramming it would be negligible, but re-education would be the most expensive part of the changeover. Do other PABXs have similar problems? Any insights into the technical and other aspects of this issue? Atri Indiresan ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Cellular User Saves Suicide Jumper Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:52:12 PDT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 8, 1996-- Cellular One in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area today announced that Dr. Dennis Tison, a Moraga, Calif., resident, was honored today by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) for using his cellular phone to save the life of a man who jumped off the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Tison, a customer since 1995, received the VITA Award in the `LifeSaver` category at a special ceremony today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The awards and ceremony are part of the activities surrounding National Wireless Safety Week, May 6-10. CTIA has presented VITA Awards every year since 1990. VITA is the Latin word for life, and recipients are honored for using their phones to save lives or promote public safety. On Dec. 26, 1995, Tison, a forensic psychiatrist and full-time law student at Hastings Law School, was rowing his row boat in the Bay and saw the jumper just seconds after he entered the water. Initially, Tison thought it was a sea lion and then quickly realized it was a person. Tison tossed him a life preserver and immediately dialed 911 on the cellular phone that he carries everywhere. After receiving information about the situation, the Coast Guard arrived within minutes and delivered the man to a waiting ambulance on the pier. "I am really just glad that I was in the right place at the right time and was able to help," said Tison. "I have experienced firsthand the need for and the importance of wireless communications. That day it made a difference in two people's lives." Fortunately, because of the quick actions from Tison, the man suffered only minor injuries. Later, from his hospital bed, he expressed his gratitude to Tison for saving his life. "This is an amazing example of the critical role wireless communications plays not only in helping people manage their busy work and personal lives, but enabling them to increase their safety and even save lives," said Sue Swenson, president and chief executive officer of Cellular One. "We are extremely proud that Cellular One was able to play a vital role in this situation." About Cellular One: Cellular One is the leading cellular service provider and the exclusive provider of digital cellular service in the Greater Bay Area. It is a partnership of two communications companies, Air Touch Communications, San Francisco, and AT&T Wireless Services, Kirkland, Wash. http://www.businesswire.com ------------------------------ From: spiegel@bellcore.com (Murray F Spiegel) Subject: Registration Information: IVTTA '96 Date: 8 May 1996 20:39:47 GMT Organization: Speech Technology Research Group (Bellcore) Reply-To: spiegel@bellcore.com REGISTRATION INFORMATION FOR THIRD IEEE WORKSHOP ON INTERACTIVE VOICE TECHNOLOGY FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPLICATIONS REGISTRATION INFORMATION = REGISTRATION INFORMATION = REGISTRATION INFORMATION September 30 - October 1, 1996 The AT&T Learning Center 300 N Maple Ave Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 USA Sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society The third of a series of IEEE workshops on Interactive Voice Technology for Telecommunications Applications will be held at the AT&T Learning Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, from September 30 - October 1, 1996. The conference venue is on 35 semi-rural acres and is close enough (1 hour) for side trips to New York City. Our workshop will be held immediately before ICSLP '96 in Philadelphia, PA, approximately 80 miles from our location. Due to workshop facility constraints, attendance at the Workshop will be limited to no more than 150 people, with priority given to presenters. In accordance with IEEE regulations, additional registrants will be accepted only on a first-come, first-served basis, space permitting. To register for IVTTA '96, send the following information, along with appropriate funds, to the AT&T address below. We regret that credit cards cannot be accepted. Registrations NOT accompanied by appropriate U.S. funds WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Additional information is at http://superbook.bellcore.com/IVTTA.html Your title: Professor __ Dr. __ Mr. __ Ms. __ Mrs. __ Other __ Family name _______________________ Given Name ______________________ Affiliation ______________________________________ Postal Address (Office __ Home __) __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Country _________ Contact information: Fax __________________________________ E-mail Address _______________________ Telephone (include country code) ___________________________ Indicate the registration categories that apply to you (see explanations below): Full registration ______ Day-only registration _______ IEEE member ______ Non-IEEE member _______ Using fee schedule below, write subtotal $ ________ I want ____ extra copies of the proceedings: $25/copy: Subtotal: $ ________ Total enclosed: $ _________ All registrants must include a draft in US Dollars only. (We are sorry, NO CREDIT CARDS can be accepted.) Mail registration form and funds to the following address: Dick Rosinski IVTTA Workshop AT&T Bell Laboratories, HO 1J-322 101 Crawfords Corner Rd P O Box 3030, Holmdel, NJ 07733-3030 1-908-949-0059 Registration fees Before 6/15/96 Before 8/30/96 Full Registration IEEE member $650 $750 Full Registration Non-IEEE member $700 $800 Day-only Registration IEEE member $400 $500 Day-only Registration Non-IEEE member $450 $550 DAY-ONLY REGISTRATION includes: All technical sessions, welcoming reception, lunches, snacks, banquet, and a copy of the proceedings. FULL REGISTRATION includes all of the above plus: Dinner on evening of arrival, breakfast both days, two nights lodging at the conference center, and use of the center facilities (jogging track, exercise center, pool, etc). Remember: Attendance is limited to no more than 150 people. Non-presenting registrants will be accepted on a first-come, first-served basis, space permitting. Registrations not accompanied by appropriate U.S. funds cannot be accepted. IVTTA '96 welcomes your participation and hopes you have a productive and enjoyable workshop. ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Editorial: Overlaying Area Codes Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:46:14 -0700 (PDT) Editorial May 2 {Merced Sun-Star} (Merced, California) on `overlaying' area codes: The telephone company is proposing the worst idea since somebody came up with playing Muzak for callers on hold. It goes by the innocuous name of "overlaying," and it's a plan where one area code could overlap another. Under the overlaying concept, it would be possible that a Merced household with two phone lines could have two different area codes. It's conceivable that your area code could be different from your next-door neighbor's but could the same as someone in San Diego ... While geographically splitting up an area code is easier on customers, it's harder for the phone company. Pac Bell would prefer the overlaying area code because it is cheaper to implement. If Pac Bell confined the overlaying area code to one kind of service -- ideally cellular phones that are already mobile -- it could work with a minimum of trouble. But if the phone company assigns the new area codes in a helter-skelter way, it will create a customer nightmare ... When it comes time for public comment,s we urge everyone to tell the Public Utilities Commission to say no to Pac Bell's overlaying plan ... ------------------------------ From: Justin.Hamilton1@Bridge.BellSouth.Com (Justin Hamilton) Subject: Is There an Auto-Gain Control on my Data Line? Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:00:51 GMT Organization: BellSouth ATG lab Hey there, A quick question, is there anything I can ask my Telco to change on my data line that may make it perform better? Is there some Auto-Gain control they can twiddle? I'm just wondering if I can push my V.34+ to it's absolute limits since I only get 26.4Kbps to my ISP's V.34+ modems. TIA, Justin Hamilton tme@viper.net http://www.mindspring.com/~shawnham ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #226 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu May 9 14:26:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA29427; Thu, 9 May 1996 14:26:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 14:26:03 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605091826.OAA29427@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #227 TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 May 96 14:26:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 227 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: 10-Digit Dialing is Easy (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Mark J. Cuccia) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Dave Levenson) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Zev Rubenstein) Re: MCI True Lies (John Cropper) Re: MCI True Lies (Bill Kindel) Re: Wireless Phone Jack System (Jim Cantrell) Re: Wireless Phone Jack System (Sean Kelly) Asia-Pacific Paging Companies (Ian Geldard) Help Needed With US Cellular Service (Greg Eaton) Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? (Carl Moore) Last Laugh! When the Newbies Get on Line (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: Wed, 08 May 1996 16:25:14 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: 10-Digit Dialing is Easy Thomas Lapp wrote: > I've been following the postings about how 10-digit dialing will soon > become common in overlay areas with some amusement. I've been living > in the Delmarva Valley for several years now, and there are five area > codes within 25 miles of the northern county of Delaware. Around here > is it very common to give area code with phone number, since your > co-worker could be in MD (410), PA (610, or 215), DE (302) or NJ > (609). I think that last year Delaware went to mandatory ten-digit > dialing for all in-state long-distance calls as well, so it will make > it easier if I dial ten digits all the time rather than trying to > figure out if I need seven- or ten-digits to reach a party. > Of course, when everything is ten digits, it will make it more > difficult to know if I'm inter-LATA or intra-LATA or local dialing > area. Well, intra vs. inter LATA has always been confusing in many areas if you are only looking at the area code. There are LATA's which contain all or part of one or more area codes. Likewise, there are area codes which contain all or part of one or more LATA. As for Local vs. Toll, this is where the regulatory agencies (FCC/CRTC and state/provincial) and consumer groups should get togather an NANP-wide standard: IMO, there *SHOULD ALWAYS* be a *MANDATORY* '1+' required before *ANY* toll call. All toll calls would be dialed as ten-digits, regardless of whether it is in the Home NPA or in a distant NPA, and regardless of "local" dialing procedures. Local calls would be dialable as ten-digits *anywhere and everywhere*-- it would be required in dense metro areas while *strongly* recommended everywhere else. Less dense areas would still be able to "get by" with seven-digits, although telco's printed directories and directory assistance quoting should always be in the full ten-digit format. Rural areas *should* still be allowed to use full ten=digits, permissive seven-digits, and even four or five digits, as long as the local dialing area is not really complex. If a rural area can dial only its own NPA-NXX code as a local (non-toll) call, or if there are two or three NXX codes for the small town or rural region (as long as all c/o codes share the same first two digits NX, then *any* type of switch *should* be able to handle a short length local dialing procedure. Also, *any* local call *should* be dialable even as 1+ten-digits and should not be charged any tolls. The "1+" would be *required* on all toll calls (ten-digits) but shouldn't be prohibited even on ten-digit local calls. This would *SIMPLIFY* routing and translation tables in the switching and routing network as well as the billing and rating network *everywhere* in the NANP. It would also eliminate the need for conflicting dialing instructions throughout the NANP as well as reduce the number of different intercept, vacant code and partial dial recordings. All of this, *including* overlay area codes would make everything including code assignments *much* easier! But maybe I'm only dreaming ... try to get the regulatory agencies, consumer groups and the *multiple* number of telcos to all agree on any kind of a standard! 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: Wed, 08 May 1996 09:24:57 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Use of 10-XXX/101-XXXX+ codes will vary from place-to-place. Some states have authorized inTRA-LATA competition, but not (yet) chosing a primary (default) carrier. The traditional Bell and independent LEC's will still be the default carrier if a fg.D (10-XXX/101-XXXX+) code isn't used. Minnesota (and other states) have actually gone as far as authorizing balloting customers to choose a primary default inTRA-LATA carrier. US West as the toll inTRA-LATA carrier has been assigned 101-5123+ as their code if you wish to use them for a toll inTRA-LATA call, but you have chosen AT&T, Sprint, MCI, etc. as your primary inTRA-LATA toll carrier. There might even be a few states where the LEC's don't even allow the use of 10-XXX/101-XXXX codes for inTRA-LATA toll calls! In those cases, you need to have an account with a carrier and use their 1-800 number or 950-XXXX number, along with an account/authorization code or card number. These calls will usually be billed at a calling card or travel rate. You still have a 0+ "type" of access and billing, but not any 1+ "type" of billing. In the early 1980's, you could use a seven-digit POTS (hopefully local) number to access MCI, Sprint, etc. known as fg.A line-side interface (as opposed to superior trunk-side interface). If you were at a payphone, you'd have to deposit coins to call this (hopefully) local number to access the "OCC" (Other Common Carrier). If the payphone were timed, you'd have to deposit more money at a later interval. If you were calling from just outside of a local dialing area or had measured/message rate, you'd be charged by the LEC just to call up the LD company's access number! But the LD companies usually didn't have "travel" or "card" surcharges on most calls placed through their fg.A numbers. Here in Louisiana, we've had the use of 10-XXX/101-XXXX+ codes for inTRA-LATA toll for about five or six years now. But to use the access codes for *local* do *NOT* consistantly work here. Even tho' you will be paying *more* to use a LD carrier for a *local* call, BellSouth usually *BLOCKS* use of 10-XXX/101-XXXX+ for local calls. If you still choose to use a fg.D code for local (and it isn't blocked), you have *TWO* types of dialing procedures: If it is a "0+ type" call, you dial 10-XXX/101-XXXX+0+ten-digits. If it is a "1+ type" call, you dial 10-XXX/101-XXXX+seven-digits. If the line is subscribed to LOS (Local Optional Service), something like EAS, you dial those areas on a seven-digit basis. I don't think that any LOS plans in Louisiana cover an entire LATA, but it does cover an area wider than the traditional local area, extending into traditional inTRA-LATA toll, at greatly discounted rates- some NPA-NXX's in your LOS can even include a maximum monthly cap, thus making it part of a "monthly flat rate" local dialing area! If that line has LOS, "1+" type calls are placed with a fg.D code as: 10-XXX/101-XXXX+seven-digits. In *any* case, all "0+" type calls (when not blocked) are dialed as: (10-XXX/101-XXXX)+0+ten-digits. InTRA-LATA 1+ toll calls (excluding any LOS plans) are dialed as: (10-XXX/101-XXXX)+1+ten-digits. The above is how it is here in Louisiana, from "POTS" type lines, including BellSouth payphones (except that so far, only BellSouth and AT&T handle 1+ coin-sent-paid from telco payphones). It doesn't necessarily apply to calls originating from Cellular, PBX, private-payphones, etc. Of course, all of this will be evolving further, as we have *THREE* forces here: - Changes in the Numbering Plan and Dialing Procedures happening throughout the NANP - Introduction of competition within LATA's, and even local services. - Feuding and friction between carriers as to how/if they will continue to accept/validate/bill each others' customers' calling-cards (read AT&T vs. NYNEX and maybe other LEC's). Interesting times ahead! 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: No More 10-ATT-0 Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 00:56:04 GMT zev (zev@wireless.attmail.com) writes: > Correction: you can still use your AT&T calling card: just dial 102880 > (1-0- ATT-0) first, or dial 1-800-CALL-ATT first. AT&T will handle > local calls, as will any other IXC these days. Like so many other things in this business, your statement is true in some places; not true on others. In New Jersey, AT&T is not permitted by Bell Atlantic to handle _local_ calls by using 10288. IntraLATA toll calls are okay, but not _local_ calls. You can place local calls with AT&T but only by using 1-800-CALL-ATT. You also pay approximately 25% more than you would if you simply dialed 0+ and used Bell Atlantic. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [The Man in the Mooney] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 11:01:38 -0500 From: zev@wireless.attmail.com (zev) Subject: Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Dave Yewell (and similarly Ron/Sir Topham Hatt) >> Correction: you can still use your AT&T calling card: just dial 102880 >> (1-0- ATT-0) first, or dial 1-800-CALL-ATT first. AT&T will handle >> local calls, as will any other IXC these days. > Zev, could be that way in your part of the world, but I was in > Monterey CA yesterday, and could not use 102880 to call within the > area code. The LD provider on the pay phone was not ATT, so I thought > I could get ATT access with 102880 - no luck, just "sorry your call > cannot be completed as dialed". Try dialing with a 10-digit number. Here in Oakland, if I dial 102880 and follow that with a 7-digit number, I get reorder after 3 digits (when the CO can tell it's not an NPA), but if I dial 10 digits (starting with my area code of 510) I get the AT&T bong tone and branding. Also, despite AT&T's efforts, there are still payphones where 10288 is blocked, in violation of the law. There are also payphones that say they use AT&T as the LD carrier which have been switched, but which do not indicate so on the phone. And, in fact, there may be situations where even 10-digit dialing after 102880 doesn't work (of this I'm not sure). For these reasons, AT&T has been pushing the 800 access to their network. Zev Rubenstein zev@attmail.com Independent Telecommunications Consultant ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: MCI True Lies Date: 8 May 1996 20:03:57 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On May 07, 1996 20.52.00 in article , 'Quinn, Michael ' wrote: > An MCI rep called me Saturday April 27 about 1PM with a deal which > sounded pretty good, and guaranteed rates below Sprint, to which I had > shifted a few months back and was happy ($.10 min interstate nights/ > weekends, and .22 peak). The package included: > - $.08/min nights/weekends, .15/min peak. She specifically cited > these rates, said they would be effective for at least six months and > asked me if they were lower than Sprint's (and we also chatted about > inTER vs inTRA LATA rates, so I know there was no confusion on either > of our parts). > - 35% discount for the first six months; > - "free" 800 number with the first 100 minutes free; > - some other minor inducements, like calling cards and covering the > cost of shifting PICs, etc. > So I shifted; even if it sounded too good to be true; which, as it > seems, it was. > When I received the intro package today, most of the info therein was > consistent with the phone solicitation, but the rates noted above were > not posted as they were in the Sprint intro packet, so I called > customer service around 6:30 PM Eastern time for clarification. I > talked to two different service reps, both of whom told me my rates > were time, distance, and volume sensitive, and neither of whom had > heard of any "$.08/min program" as described above. There was no > supervisor in the entire MCI system -- he was "on vacation this week". > And the "100 free minutes" is only good for the next month and a half, > etc. Always, ALWAYS get it in writing BEFORE agreeing to anything. Verbal "contracts" seem to have little value to the phone solicitors ... > I'm shifting my LD service back to Sprint tomorrow morning. If a > supervisor ever shows up at MCI, s/he is welcome to call or email me > with his/er side of the story. Uh huh ... do you REALLY think they care? :-) John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: kindel@ghoti.osf.org (Bill Kindel) Subject: Re: MCI True Lies Date: 08 May 1996 20:53:41 GMT Organization: Open Software Foundation > An MCI rep called me Saturday April 27 about 1PM with a deal which > sounded pretty good, and guaranteed rates below Sprint, to which I had > shifted a few months back and was happy ($.10 min interstate nights/ > weekends, and .22 peak). The package included: > - $.08/min nights/weekends, .15/min peak. She specifically cited > these rates, said they would be effective for at least six months and > asked me if they were lower than Sprint's (and we also chatted about > inTER vs inTRA LATA rates, so I know there was no confusion on either > of our parts). > - 35% discount for the first six months; > - "free" 800 number with the first 100 minutes free; > - some other minor inducements, like calling cards and covering the > cost of shifting PICs, etc. I live outside Boston and am also a Sprint Sense user (with an extra 5% discount as part of the USAA buyering plan). I received the same offer sometime in March. Though we skipped the intra/inter-LATA discussion, I *did* have the presence of mind to ask for the offer in writing. I'm STILL waiting, if that says anything ... Since nearly all my calling is evenings and weekends, Sprint Sense works for me. (I'll spare you the discussion with some other bozo who couldn't grasp that I pay 9.5 cents per minute -- "how do you pay HALF a cent?" 8^) Bill Kindel THE OPEN GROUP Research Institute (617) 621-7395 x/Open OSF 11 Cambridge Center http://www.osf.org/~kindel Cambridge, MA 02142 PGP Public Key: mail -s "get kindel" pgp-public-keys@pgp.mit.edu PGP Fingerprint: C3 D5 D8 F3 8F F8 2C 25 D1 AE 60 A1 70 8A 33 CC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 14:46:53 -0700 From: Jim Cantrell Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Jack System Dawne Reske wrote: > I'm looking for input on how the wireless phone jack systems that are > on the market really work. I purchased an RCA RC926 Wireless Phone > Jack system at a local retailer here in town. It appears that the best The first incarnation of this I saw was as an intercom, plug a couple of the I/C units into the wall and you were in business, modulated voice riding A/C. > the units themselves require electricity and that's why they don't > work when the power is out? My guess is that they require electricity. Plug an an O'scope in to your wall outlet and take a look, should be able to tell a lot from the appearance of your house power. ------------------------------ From: skelly@interramp.com (Sean Kelly) Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Jack System Date: Thu, 09 May 96 13:38:02 GMT Organization: Internet Online Services In article , dawn reske wrote: > I'm looking for input on how the wireless phone jack systems that are > on the market really work. I've read a bit about this, and although I don't remember the details you're correct in presuming that the signal is modulated over the AC current somehow. Tests have been done to show that fairly high-bandwith networking can be done over AC lines, although you need signal boosters if you're going to go outside of the building and down to another location. Some of the home control utits (like the X10 stuff) and some brands of remote speakers use AC wiring as well. It's very reliable, although it relies on having power in the lines. One consideration is that if you're doing it in a commercial (non-home) environment, you should realize that someone else can plug a unit into the wall also and be on the same phone line (unless you can set different 'channels'). Sean ------------------------------ From: Ian Geldard Subject: Asia-Pacific Paging Companies Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 14:08:08 GMT I am the researcher for the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity's Yearbook. The 1997 edition is currently being compiled and I would be particularly interested to hear from anyone who could supply me with the names, addresses, fax and phone numbers for paging service providers in the Asia-Pacific region. Please let me know if you think you could help. In return I'd be happy to send you -- free of charge -- a copy of the 600+ page 1996 yearbook which contains extensive information on telecommunications developments in the Asia-Pacific (it does not include the west coast of the Americas e.g. USA, Chile etc). For those who do not know of the APT, it is based in Thailand and was established in 1979 to serve as a regional organisation under the auspices of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) to promote telecommunications in the region. TTFN, Ian Geldard, Researcher Icom Publications Ltd, Chancery House, St Nicholas Way, Sutton, Surrey SM1 1JB, UK Tel: +44 181 642 1117 Fax: +44 181 642 1941 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 14:52:16 +0100 From: Greg Eaton Subject: Help Needed With US Cellular Service I have a client (a major UK financial organisation) who is looking to both buy and rent a number of cellphones for executives who travel regularly to the USA. They have hired from a number of US companies, before but generally have been unhappy with the service received. The hire phones will mainly be used in the NY / LA areas. They are also looking to purchase three handsets, to be on air permanently, i.e they will pay any monthly airtime charge, connection fee etc. These phones will need international dialling facilities, without using calling cards or similar services. Ideally should work in all of the following ares: New York, Washington DC, Maryland, Philadelphia, Madison, California, Minneapolis, Chicago, Florida and Colorado. Will there be any problems with getting connected in the US, if the subscriber is a UK company -- its generally a real headache trying to do the reverse in the UK. Any advice / assistance gratefully appreciated by direct email to Greg@sail.demon.co.uk and I'll summarise any responses for the Digest readers. Thanks Greg Eaton ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 96 13:45:05 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? Is there any such thing as being able to speed-dial everything through but not beyond the phone prefix? I heard of someone having done that because of so many calls to the installation where I am located. (i.e., through 410-278, and then must add the last four digits.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 14:07:52 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Last Laugh! When the Newbies Get On Line Quite a few of the newer people on the net these days are pretty sharp. They are easy to work with and make valuable contributions to the overall net community ... but my, oh my ... now and then some come along who are *so damn dumb and arrogant* they really take the cake. Consider one incident here Thursday morning. On Wednesday evening a 'user' called techrecruiter@hq.hq.sequel.net writes to me via the old and obsolete eecs.nwu.edu address saying 'please add me to Digest mailing list'. Now this is one of those places which is forever sending out great gobs of commercial messages looking to recruit employees for various clients. I get them daily, but I would not say I get as many as I do of Kevin Lipsitz' mailings or the 'Make Money Fast'. I do get quite a few. It would never occur to them to pay for their advertising like they have to do in the printed media, etc. Anyway, 'techrecruiter' wants to be added to the Digest mailing list and the autoresponder sends out a few files to get him/her started. This morning I sit down at the terminal and the inbox is *jammed* with mail from 'ellen@hq.hq.sequel.net' and 'tamara@hq.hq.sequel.net' saying to delete the name from the mailing list. Not once, but dozens and dozens of times. I no sooner flush the toil -- umm, I mean inbox and it immediatly fills again with a couple dozen more from these two dingbats. I write them and suggest one message is enough; that if they allow some time for mail in transit to reach them that will be the end of it. Each time they would write, of course the autoresponder would kick in with an answer back and that would get these two newbies in an uproar and writing to me again. Very indignantly they write back to say something other than 'delete this name' telling me now I know how it feels to get 'inudated' with 'unsolicited and unwanted' email. ... gosh, I never knew what that was like before. I only get a few hundred pieces of mail each day including a few from commercial employment recruiting services so I would not know what they are talking about. ... I wrote them back and included a copy of the dumb little one line note sent by 'techrecruiter' which got things rolling and told them after they meditate on that for a few minutes or a few hours or however long it takes them to grasp simple concepts they might be able to understand what was going on. And this, from an outfit that if I am not mistaken has flooded the Usenet groups at one time or another with their recruiting notices. I really have to wonder why, if Congress is so eager to pass laws regulating this thing, they can't pass a few which require new users to meet some minimum intelligence level before being granted email privileges. Maybe some kind of an IQ test or something. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #227 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Thu May 9 16:49:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA12627; Thu, 9 May 1996 16:49:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 16:49:19 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605092049.QAA12627@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #228 TELECOM Digest Thu, 9 May 96 16:49:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 228 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Information Wanted on "Cordless Miracle" (Mark Steiger) Re: ADSI Standards and Devices (Jacques Cardinal) Re: Bits Don't Go High to Some 800s (Dave Levenson) Re: US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees (Steve Bagdon) Re: Mobile Phone Radiation / Cancer Link (Kane Bullen) Re: Mobile Phone Radiation / Cancer Link (Juha Veijalainen) Re: MCI True Lies (Jason Hillyard) Re: PTT Voice Mail Outside the US (Hendrik Rood) Re: ANI Information From D-Channel (Hendrik Rood) Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? (Jeffrey Rhodes) Long Distance From Local Number? (Tim Updegrove) Lang-Lucid Mailing List Operational (R. Jagannathan) Caller ID Blocker (Lindy Williams) Re: Using a Modem on Digital Phone Systems (Peter Capek) 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: stud@subzero.winternet.com (Mark Steiger) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on "Cordless Miracle" Date: 9 May 96 01:54:19 GMT Organization: StarNet Communications, Inc Dub Dublin writes: > I'm looking for some information on the "Cordless Miracle" (goofy name, > huh?), a $300 (4 line) or $400 (8 line) box that lets a cordless phone > (or any other analog single line device, one supposes) pick up or access > for dialing any of the lines going through it. I have a photo of the > box in Damark's new catalog, and it looks like the CO lines feed into > the unit and are passed on to your regular office KSU (or distribution > for a regular analog loop?), and there is a single jack marked "cordless > phone" which is somehow switched between the 4 or 8 lines available. If you're on the phone, and a call comes in on one of the other lines, it makes a call-waiting-tyoe sound. You can switch to the other line by flashing. You can also switch lines using a touch-tone sequence. You hook it up to standard analog lines and hook the other end to the phone. I saw a demo of it when I worked at Damark afew months ago.. 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 ------------------------------ From: Jacques Cardinal Subject: Re: ADSI Standards and Devices Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 23:16:15 -0400 Organization: Inter-Acces Communications Gerry Wheeler wrote: > Klaus Zuenkler wrote: >> Can anybody give me a pointer to the definition of the ADSI standard >> and sources for compatible devices? > The Dialogic voice cards can generate the ADSI signalling, so there is > some coverage of the technique in their manuals. Dialogic has a WWW > site, so you might find a lead to a manual there. The Standard for ADSL is ANSI/T1.613 -1995 Jacques Cardinal tel: (514) 448-5056 fax: (514) 647-1946 e-mail: jaccardi@mbr.centra.ca ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Bits Don't Go High to Some 800s Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:29:44 GMT Steve Forrette (stevef@wrq.com) writes: >> What do they care if they gyp US West or GTE out of a quarter? > The paging company's customers might care when they find out that > their pagers can't be called over AT&T long distance. This is because > AT&T blocks the forward talk path until after answer supervision > occurs. Because of this, the paging company won't hear any DTMFs from > the caller until after supervision occurs. But if supervision doesn't > occur until after the DTMF entry is complete, then it would appear > that there's a stalemate. The destination number determines the carrier for 800 numbers. If the paging company is receiving calls over an 800 number and is receiving audio when they are on-hook, then their 800 carrier is probably not AT&T. If their 800 carrier bills them for time off-hook, then this carrier would probably be very interested in this practice, as it amounts to theft of service. It may be, however, that the carrier and the paging company have some other arrangement, where the supervision is not used in determining the price of the service. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [The Man in the Mooney] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 07:23:23 -0500 From: bagdon@rust.net (S and K Bagdon) Subject: Re: US West Cutbacks Shake Oregon Employees edhample@sprynet.com said > In Volume 16 Issue 219, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes: >> But this too shows the sort of problems the downsizing has caused. Why >> else would outside contractors be installing switch gear *without* some >> phone company techs keeping an eye on things? > It is common in many industries to rely on outside contractors for > many specialized jobs. The fact that no in-house supervisors where > present is surprising. My last two positiong were in software contracting -- ok, so it's sort of hard to electricute yourself with a programming syntax error. :) But in both contracts, the only company *employees* in that department were either managers, or non-managers who were the highest grade-level that an employee could be before becoming a manager. Presumably, a contractor couldn't 'manage' a contractor, and a manager was to always be present, available or reachable (pager). But the truth was, the contractors pretty much ran themselves, one contractor would become the default 'team leader', and a sure sign that the contractor was doing well was that the contracting team never saw the manager -- out of sight is out of mind, and if nothing is heard, then you were doing your job. Aren't American business practices wonderful? Steve B. bagdon@rust.net http://www.rust.net/~bagdon Katharine aNd Steve Bagdon (KNS) ------------------------------ From: kane@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Kane Bullen) Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Radiation / Cancer Link Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 15:52:05 GMT Reply-To: kane@tartarus.uaa.edu.au Mr Simon Johnson wrote: > I've been using an analog mobile phone for the past two years with no > problems. I recently purchased a digital - GH337 about three months > ago. Since then I have had the WORST headaches in history and massive > sharp pains just above my ears. I rang up the mobile phone company > (who's name I won't mention) and they said that "tests are being done > at the moment, we know its been mentioned in the media and that they > have no comment and its probably not the phones fault and to go and > see my doctor". If anyone has experienced this or has any information > for me, please reply via E-Mail. Well, I saw on the television a few weeks ago that they have actually done some research over here in Oz, and concluded that they do cause headaches. Apparently some UK company has come up with some shield that goes between the aerial and your head that gets rid of the microwaves. Some other bloke has made an aerial that replaces the existing one, and it's like those sprinklers that only do a 3/4 circle or whatever -- ie, not at your head ;) I remember reading somewhere on the net (sorry, can't remember where), about the Erricsons being particularly bad for head aches and that ... Anyway, hope this helps a bit; maybe you could use a search engine. Kane ------------------------------ From: Juha Veijalainen Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Radiation / Cancer Link Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 20:02:32 +0000 Reply-To: juha@karhu.pp.fi On Wed, 08 May 1996 16:39:21 +1100 Mr Simon Johnson wrote: > I was wondering if anyone had any information on the emissions from > digital mobile phones? I was aware that certain ones have been banned > from many European countries. Any links on the internet would also be > appreciative. I'm not aware of any banned phones in Europe and IMHO I follow the telecomm market quite closely. Coincidently, {Time Magazine} had a small item on cell phones -- preliminary studies of 250,000 people show no increase in death among the cell phone users. > I've been using an analog mobile phone for the past two years with no > problems. I recently purchased a digital - GH337 about three months > ago. Since then I have had the WORST headaches in history and massive > sharp pains just above my ears. I rang up the mobile phone company > (who's name I won't mention) and they said that "tests are being done > at the moment, we know its been mentioned in the media and that they > have no comment and its probably not the phones fault and to go and > see my doctor". If anyone has experienced this or has any information > for me, please reply via E-Mail. There was also an article in a Finnish newspaper on so called "somatic effect" (or whatever in english). Simply put, when some kind of possible disease or problem get a lot of publicity, some people actually get the symptoms descibed. The article had a lot of examples starting from the 18th century -- "fashionable" ailments that actually gave some people the symptoms for no apparent reason. Latest of these is the cell phone scare. I'm using my GSM phone a lot and have not had any symptoms I could connect to the phone use. The only headaches I get are the ones after too many beers ;-) Juha Veijalainen http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/karhu/ Helsinki, Finland http://www.vn.fi/vn/um/ ** Mielipiteet omiani / Opinions personal, facts suspect ** [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The only headaches I get from my cell phone are the ones which occur once a month when the bill arrives. PAT] ------------------------------ From: upsetter@mcl.ucsb.edu (Jason Hillyard) Subject: Re: MCI True Lies Date: 9 May 1996 18:12:53 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara In Quinn, Michael writes: > An MCI rep called me Saturday April 27 about 1PM with a deal which > sounded pretty good, and guaranteed rates below Sprint, to which I had I got a similar deal from MCI about four months ago: 50% off for three months, 100 free minutes on an 800 number, etc. MCI delivered on this deal with no problems. However I did get a somewhat sleazy letter from them just yesterday. The letter is supposed to show me the big savings I got by using MCI over AT&T. The letter went like this: MCI billed you AT&T would have charged you you saved $9.91 $23.81 $13.90 That's fine, except that the $9.91 I spent on MCI was at 50% off! The regular rate after my three month special would have been $19.82. Plus, the letter says the AT&T charges include a fee for 800 service, but they don't say how much that fee is. Assuming it is about $3, MCI's rates are about the same as AT&T. How stupid do you think I am, MCI? I've since switched back to AT&T, after they offered me 40% off for six months and a $40 check. I really don't know why the long distance companies are fighting over me; I only spend about $10-20 a month on long distance. Jason ------------------------------ From: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: PTT Voice Mail Outside the US Date: Wed, 08 May 96 23:31:28 GMT Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses In article , David Yewell wrote: > I'm interested in learning about the availability of PTT supplied > voice mail or voice messageing services in Europe, specifically in > Germany, France and Holland. > Very simply, > > 1. Is PTT provided voicemail available? It is in the trailing phase in Holland since mid 1995; commercial roll-out is announced to proceed this year by region/switch up to the end of this year. > 2. How long has it been available, is it successful? I can not answer that figures from the trials has not been released. > 3. Are there technical barriers to introducing voice mail? Typical integration with the different types of public switches. The main problem is that you still have to connect a voice-mail system directly to the switch. Forwarding of the Message Waiting Indicator from the Mail-boxes via the CSS#7 signalling is still in standardisation. I think operators with only one switch supplier have an advantage, this is not the case in any European country I know except the small ones (Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein 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: hrood@xs4all.nl (Hendrik Rood) Subject: Re: ANI Information From D-Channel Date: Wed, 08 May 96 23:38:32 GMT Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses In article , TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to brettf@netcom.com (Brett Frankenberger): > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > The only other time I have seen anything similar was one day when I > had to place a call to a point in the Carribbean; some little island > country down there which was on area 809. They discriminated against > international calls. When I dialed the phone number of the person I > wanted, a recording came on saying, "The subscriber you are calling > does not accept international calls. This is a Cable & Wireless > recording." I have no idea why they did not accept international > calls on that number or how C&W was able to differentiate one incoming > call from another. This was about six years ago. PAT] Incoming international calls can be discerned in the terminating switch, because the CSS#7 message has a bit setup for international calls. Most operators are nowadays able to implementing priority schemes in their switches, which favor the routing of incoming international calls through their national network. 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: jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com Subject: Re: Does Caller-ID Hunt or Call-Forward? Date: Thu, 09 May 96 11:04:03 PDT Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. In article , writes: > On Thu, 2 May 1996 22:54:29 -0500, doc_dave@bga.com (David Brod) > wrote: >> Rich asked: >>> Let's say I have two lines. A and B. Line A doesn't subscribe to >>> caller-id. Line B does. If line-A busy is set up to hunt to line-B, >>> what caller-id info if any is presented to B? Same question for a >>> call-forwarded line. Oh, lets toss in the same question for cell >>> phones (as line A) immediate, busy, and no-answer call-forwarding. >> Pat responded: (snip) Pat responded incorrectly ... indicates correct response ... does more like what Pat's phone must do. >> It has been my experience that line B DOES get the caller info. Any >> call that rings into line B, whether line B is direct dialed, or >> subjected to line A overflow, will result in a caller ID read. Just >> like if line B has call waiting. The feature is active when line B is >> called, regardless of the method. > What wasn't mentioned here is that when a call is passed from Line A > to Line B via this hunt process, the call will hit Line B with caller > information for Line A rather than the actual calling party. This is > true in my telco, at least. The call id information for the calling > party is only shown if the first line answers and is subscribed to > caller id. This was true at GTE-NW until I pointed out that they send the original caller's CID for call forwarding to long distance per FCC regulations. I also pointed out that AT&T Wireless is consistent for both situations and will always send the caller's id, even when diverted by call forwarding. It took a few months but GTE-NW finally decided to be consistent with local call forwarding and long distance call forwarding. Any LEC that displays the call forwarding number in lieu of the calling number just doesn't have it right. They can do what they want since they have 99% market share. But technically, SS7 ISUP allows you to transfer BOTH calling number and redirecting number, so that LECs potentially can display both numbers, e.g. "206-555-1234 call forwarded from PRIVATE". I don't understand the difference between call forwarding on no answer, call forwarding on busy and hunting. These are one in the same, even though they may be tariffed differently. Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No they are not one in the same. If a call 'hunts' to another line when when the called line is busy, it goes to another line in the group of lines for that subscriber. It is a hardware thing with the one line wired to the next. If you have 'call forwarding on busy' that is a software thing; the call is independently forwarded somewhere else; it does not have to be wired up to another line in the same group. For instance if I have ten lines in a hunt group with the first nine busy then a call to the first line will hunt along one by one through the next nine lines until it finally finds a place it can land. It might land anywhere; the first time it finds a idle line it will stop there. With 'call forward on busy' if your line is busy the instructions are to take the incoming call and put it on some other specific number. It might leave your premises entirely for example, and go to telco voicemail. Hunting can't do that; with hunting the call has to stay right there in its little group of lines. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tdu@enter.net (Tim Updegrove) Subject: Long Distance From Local Number? Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 04:58:13 GMT Organization: ENTER.NET I loaded a GNN (Global Network Navigator) internet access disk that I got in the mail which advertised one free month of service. I cancelled the account at the end of one month but when I got the phone bill in the mail, I nearly died. There were four phone calls via Sprint to (717) 341-5611 in Scranton, Pa. (I live near Reading, Pa.) totaling over 225 minutes (first call=42 minutes.; second=2; third=33; fourth=156 minutes) and costing nearly $55.00. I feel like I was "ripped off" because the service was supposedly free and I never dialed that number. I've used GNN nearly every day for that month but only these four calls are on my bill. To access GNN, I've always used a local Reading number (610-655-8859) so how did this long distance number get dialed? I suspect this charge is related to the alternate number which I manually selected a few times. However, I selected a local number (610-375-6945) as the alternate (it was a 14.4 line instead of 28.8). Here is the real question for you telecom gurus, is it possible for a local number to be "patched" to a long distance number (i.e. can a person think he is calling a local exchange but end up paying for a long distance phone call)? If yes, then this practice is extremely misleading. I understand GNN is not responsible because of the "I accept" clause in the license agreement. Should I complain to Sprint that I never dialed this number? Do I have a legal out? (The $55.00 doesn't bother me as much as the principle involved -- I didn't dial that number and the software didn't dial that number). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Phones can certainly be forwarded to wherever the owner wishes to have them go, however the cost of forwarding is the responsibility of the person who does it, not the responsibility of the people dialing in. As an experiment, you might like to dial your 'alternate' number again for just one minute or so, and carefully note the time and date you did it. Then, watch for the next bill and see if this same thing occurs again with the long distance number being listed. I would say it might be worth looking into with the local telco, but don't get into a long conversation with the rep and cause confusion. Just say you did not call those numbers and ask for some explanation. Tell the rep at the times in question you *did* call the other number and are wondering what is going on. Report results here please. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 96 06:43:22 PDT From: R. Jagannathan Subject: Lang-Lucid Mailing List Operational Reply-To: R. Jagannathan Folks, After a spam- and flame-initiated hiatus, the lang-lucid mailing list is operational again. Unlike before, it is maintained by an automated list maintenance system with suitable protection against assorted forms of misuse. Here are three things you need to know on using the list: -To subscribe: send mail to lang-lucid-request, with the message body `subscribe' or `subscribe email@address'. -To unsubscribe: send mail to lang-lucid-request, with the message body `unsubscribe' or `unsubscribe email@address'. -To send a message to the list: send mail to lang-lucid@csl.sri.com. I trust that we can use the list in a spam-free manner, and if you do have concerns, kindly email to lang-lucid-owner@csl.sri.com. Welcome back! Rangaswamy Jagannathan, SRI International, Menlo Park, California +1-415-859-2717 (voice), +1-415-859-2844 (fax) http://www.csl.sri.com/~jagan (url), jagan@csl.sri.com (email) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I hope your trust is not misplaced, however expecting anything much on the net these days to be spam-free is sort of unrealistic. Good luck with getting the list started once again. PAT] ------------------------------ From: willi087@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Lindy Williams) Subject: Caller ID Blocker Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 14:17:28 +0100 Organization: University of Minnesota I recieved a catalog yesterday that has an item described as "how to block "Caller ID" and protect your privacy." It goes on to describe a small device that "makes sure that people with Caller ID units can't get any information about you." Says it works on all local and long-distance lines. Makes no mention of 800 numbers and 911. Anyone got any ideas? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My heroes! So they are going to fix it so that 'people with caller id units cannot get any information about me', eh? These fine, ever-vigilant protectors of our privacy; what would we do without them! :) What a rip off! All they have for you is a little box which sits in parallel on the phone line. That is, you plug it into the wall socket and you plug your phone into it. Whenever you take your phone off hook, the little box wakes up, also goes off hook and does beep-boop-beep on the phone line, in the form of *67, the caller id blocking code. It does it so quickly it usually has been entered before you get the phone to your ear. Then, you dial the number you are calling in the usual way and the receipient sees 'private' on his caller id display box. All it is doing -- repeat, all -- is automatically prepending *67 on the front of your dialing string so that you don't have to do it yourself by hand each time. Anyway, you might forget to do it and then those nasty old big corporations and telemarketers and other social deviants would have your phone number and be able to abuse you and invade your privacy. It is a little hard for me to speak at times when I have my tongue in my cheek. If you can remember to dial *67 at the start of your call on any occassion when you feel paranoi -- err, feel it is necessary, then you are doing everything the little box being sold in the catalog can do. It is a good thing they did not mention 800/888 or 911 or the oper- ator or the telco business office numbers or 411 or 611 or 976/900 or a few other combinations. *67 does not work with those numbers. With 800/888 numbers, the recipient is paying for the call and thus is entitled to know who is placing the call he is paying for. In the case of 911, we believe that the only *legitimate* use of the number should be in dire emergencies, and in that case you would want the police/fire/paramedics to know who you were and where you were located so help could be dispatched quickly. In the case of 900/976 you are expected to pay a premium for those calls and are not allowed to hide from the company billing for them. In the case of 411/611/555-1212/ telco business office numbers/telco operators, do you take *those people* for fools? ... they do not allow you to use their invention as a tool against them. Also, when using *67 and *70 in the same dialing string, make sure *67 goes first. In some versions, unless it is first it won't stick and I guess if you had to find out the hard way you would rather have a call interuppted because *70 did not stick rather than have your number get out to people. In some versions it does not matter which goes first so you should check it out for yourself. Finally, be aware of the latest scam making the rounds on Usenet intended to take advantage of your paranoia: for a mere $4.95 a company will send you the 'secret documentation telco would rather you did not find out about' on how to defeat caller id in all cases (but they don't mention 800/911 either). You send them the $4.95 and you get a sheet of paper back advising you to be sure to prepend *67 to all your dialing strings. There, I saved you $4.95, a postage stamp and days or weeks of suspense waiting for the 'secret telco documents' to arrive in your mailbox. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 09 May 1996 14:49:45 EDT From: capek@watson.ibm.com (Peter Capek) Subject: Re: Using a Modem on Digital Phone Systems Kotterink asks: > Does anyone know if it exists a kind of 'universal' converter to make > it possible to connect an analog modem to a digital office phone > system (something with an analog and digital jack). The PBX office > system is INTECOM ITE 12S digital. Yes, there does. It turns out that the wire between the base and the handset of (nearly?) all telephone systems is analog, even where the switch and the wire between the switch and the phone is digital. So, there exists a box about the size of a cigarette pack which connects as follows: |---------|----------- Handset PBX -------- PHONE -----------| Adapter | BASE |---------|----------- Modem Normally, you'll have to manually dial "9" using the phone's keypad to get an (analog) outside connection, from which point you can let your modem dial as if it were on a phone connected directly to the public network. There is a version of this product sold under the "Options by IBM" brand called something like a "Digital Phone System Enabler". I believe also that Port (in Connecticut somewhere) sells it as well. The adapter is run by a 9 volt battery, and it is essentially an amplifier. A switch on the adapter allows the gain of the amplifier to be set for different phone systems. It comes with a booklet listing quite a few different PBX systems. I don't have any details here right now, but write to me if you need help finding this product. I think it costs a bit over $100 US. As an aside, let me mention that there's frequently an analog line available where you may not think of it: almost all fax machines, even those wired to a PBX, are on analog lines. You can always borrow that... Peter Capek ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #228 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri May 10 10:21:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id KAA14431; Fri, 10 May 1996 10:21:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 10:21:03 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605101421.KAA14431@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #229 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 May 96 10:21:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 229 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Excel Agents Sue Company (Discount Long Distance Digest) CTS/WorldxChange Stops Taking Orders in California (DLD Digest) FBI Refutes Charges Against Compuserve (Van Heffner) Caller ID Picks up 800 Number Calls? (Robert Bulmash) PCS Basestation Location: What Does it Take? (Bob Jacobson) Charging For 800 Calls Really is Illegal (John R. Levine) MobiLink Cellular Carriers Standardize Recordings (Stanley Cline) Help Wanted on ISDN Layer 2 and 3 Programming Protocols (Florian Damas) French ISPs Arrested on Net Pornography Charges (Jean-Bernard Condat) Information Wanted on Omnipoint PCS Network (Jon Zerden) Toshiba Strata and Voice Mail (Charles Meyer) Is There an Internet - Postal Service - Fax Connection? (Michael Snider) Can CID be Altered? (Stan 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 06:06:01 -0700 From: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS Reply-To: vantek@northcoast.com Organization: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 1-707-444-6686 Subject: Excel Agents Sue Company Discount Long Distance Digest, Friday May 10, 1996 EXCEL BEING SUED BY AGENTS - AS STOCK GOES PUBLIC TODAY Tulsa, OK, May 10, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- Two big news stories involving Excel Telecommunications today. Excel (NYSE: ECI) finally opened up the company for public trading today in a $150 million Initial Public Offering on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock's initial trade value will be at $15 a share, with 10 million shares being offered to the public. Kenny Trout, president of the Dallas, TX based reseller, and a small number of other Excel insiders will keep over 97 million shares of the stock for themselves. Troutt's stock alone is valued at over $961 million. Unfortunately, the company's stock may not do as well as had once been expected, due largely to Thursday's announcement of a $400 million lawsuit being brought against Excel, Troutt and vice president of marketing Steve Smith. "The company is featureless as far as any expectations for big upside potential," stated David Menlow, president of IPO Financial Network. He equated the company to "blue smoke and mirrors" and stated, "We just keep hearing that this is a company that may not end up as good as some think it is." The lawsuit, filed by Independent Excel Representatives Linden Wood, Brad Campbell, Candy Campbell and Jerry Szeszulski of Tulsa, OK, claim that Smith and the company "interfered with their sales of long-distance time and training materials", as well as threatening them with termination for using training materials not sold to them by the company. Excel makes profits from the sale of training materials, and other products/services, to their independent agents. Wood is currently Excel's #2 top paid independent representative, and earns an average commission of $500,000 a month with the compamy. In addition to the above complaints, the suit also accuses Excel of being a "multilevel marketing scheme", and goes on to accuse the company of defamation, unfair competition and interference with contractual relations. On a related note, an article in Friday's edition of {The Tulsa World} blasted the company as being a "pyramid of expanding recruits originating from a single representative". Industry insider Judy Reed Smith of Atlantic-ACM, Inc. claimed in a recent interview with the paper that "You have very low potential to earn anything as an Excel IR, Independent Representative ... the vast majority never make any money." According to the paper, over half of Excel's customers drop out on average each year, and that in 1995, 86% of their independent reps opted not to pay the annual fee Excel charges to keep their positions. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 06:06:01 -0700 From: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS Reply-To: vantek@northcoast.com Organization: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 1-707-444-6686 Subject: CTS/WorldxChange Stops Taking Orders in California Discount Long Distance Digest, Friday, May 10, 1996 CTS/WORLDxCHANGE STOPS TAKING ORDERS IN CALIFORNIA San Diego, CA, May 09, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- After months of pressure from groups such as the California Public Utilities Commission, The San Francisco Chronicle, DLD Digest and a local televison station, WORLDxCHANGE (aka: CTS) has finally decided to throw in the towel. The company announced in a letter to their agents this week that they would no longer be accepting commercial orders for new long distance customers within the state of California. The move comes after authorities in the state had received tens of thousands of complaints against the company for everything from deceptive marketing practices to slamming (switching a customer's long distance carrier without their prior authorization). The company has been under increasing scrutiny not only from regulators, but from the press as well. A local televison station near the company's headquarters in San Diego aired a highly critical piece about them earlier this week, and negative press has been circulating concerning the company via various newswire services for months. The company was recently ordered by the Public Utilities Commission to cease the provisioning of new customers within the state pending the outcome of an investigation into their operations. Strangely enough, in a carefully-worded letter sent to their agents, the company claimed that it had NOT been ordered to "cease doing business in California", although the company no longer has the legal ability to provision any new customers within the state. We will have even more news about CTS in tomorrow's edition of the DLD Digest Webzine. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 01:24:39 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: FBI Refutes Charges Against Compuserve CLEVELAND, May 8 (Reuter) - CompuServe, Inc and a spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation said the company is not being investigated by the FBI for adult-oriented material available on its on-line network. CompuServe called "erroneous" a story in the Columbus, Ohio, {Dispatch} newspaper saying such a probe was under way. Justice Department spokesman John Russell said, "They're not under investigation. The FBI has not launched a probe." The newspaper editor could not be reached for comment. "There is absolutely, positively no investigation of CompuServe by the FBI or Department of Justice ... related to the Communications Decency Act," CompuServe spokesman Jeff Shafer said in a telephone interview. The newspaper reported that the FBI was investigating in response to a complaint from the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association which calls itself a Christian organization concerned with the biblical ethic of decency in society. Patrick Trueman, who heads the group's Washington, D.C., office, told Reuters that some material available on an on-line forum called MacGlamour contains full frontal nudity. "I felt that this was clearly what Congress intended to outlaw" in the Communications Decency Act, he said. That amendment to telecommunications law enacted in 1996 is under review in federal court. CompuServe said it offers "some of the strongest parental controls in the world" so parents can block their children's access to a variety of materials contractors offer on-line. "We feel that that is the direction we need to go -- that you need to empower the user and that it's not up to us to decide what you can and can't see" on-line," Shafer said. CompuServe said it has more than 4.7 million users. It was owned by H&R Block Inc but began trading on Nasdaq earlier this year. Block is still the majority owner. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 326 Eye Street, Suite 148 Eureka, CA 95501-0522 U.S.A. ------------------------------ From: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Subject: Caller ID Picks up 800 Number Calls? Date: 10 May 1996 03:37:09 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: prvtctzn@aol.com (Prvt Ctzn) Need a conundrum? I got one for you! Someone ... please figure this out for me. I have seven phones at my business. All the lines (except the last one) hunt from one to the next. I have an 800 number camped on my primary line (first line in the hunt sequence). I have Caller ID installed on line two. Lately, when people call my 800 number, and it hunts over to line two, I get the Caller ID readout of the calling party. Robert Bulmash Private Citizen, Inc. http://webmill.com/prvtctzn/home ------------------------------ From: Bob Jacobson Subject: PCS Basestation Location: What Does it Take? Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 23:20:47 -0700 Organization: Worldesign Inc., Seattle - Advanced Interface Design The location of basestations (miniature transceivers) for PCS, personal communication services, is a complex process. I would be interested in discussing with PCS network planners and engineers the intricacies of this process, to better understand what is involved and how the tools and techniques used can be improved. Thank you. Email will suffice. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 20:48:11 EDT From: John R Levine Subject: Charging For 800 Calls Really is Illegal While wandering around the net I visited the U.S. House of Representatives, where they have conveniently put the entire U.S. code on line. 47 USC 228 lists a bunch of rules the FCC is required to make, including this one: (c)(6) Billing for 800 calls A common carrier shall prohibit by tariff or contract the use of any 800 telephone number, or other telephone number advertised or widely understood to be toll free, in a manner that would result in - (A) the calling party being assessed, by virtue of completing the call, a charge for the call; (B) the calling party being connected to a pay-per-call service; (C) the calling party being charged for information conveyed during the call unless the calling party has a preexisting agreement to be charged for the information or discloses a credit or charge card number during the call; or (D) the calling party being called back collect for the provision of audio information services or simultaneous voice conservation services. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Trumansburg NY Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" and Information Superhighwayman wanna-be ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: MobiLink Cellular Carriers Standardize Recordings Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:52:00 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services It seems that MobiLink (the organization of B-side cellular carriers that establishes "quality standards" for themselves) has made another (unique?) requirement ... In addition to requiring participating B-side carriers to utilize standard dialing codes (*611/711/811 for customer service / roaming assistance / tech support), offer Follow-Me Roaming(tm) and meet certain other standards, MobiLink carriers are now required to use standard *intercept recordings.* These new recordings are prefaced by a short "chime", followed by the same man's voice: (for example) " The cellular customer you're calling is not available at this time. Please try your call again later. announcement one.) A few markets, such as Chattanooga, have older versions of the recordings, sans chime, which I guess is OK. The new recordings make *no* mention of the carrier's name (unless a carrier, such as 360 Communications, embeds it in the "carrier specific codes." Most carriers do identify the city the switch is in, either using the city name ("Tampa", for example) or sometimes cryptic codes ("CHT" for Chattanooga.) I found this out when I was roaming in Atlanta today and someone called me and asked, "Why did I get another recording?" (I had failed to turn call delivery off, so calls were going to the Atlanta system rather than my voice mail ... in the past, a woman's voice would answer "The BellSouth Mobility customer you have called cannot be reached ..." Most B-side carriers do not signal the home switch to route unanswered calls to voice mail; to do so was considered a violation of the MFJ.) I called BellSouth, and asked what was going on (Atlanta couldn't possibly be getting a new switch! ) and that's what they told me. I did a quick check of various carriers (calling roamer ports, and trying to find *my* phone which is here at home) and most MobiLink carriers (BellSouth, 360, Contel/GTE Mobilnet, Ameritech) all complied. Some BellSouth markets (i.e. Birmingham) haven't changed their recordings yet ... they're probably just slow. ALLTEL Mobile, which is *supposedly* MobiLink, did not in any of their markets I checked. It's possible that a few non-MobiLink carriers, under switch agreements with MobiLink carriers, may comply "by accident." United States Cellular, who is *not* MobiLink (don't ask me why), is *not* required to comply ... neither are most small carriers (InterCel in GA/AL, etc.) The "announcement numbers" seem to be standardized as well ... I have a list of those announcements (obtained when doing some casual trouble- shooting for BellSouth). At least this will make life easy on those B-side roamers who do misdial, etc ... no more having to interpret what a carrier's recording means. They are all the same (most of them, anyway). Stanley Cline, d/b/a Catoosa Computing Serv., Chatta., TN mailto:scline@usit.net -- http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CIS 74212,44 -- MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ From: Florian DAMAS Subject: Help Wanted on ISDN Layer 2 and 3 Programming Protocols Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 16:58:27 -0400 Organization: Immix Telecom Inc. Reply-To: immix@immixtel.com Has anyone programmed ISDN layer-2 and layer-3 protocols? What kind of algorithm did you use? How did you test your software? Do you have any good book to suggest on programming protocols with examples? florian damas ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 07:57:03 +0100 From: Jean-Bernard Condat Subject: Two French ISPs Arrested on Net Pornography Charges Paris, France: May 9th, 1996 -- After the fact that a French association of Jewish Student (Union des Etudiants Juifs de France, UEJF) has issued a writ against nine French Internet Service Providers on the grounds that ISPs allow their clients to access services with negationist messages infringing French criminal law, two ISPs managers (WorldNet and FranceNet) have now been arrested for having distributed pedophilia computer files. Founded in 1994, these two companies are members of the AFPI (Association Francaise des Professionnels de l'Internet), an group of ISPs working against all forms of perversion. Rafi Heladjian (CEO of FranceNet) and Sebastien Socchard have take position in France as two major services with 2,500 customers each. Judge Berkany will be in charge of this affair. Some curious affairs will be covered such as the recently discovered publication of the entire content of the private Francois Mitterrand's book from Gruber on a French Web, the uncredible $30,000 ad of FranceNet service on all Minitel electronic phonebook ... and the delicate confusion between French WorldNet service and the same AT&T service! The poor usage of Internet ressources in France will greatly be affect by this affairs due to a stupid research of more monies. We urgently need an ethical foundation of this media in France. Jean-Bernard Condat Phone: +33 1 46963770, fax: +33 1 46963765, Itineris: +33 07238628 email: jeanbc@informix.com ------------------------------ From: Jon Zerden Subject: Information Wanted on Omnipoint PCS Network Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 02:01:56 -0400 Organization: Capital Area Internet Service, Inc. Reply-To: zerden@nicom.com Does anyone know anything about the Omnipoint PCS network, ie. when it will be available, where it will be avaialble, prices or any other information? Thanks, Jon ------------------------------ From: charles meyer Subject: Toshiba Strata and Voice Mail Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 06:34:22 -0700 Organization: University of Minnesota I am looking for a voice mail system to work with the Toshiba Strata digital key system. The way we want to use it is fairly basic -- real person answers the phone, gives the caller option of connecting to party's voice mail then transfers call to voice mail extension. Obviously the voice mail system has to be able to answer one of the extensions of the digital key system. Any leads on systems out there? Thanks, chuck ------------------------------ From: snider@idirect.com (Michael Snider) Subject: Is There an Internet - Postal Service - Fax Connection? Organization: Internet Direct, Canada Date: 5 May 96 14:09:04 UTC Does anyone know whether there exists a link bewteen the Internet and local postal services and fax services? I want to send E-Mail over the Internet to be delivered to a non-computer user via the remote country's postal service, or send E-Mail to be faxed to the recipient at a remote location. Thanks in advance. Michael snider@idirect.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 10:05:16 EDT From: Stan.Schwartz@IBMMAIL Subject: Can CID be Altered? For the last few weeks, I've been puzzled by a number that had been appearing on my all of my CID devices (I'm up to 5 in the house). It wasn't any valid NPA or NNX and the name showed up as "--------------". Last night, it clicked. The number displayed is the first ten digits of an account number that I have with a bank in the northeast. This doesn't seem like mere coincidence to me. What piece of software is able to manipulate CID, and does the FCC know about this? This has the potential of rendering CID data useless. Stan stan@vnet.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Has the above display been on every call you have received over the past few weeks, or only on certain calls? If only on certain calls, has it been the same caller in each instance or different callers? Have you ever talked to the caller(s) who presented you with that display? Who else besides yourself and the bank would know this number? Please give us more information so we can work on this mystery. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #229 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri May 10 11:22:06 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA20027; Fri, 10 May 1996 11:22:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 11:22:06 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605101522.LAA20027@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #230 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 May 96 11:22:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 230 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? (Dave Close) Re: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? (Linc Madison) Re: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? (Jon Solomon) Wanted NewBridge MainStreet 3624 Boards (Christopher Bernat) Re: Market Share of Various [PBX] Vendors (Tara D. Mahon) Gray Pay Station Company (was Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper) (Dave Levenson) Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? (Bob Bell) Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop (Wes Leatherock) Re: 1-800 Number Calling Cards: What to Get? (Gary Breuckman) Re: Long Distance From Local Number? (John Cropper) Re: Information Wanted on Finland Telecomms (Kauto Huopio) Re: Local Competition (Celine Anelone) 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: dhclose@alumnae.caltech.edu (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? Date: 10 May 1996 06:30:34 GMT Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Carl Moore writes: > Is there any such thing as being able to speed-dial everything through > but not beyond the phone prefix? I heard of someone having done that > because of so many calls to the installation where I am located. > (i.e., through 410-278, and then must add the last four digits.) An alternative proposal, which I've made before but don't recall being published: Allow any call to be dialed with any number of digits from one up to ten. If less than ten, follow with # to mark the end. Treat the number dialed as substituting for the last n digits of the caller's own number. Thus, if my number is 714 434 7359 and I dial 8#, I have implicited dialed 714 434 7358. Similarly, 2111# == 714 434 2111. Obviously, this could be a boon for small businesses with multiple lines, no need for a PBX or Centrex. Drawback: how to deal with those who want 1+ to indicate LD? Solution: eliminate LD, go to flat rate service ala the net itself. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You say this could be a boon for small businesses with multiple lines, no need for centrex. One thing wrong would be the charge for the 'local' calls between lines within the company. I think centrex is set up so there is no charge for intra-centrex (i.e. extension to extension) calls as it is presently billed. Therefore it might turn out more expensive. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:25:00 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , Carl Moore wrote: > Is there any such thing as being able to speed-dial everything through > but not beyond the phone prefix? I heard of someone having done that > because of so many calls to the installation where I am located. > (i.e., through 410-278, and then must add the last four digits.) With speed dial from the phone company (i.e., at the switch level), probably not. With speed dial on your individual telephone set, certainly. With "system speed dial" at the PBX level, maybe, depending on how it was set up. On my memory phone at home, I used to have a speed dial button that was programmed for 1-512-645. Then, instead of dialing 5-3xxx or 5-2xxx like I would if I was actually in the town of Goliad, I would dial *5-xxxx, using memory slot number 5. (Goliad no longer has 5-digit local dialing, because the local calling area has expanded to include not only Berclair and Charco, but also Victoria. Numbers in Goliad still begin with 645 and either a 2, 3, or 8.) Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ From: jsol@MIT.EDU Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 16:11:47 -0400 Subject: Re: Fast Dial Omitting Last Four Digits? Back in the step days, I could do 9-6003 from my normal line (which was 203-739, now 860-739) ... once the ESS machine was turned on, that feature ceased to work... :( ------------------------------ From: Christopher Bernat Subject: Wanted NewBridge MainStreet 3624 Boards Date: 8 May 1996 22:12:47 GMT Organization: National SUPPORT Center Wanted NewBridge MainStreet 3624 Boards. We are looking for LGE boards for NewBridge MainStreet 3624. Please call 803-731-9976 or email me at rjohnson@scsn.net Thanks for any help!! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 May 96 16:41:47 -0400 From: Tara D. Mahon Subject: Re: Market Share of Various [PBX] Vendors beatle@cml.com (Mike Polischuk) wrote: > 1. Who are the top ten telecom companies by sales dollar volume? > 2. Who are the top ten telecom companies by units sold? > A further note: I should clarify that by telecom I mean vendors who > sell key and/or PBX telephone systems. Insight Research's last study of the PBX market ("PBX and Centrex: The Over 100 Lines Market") was released in mid-1993, so I realize these numbers may have changed significantly. But I thought this could at least give you some historical data (on PBXs over 100 lines). PBX Line Base by Vendor (% of Lines): AT&T 32% Nortel 24% ROLM 16% Mitel 5% NEC 8% Fujitsu 2% Hitachi 2% Toshiba 1% InteCom 2% Ericsson 2% Other 6% PBX System Sales: Market Share by Vendor: AT&T 31% Nortel 28% ROLM 17% Mitel 3% NEC 6% Fujitsu 4% Hitachi 2% Toshiba 1% InteCom 2% Ericsson 2% Other 4% Regards, Tara D. Mahon tara@insight-corp.com The Insight Research Corporation www.wcom.com/Insight/insight.html 354 Eisenhower Parkway (201) 605-1400 phone Livingston, NJ 07039-1023 USA (201) 605-1440 fax Comparative Market Research, Competitive Analysis for Telecom Industry ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Gray Pay Station Company (was Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper) Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Thu, 9 May 1996 21:24:13 GMT John R Levine (johnl@iecc.com) writes: TELECOM Digest Editor noted: >> Remember from history you were taught that one of the early people >> in GTE swore to his dying day that Alex Bell had ripped him off >> of the patent for the telephone in the first place, claiming Bell got >> to the Patent Office a matter of hours or maybe a day before he got >> there. ... > That was Elisha Gray, there's no argument from any side that Bell > filed a few hours before he did and that he did invent a working > telephone about the same time that Bell did ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One thing I distinctly remember seeing > as a child was an in-service pay phone -- on Southwestern Bell lines > yet! -- which said on its box that it was manufactured by the Gray > Pay Station Telephone Company, which I guess was one part of Automatic > Electric. The original pay telephone patents were issued to William Gray (as far as I know, no relation to Elisha Gray) in about 1887 or so. He worked for Colt Firearms, but left to start his own company. He tried to interest the telephone company in buying his payphones and offering service to the public, but they were not interested. So, Gray offered them himself. He offered them to merchants, agreeing to pay the phone company for the service, and share the revenues with the merchant. That's right, in 1887 the first payphones were COCOTs! His designs improved until about 1911 when he introduced a model with a three-slot top-mounted coin-acceptor, an escrow relay, and (as was the style for non-coin sets of that era) a separate receiver and a boom-mounted transmitter. That design changed slightly as a rotary dial was added in the 1920's, and a single-piece handset was substituted for the two-piece audio parts in the late 1940's. The basic shape didn't change until the late 1960's when the single-slot design we see today was introduced. Western Electric and Automatic Electric each bought his phones, and later, licensed his patents to build their own. Before that, however, most of the payphones in the country, though installed and operated by the telephone companies, were manufactured by the Gray Pay Station Company. In 1984, as part of the divestiture of the Bell System, most states began to allow payphones to be treated as de-regulated customer premises equipment. This gave rise, once again, to customer-owned payphones. One of the dominant manufacturers of COCOT payphone instruments today is Elcotel, Inc., of Sarasota, Florida. They supply independent payphone operators, and they also license their product to AT&T (or would it now be Lucent Technologies?) The chief executive officer of Elcotel is one Tracey L. Gray, probably no relation to either William or Elisha! Payphone history is, perhaps, a `Gray' area, no? Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: uunet!westmark!dave Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Bravo!: Dave, I don't know what we would do without your regular input here. Your regular contributions are part of what has made the Digest so wonderful over the nearly fifteen years it has been published. That's right! Fifteen years in August. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bbell@incite.com (Bob Bell) Subject: Re: Why is PacBell Trying to Torpedo CallerID? Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 10:53:36 GMT Organization: Intecom On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 18:33:07 GMT, hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) wrote: > In article , jpk@ns.incog.com (Jon > Krueger) wrote: >> 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? > Perhaps PacBell is just as tired of government/regulatory mandates as > everyone else. Perhaps PacBell agrees that 'complete blocking' should > have been the default, and that anyone wanting to change could then > change at their option, instead of being railroaded. > The major problem with caller ID, IMHO, is that the benefits for the > consumer are extremely slight, while the advantages for telemarketers > and other time-wasters are very great. > If only some small fraction of this effort could be redirected towards > something useful -- e.g., ISDN or HDSL for each of our subscriber lines. I am afraid I must take issue with you on one of your points. You stated that "The major problem with caller ID, IMHO, is that the benefits for the consumer are extremely slight, while the advantages for the telemarketers and other time-wasters are very great". I have found that 1) the telemarketers already have all of the phone numbers that they need sorted by buying preferences, location, and any number of other criteria which they could desire, and 2) that caller ID is the only way I have of judging whether to open my "door" to these "Time-wasters" before accepting the call. There is a device by the way which seems to be effective at discourging the telemarketers. Federal Law can be invoked which can result in a significant fine payable to the offended party for pursuing a cold-call after being warned that the user has no desire to be disturbed. There was a device in several of the electronic mail-order catalogs I receive which performs this function automatically. Please realize that I am not questioning your right to your opinion. I am simply stating my own. Sincerely, Robert T. Bell [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bear in mind however you still have to receive that first call before you can tell them not to call in the future, and the results obtained when you tell them that are dubious at best. It is quite time-consuming to enforce your rights. PAT] ------------------------------ From: wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com (Wes Leatherock) Subject: Re: AT&T Doesn't Know When to Stop Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 13:39:00 GMT Mike Fox wrote: > . . . . I examined it very carefully before deciding to toss it. > BTW, the check also required that I call them from the line in > question to get an authorization code that had to be written in a box > on the front that says "void if incorrect code here" -- though how the > bank could verify that I have no idea. I bet it would sail through my > bank and bounce at their bank, which is probably a captive institution > like AT&T Universal Bank and therefore trained to verify the codes. More likely it was a draft rather than a check. Most big companies of any sort use drafts now. The bank does not pay the draft itself; the bank presents it to the drawer, who then pays the bank. I remember even 20 or 30 years ago seeing the messenger from the bank come into the cashier's office at Southwestern Bell Telephone's headquarters in Oklahoma City and hand the drafts, with an adding machine tape, to the assistant treasurer for Oklahoma. She would give the messenger a draft (drawn on the treasurer in St. Louis) for the drafts. When that draft (and others from other states) were presented to the treasurer in St. Louis, the treasurer would give the bank in St. Louis a _check_. Only the treasurer in St. Louis (headquarters of the company) was authorized to write checks, as opposed to drafts. Only the treasurer could actually pay out the company's money. The draft can often be recognized by the wording "payable through" name of bank ... not "payable at," or "drawn on," or a lack of any such wording at all. Such a draft can be returned to the bank and charged back if it's found to be irregular or otherwise fails to satisfy the company which issued it. Insurance companies, especially, use these a lot because they want to examine the endorsements carefully to make sure all the release wording is satisfied on claims; insurance companies generally don't even pay the bank until they've examined the checks, which may cause several days delay in the bank's getting their money. This has to be covered, of course, by contracts between the bank and the company, but actually it's a fairly common arrangement for various reasons. Wes Leatherock wes.leatherock@hotelcal.com wes.leatherock@baremetl.com ------------------------------ From: puma@netcom.com (Gary Breuckman) Subject: Re: 1-800 Number Calling Cards: What to Get? Organization: organized?? me? Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 14:23:23 GMT In article , wrote: > This summer, I will be attending a three week academic program on a > college campus. The organization that is in charge of the program > suggests that students of the program (IAAY) should bring a 1-800 > number calling card. This confuses me. THe college is in NYNEX > territory, and I live in this area. What exactly is this type of > card, and what should I get? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think all he means is bring a phone > credit card of your choice which you can use with your preferred > carrier by dialing into the carrier's 800 number. Most likely the > phone service at the college restricts long distance calls from > their phones and they probably also block out 10xxx codes. This will > provide you a way to make calls from the college phone system if you > wish to do so. PAT] You might also consider a prepaid calling card, available from many sources now, even Target, etc. Most of the ones I've seen recently have been around $.20/minute. I suspect that's what they were talking about, although the carrier's calling card would be fine too. One advantage of the prepaid card would be limited liability if you would lose it, limited to whatever value remained on the card. puma@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Long Distance From Local Number? Date: 9 May 1996 22:56:22 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On May 09, 1996 04.58.13 in article , 'tdu@enter.net (Tim Updegrove)' wrote: > I loaded a GNN (Global Network Navigator) internet access disk that I > got in the mail which advertised one free month of service. I > cancelled the account at the end of one month but when I got the phone > bill in the mail, I nearly died. There were four phone calls via > Sprint to (717) 341-5611 in Scranton, Pa. (I live near Reading, Pa.) > totaling over 225 minutes (first call=42 minutes.; second=2; third=33; > fourth=156 minutes) and costing nearly $55.00. I feel like I was "ripped > off" because the service was supposedly free and I never dialed that > number. > I've used GNN nearly every day for that month but only these four calls > are on my bill. To access GNN, I've always used a local Reading > number (610-655-8859) so how did this long distance number get dialed? > I suspect this charge is related to the alternate number which I > manually selected a few times. However, I selected a local number > (610-375-6945) as the alternate (it was a 14.4 line instead of 28.8). The 610 number sounds like a POTS that rings down to their Scranton number. If you had the speaker on, and knew the touch tones (or pulses, as the case may be), you could've listened to verify that it was indeed dialing the 610 number, or just reporting it to you. Check your internet provider's contract first, making sure that there is no language specifying call redirection from a local number. Then, contact your carrier, and explain the situation. Also contact the PA office of the Better Business Bureau and file a complaint against the internet provider. > Here is the real question for you telecom gurus, is it possible for a > local number to be "patched" to a long distance number (i.e. can a > person think he is calling a local exchange but end up paying for a > long distance phone call)? If yes, then this practice is extremely > misleading. ... and illegal. The common practice is for the *company* to pay the difference for the ringdown, not the consumer. Therefore, even if they say that the consumer may be liable for any phone charges, they can't do what they allegedly did to you ... > I understand GNN is not responsible because of the "I accept" clause > in the license agreement. Should I complain to Sprint that I never > dialed this number? Do I have a legal out? (The $55.00 doesn't > bother me as much as the principle involved -- I didn't dial that > number and the software didn't dial that number). > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Phones can certainly be forwarded to > wherever the owner wishes to have them go, however the cost of forwarding > is the responsibility of the person who does it, not the responsibility > of the people dialing in. As an experiment, you might like to dial your > 'alternate' number again for just one minute or so, and carefully note > the time and date you did it. Then, watch for the next bill and see if > this same thing occurs again with the long distance number being listed. > I would say it might be worth looking into with the local telco, but > don't get into a long conversation with the rep and cause confusion. > Just say you did not call those numbers and ask for some explanation. > Tell the rep at the times in question you *did* call the other number > and are wondering what is going on. Report results here please. PAT] Most definately ... you might also MANUALLY dial it, then do the same with the software and see if they sound identical. John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice/fax: 1-800-247-8675 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: Kauto.Huopio@lut.fi (Kauto Huopio) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Finland Telecomms Date: 10 May 1996 12:44:43 +0300 Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland I might add that Finland is one of the most competitive telecomms enviroments in the whole Europe. We have three LD providers (Telecom Finland, Kaukoverkko Ysi (Long Distance Network Nine) (owned by the ATC Finland group, nowdays called Finnet Group), and Telivo, a telecomms arm of the national power grid operator IVO. In international activities, there are also three major players, Telecom Finland, Finnet International and Telivo, and several small service providers who buy wholesale international LD capacity and resell it. There are two GSM operators, Telecom Finland and Radiolinja (owned mainly by the Finnet Group). For low usage users, it is cheaper nowdays to own a cellular phone than to have a normal copper line! A call to Sweden is nowdays cheaper than a normal daytime in-country LD call used to cost five or six years ago. Kauto Huopio (Kauto.Huopio@lut.fi) Mail: Kauto Huopio, Laserkatu 3 CD 363, FIN-53850 Lappeenranta, Finland ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 96 10:11:00 EDT From: Celine Anelone <0002027431@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Local Competition I'd like to add my two cents to this debate. > So when a customer has trouble, their serving company will be able > to say "Hey, all our stuff checks out -- the problem is with the cable > which is the Bell Company's responsibility." The Bell Company will > then say "Not us, you aren't getting dial tone from your service > provider." The customer will not know who to go to and will get > caught in an endless run around. I don't agree that this will happen with quality companies. Being customer focused means that when a customer calls in for a trouble, the company will do its very best to ensure that the customer problems are resolved in a timely fashion. The companies who will play the "pointing finger: game won't last for long. What I anticipate will happen is this: A customer will call in trouble to company X. Company X will identify the problem and will find that the cause of the trouble is Company B. I believe that company X will go to B and ask them to fix the problem. The calling customer won't be aware of what's going on. You will see a lot of threats of lawsuits and even a lot of lawsuits. Company X to get company B moving will yell, scream, threaten and will ensure that the problem is fixed in a timely manner. So relax, don't worry, I anticipate that we'll see quality service with competition. I know for sure that the company I currently work for will be 100% customer focused. Celine Anelone [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course if your company were to completely sever its connections with Bell and become totally self- reliant by stringing its own wire and building its own phone exchanges and such, then there would really be true competition wouldn't there? Essentially all the local 'competition' is going to be doing is just reselling the local Bell. What sort of competition is that? But if the newcomers had to invest the money, time and effort the Bells have put into things over the past century, it is doubtful they would ever get in business. Let that be a lesson to any of you who think you have something the world needs and wants. If you do, and are at all successful over a century or so, expect the government to come in and rip you off when late-comers are sore because they did not think of it first. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #230 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri May 10 12:59:07 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA28365; Fri, 10 May 1996 12:59:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 12:59:07 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605101659.MAA28365@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #231 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 May 96 12:59:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 231 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Comments to FCC on Universal Service (Ronda Hauben) Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? (Stanley Cline) Re: Need Basic Information On Direct Link Microwave (Bill Mayhew) Biological Effects of RF Radiation (Paul Withington) Re: Mobile Phone Radiation / Cancer Link (Scot E. Wilcoxon) One Possible Source of Funding For Digest (Peter Judge) 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: rh120@vanakam.cc.columbia.edu (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Comments to FCC on Universal Service comments Date: 10 May 1996 06:03:41 GMT Organization: Columbia University Following is a response to some of the discussion initiated by the Benton Foundation regarding how to look at the question of Universal Service toward the FCC procedings on input for the Universal Service definition to function under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The following is from a post on the Netizens Association Mailing List. Kerry Miller posted the Benton Foundation excerpts which are indicated by the > and I responded to them. May 7 was the deadline for fcc comments on the comments previously submitted to them and I plan to submit this and also to post it as a way to try to open up the discussion on the principles that should guide a definition of universal service regarding online access. Also, after several efforts to try to determine if comments could be submitted via email, I was told that comments could be submitted to ssegal@fcc.gov via email, but they would be considered informal comments. On Fri, 3 May 1996, kerry miller posted the following from the Benton Foundation postings about universal service: > http://www.benton.org/Goingon/advocates.html > Public Interest advocates, universal service, and the > Telecommunications Act of 1996 > > The questions public interest advocates should be asking themselves > and the FCC include: > * How should the discussion of Universal Service be framed? Is > Universal Service about connecting phones? Connecting people with > phones? Or connecting people with people? How can the discussion > center around the people who need to benefit from the policy most? This is worth considering. But it is hard to understand how the question can be framed adequately if the folks for whom this is important have no way to be part of the discussion. That is why there is a need for universal access to Usenet newsgroups and email so folks can have a chance to speak about what the real problems and needs are. > > * How is the value of a network-any network, phone or > computer-diminished as fewer and fewer people have access to it? The question seems as if it is phrased backwards. The issue is how does the value of any network increase as more and more people have access to it and are able to contribute to it. The ability to contribute is crucial with regard to a network like the Internet and Usenet. > What can be done to identify the communities and individuals most > at risk of falling off the networks that will make up the National > Information Infrastructure? What strategies can be employed to add Again the questions seems backwards. First there is NO National Information Infrastructure (at least not in the U.S.). There is an Internet that people have built over a period of several decades. The work has often been funded by research institutions or government, but people have contributed to the content and technical needs and development. The question that needed to be raised was what was the value of this development and how to extend access to it? Since this development was not the result of commercial enterprises, but of people contributing, made possible by academic and government support and sometimes also support from companies who benefitted from their participation, it has been inappropriate to set commericalization and privatization as the first goals of the policy, without allowing public discussion into what the policy should be and why. > people to the networks and keep them on? How can the voices of the > people who have fallen off the networks be included in the > rulemaking? It is good to see that the question is being raised of how to have the voices of people included in the rulemaking. The problem right now is that the voices of those on or off the Internet are basically excluded from being heard in the rulemaking procedure since the deadlines have been so quick and the means of even getting the law or the submissions have been basically beyond most people (one has to be able to download things that are in wordperfect it seems). In any case, it has been made very difficult to even access the material at the FCC www site and it has been made virtually impossible to have any contact with anyone at the FCC to ask about the process or get help in knowing how to deal with it all. Thus though business interests and self appointed "public service advocates" may have access to the process, the public is denied access and thus has no way of making the crucial input that the FCC needs to make regulations that can be helpful. > > * What telecommunications services should be "universal" in the > information age? What flexibility should people have in picking On the Netizens Association list we have discussed the need for the Net to be a means for communication. Thus we have identified text based email, Usenet, and lynx as a basic need to have universally available. It is interesting that the Nov. 1994 NTIA online conference on the future of the Net which included discussion of universal service and access identified a similar set of needs. That is the basic set of what would make it possible for the public to be able to participate in the FCC process if that process was an open and participatory one, rather than an exclusive and closed one. > the services they need? How might Universal Service be defined so > that recipients of the services do not have to pay to protect > certain rights (such as privacy)? What good is a wire without > connections to the hardware, training, and support that are > essential for effective use? I don't see privacy as a crucial right. I see access as the crucial right, and as someone early on on the Netizens list said, that email is a basic right. The Freenets and community networks that have developed around universities and libraries in some areas made a beginning of offering a minimal kind of access and having the help needed for people to utilize this access. Yet these examples have been left out of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Also, universities often have established a way of having computer centers with some staff who are available to help people who come to the centers, and they often have some minimum set of classes available to introduce those new to the technology how to use it. Thus again, there are models that could be examined. But in the process of this it would also be important to examine the problems that these models have had or that people have had trying to get some basic services in these situations. There is a way to get real information about the problems and needs, but once again the FCC process doesn't seem to provide any mechanism for this to happen. > * What role can nonprofit organizations and other community-based > institutions play in delivering access to basic and advanced > services? How could centralized delivery centers reduce the costs It's not clear to me who these nonprofit organizations and other community-based institutions are that are being proposed here. This leaves out the community networks that have developed. It also leaves out academic institutions, such as universities and colleges and community colleges. And it leaves out the experience of the NSF in helping to connect these institutions. So instead of building on what has been developed and learning from it, it is substituting a new set of institutions. In NYC these institutions have not been helpful in promoting email for all and thus to rely on such as the mechanism for the future seems to ignore what the obstacles are. > of providing basic and advanced services in both urban and rural > areas? What role could existing community-based > organizations-schools, libraries, community centers, and so > on-play in managing these new telecommunications centers? Also in I don't understand why this is discussing "basic and advanced services". It seems there is a need for basic communication media to be available such as email and Usenet and lynx, in addition to basic phone service, at a low or minimal cost. Some of the problem with all this is that these questions seem to be proposing relying on these organizations to do something, rather than looking at what has been able to extend access to the online world and build on the lessons. > a more complex technological environment with numerous carriers, > providing universal access may not be enough to facilitate One of the problems with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is that it is fundamentally changing the way basic telephone service is to be provided from a way that has proven to function in the past in the U.S., i.e. a regulated utility, to one that has never proven to work, i.e. the so called "market", aka the corporate monopolies being given unfettered right to fleece the public for basic telephone service. > | widespread use of telecommunications. The public may need ongoing > | consumer education so that individuals and organizations are aware > | of the options available to them, are able to make informed The public doesn't need "consumer education". We need regulation of the monopolies. This is saying the corporate big boys can do whatever they want and we the public need education so we know how to pick among them. We can't pick among them. The whole experiment with monopolies over many years has shown that the public is hurt by them and that is why there is a need for government to regulate the monopolies, not to provide so called "consumer education". > | decisions about these options, understand the pricing of the > | services, and know how to get assistance if they have difficulties > | with service reliability, bills, privacy, and other problems. How > | might nonprofit organizations provide these educational services > | as well? So the corporate horror is to be unleased and the nonprofits are to be given a piece of the action? Instead of the so called "nonprofits" opposing the unleasing of the corporate fury, they are being encouraged to line up for their share of the pie. Meanwhile the public is to be the victim of both the unfettered corporate grab of our communications infrastructure, and of the "nonprofits" reaching for their share. This is what the closed process creating these laws and regulations results in. It isn't that the email and Usenet and lynx are being provided on a universal basis, but that basic telephone service has been removed from being a public right to being a corporate right to make profit. One of the important issues left out in the above discussion of Universal Service from a posting by the Benton Foundation is that the Internet and Usenet arose from a technical and social need. That need was that as computers develop people need to have a means of remote support to get the technology to function. As computers play an increasingly important role in our society, it will be necessary for an ever growing number of people to be able to deal with computers. The technical problems haven't been solved. Those who are working at University or community sites where email or Usenet or www are being provided to 30,000 or + people notice that there are difficulties in making this all work. As the Net is to be spread there needs to be the technical support to make this all function. Since it isn't that the commercial world has made this all work to begin with, it isn't that they can be relied upon to build the future. Thus there is a need for the Net to spread to make it possible for computer use to spread, and there is a need for a social policy and program to guide how this is done. The Telecommunications '96 Law fails to provide for any of this and even fails to safeguard the telephone system in the U.S. It's not clear to me if there is any way to participate in the May 7 deadline for comments on previous comments about Universal Service for the FCC. The reply comments are to be submitted in CC Docket No. 96-45 prior to May 7, 1996. It seems there is a need for the discussion of these issues to be opened up among people on the Net, which is one of the reasons for the Netizens Association Mailing list. I welcome comments and thoughts about this issue or about what it makes sense to try to do about it all. Ronda rh120@columbia.edu ronda@panix.com Amateur Computerist free via email vol 7 no 1 ae547@yfn.ysu.edu Will Access to the Net be a Privilege or a Right? Prototype for Policy Decisions History of Cleveland Freenet ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: Third Number Billing No Longer Being Verified? Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:52:09 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services > Incidentally this is being used currently in both US Cellular and Century > Cellunet (which I think is an offshoot of Sprint, am I correct?). No, Century Cellulnet is not related to Sprint. Century Cellunet is owned by Century Telephone Enterprises (which is the LEC in much of Louisiana and Tennessee, and Lorain Ohio) of Monroe, LA. 360 Communications was formerly Sprint Cellular (and Centel Cellular before that.) > calling phone is a cell. Even worse, I am not sure if they actually get > the cell number as the number being billed or the carrier's TRUNK as the > number being billed -- as this is being used from (cloned) roaming phones. More than likely, they are seeing the TRUNK line. Here, 0+ calls via BellSouth Mobility are routed through the same trunk lines as local and 800 calls (which do not require LIDB access.) 1+ LD calls (non-BellSouth LD) are routed to the customer's presubscribed LD carrier using different trunks...ANI/CID DOES work right for 1+ calls, but NOT for 0+, local, or 800# calls. A trunk line should be recognized as such by IXCs/LIDB, however ... here in Chattanooga, the trunk line (what shows up in ANI/CID) is *NOT* even a dialable number; that number has been "disconnected." With a local university, they had the same problem of B23 to their trunk lines. (Collect/B23 was NOT available to DID lines, but COULD be accomplished by giving the operator the number of the trunk line, which would ring endlessly if called inward.) >> two different companies. However, if you are subscribed to a long >> distance service provided by your cellular carrier, the billing may >> be generated by the same switch. BellSouth's "own" long distance is really Sprint (at least for now) ... all intercepts either originate from the cell switch, or from Sprint. 0+ service is not available; it simply goes to a cellular switch intercept. Billing is generated at the local MTSO, not at Sprint, for customers of BellSouth LD. Also note than ANY time you are roaming (UNLESS you are in the same MTSO, which occasionally happens under switch agreements, LD billing will ALWAYS originate from the *cellular carrier*. (That's why it shows up in "roamer charges" rather than "LD charges.") Stanley Cline, d/b/a Catoosa Computing Serv., Chatta., TN mailto:scline@usit.net -- http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CIS 74212,44 -- MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 96 09:22:44 EST From: Bill Mayhew Subject: Re: Need Basic Information On Direct Link Microwave Pat, The points made in the article are extremely well taken. I've just emreged from the wringer, having been the victim of most problems cited below. I'm an engineer in our computer services department. We were piggy-backed on a microwave system that we owned for distance learning. We used a subcarrier at 8 MHz just above the video baseband to carry a T1s to provide dial-up connectivity to our computer users in three adjoining cities. Here are some things we had troubles with. 1. We needed an FCC-licensed technician to regularly test/certify the radios. Luckily, we had a full time person on site due to the distance learning stuff that was going on the video part of the network. 2. We had to build a 313 foot tall tower at our central site. Even with that, we had to relay though and lease space on towers at two other intermediate locations. Fortunately, we were able to leverage the fact that we are a state-funded school to get lower costs leasing space on towers taht were part of the state lottery sales system and/or educational broadcast TV system. Our 313 foot tower cost $$$ because the local zoning commission would only approve a self-supporting rahter than guyed structure. 3. Radios break -- surprisingly frequently. Lightning found our central tower to be an attractive target several times in the two years we operated our project. One direct hit took out every single transponder on the tower. We made expensive upgrades to the tower infractructure installing a lightning / static electricity dissipation system and extra grounding. More $$$. 4. Rain outages are a problem -- a lot more than the radio manufacturers would have you think. Some of our links were on 18 GHz. The longest 18 GHz link was about 12 miles and took a lot of rain hits. Also, temperature inverstions tend to knock out 18 GHz. Every morning and evening, there would be hits on the T1 subcarrier as temperature layers would cut through the microwave path, diffracting the signal. More user complaints. 5. Poor engineering. The orignal system engineer specified aluminum cable-TV like cable to go up the towers to the IF/outputs on the transponders. Bad Idea. We had lots of trouble with connector suck-out when the core conductor of the cable had a different temperature coefficient than the outside. I'm really surprised that this was a problem. I would have thought the problem would have been dealt with by manufactures having experience with CATV hardware; I guess not. A newer consultant recommended replacing the aluminum with all-copper, which would have been a very expensive fix. We stuck with usign an outside tower-climber to periodically fix the connectors until we could decommission the system. Using Caig Labs' Pro Gold on the connectors delayed the need for re-tightening, but did not eliminate the problem. More $$$ again! 6. Path blockage. University of Akron built a giant polymer science research building right in the middle of one of our paths. We had to spend about $30,000 to put a passive repeater with back-to-back dishes on a nearby building so that we could shoot around the offending edifice. Only $$ this time. 7. Frequency rights. As it turned out, about 1/2 our paths were on 12 GHz (Ku Band). We got our license for the Ku links in the early 1970s before satellite TV, and DBS TV in particular was a big deal. The DBS television people have a primary use license for the 12 GHz Ku spectrum which means that we were forced to abandon those fequencies when DBS sales started up in this area. Basically, we would have had to get all new radio equipment to replace the stuff we had in the Ku band. Getting Harris to re-tune, replace waveguides, ILAs, etc would have been as expensive as new radios anyway, if we could have even gotten a license for the next nearest band. Effectively, it was the bullet between the eyes for our project this time. In the end, we scrapped our microwave and have gone with frame relay service instead. Even with purchasing new frame relay routers and terminal equipment for the outlying cities, it still costs us less and is a lot less aggrivation keeping the infrstructure going (Ameritech has to worry about that now). Actually, I'd think seriously about crontracting with an outside ISP for our dial-up needs. However, my superiors like the idea of owning their own network, and feel there are some things that they may ultimately be able to do that with a private network that ISPs can't address. Probably true. Security is a potential issue if you are contracting with an outisde ISP. One good thing: we still have our tower, and are generating some revenue now by leasing space to serveral commercial serices and civil agencies using the VHF/UHF spectrum. We're actually doing pretty well since the local zoning people have put some stumbling blocks in the way of erecting any more new towers. Bill Mayhew wtm@neoucom.edu Computer Serivces Electrical Engineer NEOUCOM, Rootstown, OH 44272-0095 USA ------------------------------ Date: 10 May 96 08:48:48 -0500 From: Paul Withington Subject: Biological Effects of RF Radiation The biological effect of RF radiation has been a hot topic in the cellular industry for years, so much so that the cellular industry has funded and continues to fund research on this issue. I believe the cellular industry established a group, Wireless Technology Research Limitied Liability Company, to coordinate this research. Their address is: 1711 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-2811 They can point you to studies that have been published in various journals. For example, this month's bulletin announces "[a]n epidemiological study comparing portable hand-held cellular telephone customers and users of mobile, mostly car mounted or bag-type phones shows nearly identical mortality rates." The study's results were published in the latest issue of "Epidemilogy". ------------------------------ From: sewilco@fieldday.mn.org (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Subject: Re: Mobile Phone Radiation / Cancer Link Date: 10 May 1996 10:09:31 -0500 > I've been using an analog mobile phone for the past two years with no > problems. I recently purchased a digital - GH337 about three months > ago. Since then I have had the WORST headaches in history and massive > sharp pains just above my ears. Unless the new phone is in the same style of case as the old phone, the problems might be due to a phone which does not fit your ear or your way of holding the phone. For example, holding the microphone away from a beard can press a flat earpiece against the top back of the ear. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 12:15:59 +0100 From: Peter Judge Subject: One Possible Source of Funding For the Digest Completely irrelevant, but I was once told that {Reader's Digest} was 'sponsored' by the CIA. Did they phone-poll the readers on that? Of course, if it is available, CIA sponsorship might be a viable option for you too ... Peter Judge seeker of truth 89 Upper Tulse Hill follow no path London SW2 2RA UK all paths lead where truth is here Tel/Fax: +44 181 671 4842 e e cummings [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Not only completely irrelevant, but completely irreverant if you ask me. The idea of CIA sponsorship is a bit repugnant. It is known by some people that the American Civil Liberties Union gets grants from an agency in the United States Department of Justice, and I always thought that was a bit strange also. Someone sent a note to me (I can't find it now or I would print it) correcting me on advertising in {Reader's Digest}. They actually began to accept advertising in 1955. They earlier polled their subscribers in 1951 or 1952 on the topic of raising their subscription rates versus accepting advertising and decided to go with the rate increase from fifteen cents to twenty-five cents per month. In 1955 they started to accept advertising in each issue and raised their subscription rates again as well. :) An elderly and long deceased relative of mine was very religious when it came to {Reader's Digest}. She had every issue from Volume 1 #1 stored away in a file cabinet. This was as of about 1955 sometime, with every issue from 1921 onward. I recall the first twenty or thirty years of that magazine it was only about thirty or forty pages per issue, printed on newspaper stock with all articles and pictures, and not a single advertisement for anything. Now of course each issue is a couple hundred pages, printed on nice glossy paper with lots of advertising. The very first issue had a 'welcome to our magazine' type editorial with a picture of Dewitt Wallace and his wife Lila sitting at their kitchen table putting the whole thing together. They lived in a little apartment in Greenwich Village, New York City. They said their plan was to help people who were too busy to read 'all the various magazines and journals being published now' by doing the reading themselves and condensing the most important ideas and news into their new 'easy to read monthly format'. It would be an 'article each day, of enduring significance.' The popularity of RD soon grew to the point it outgrew their apartment and they opened an office for a short time in New York City before going to the 'larger' facilities in Pleasantville, NY which they occupied for many years before outgrowing those. And check out the Table of Contents for those early issues, printed then as now right on the front cover of each issue: In the 1920's there were still people alive (admittedly old people) who remembered seeing and hearing Henry Ward Beecher in person from when they were children in the 1870's. Most issues of RD would include excerpts from his sermons a half-century before. They ran excerpts from all the magazines of their day along with the jokes, etc. In the 1930-50 era, RD had new heroes: every issue would include an article by either Norman Vincent Peale of Marble Collegiate Church or Harry Emerson Fosdick of Riverside Church. Every issue included an article from the {Christian Science Monitor} and usually from the {New York Times}. {Time Magazine} was another favorite of theirs, as was the {Saturday Evening Post} which was then still weekly, every Saturday, at five cents per copy. They were rather fond of Senator Walter Judd (I think he was the senator from Minnesota in the 1950's) and they would always transcribe his remarks and print condensations (those parts they agreed with!) in RD. He would speak at least once a year here at the Chicago Sunday Evening Club in those days and RD would quote his remarks on those occassions piecemeal all year long until the next time he was in town. They liked interviewing bus drivers and train conductors for the 'most unforgettable character they met' and that was a regular feature under that name. You either loved {Reader's Digest} or you absolutely hated it; no one was uncommitted on the magazine. A teacher of mine in high school hated them; he never missed an opportunity to say 'what a big liar Mrs. Wallace is about everything ...' People often said RD would edit the excerpts they chose to print in order to slant things the way they wanted them to be. DeWitt Wallace would always deny it. Beginning with an initial circulation of several hundred copies per month the first year, they grew to *millions* of copies per month in the 1940's. What are they up to now; many millions of copies per month in several languages, with none of the 'characters' they used extensively for the first twenty years ever seen in print any longer. A few of the long running features are still there each month, but the general type of articles they run are altogether different. The Donnelly Press in Chicago, better known as publishers of telephone directories for telcos all over the USA had a contract for many years to print {Reader's Digest}. Two large presses were assigned to the task, both running 23 hours per day either 27 or 28 days per month just printing RD's next issue. A couple days per month were used for maintainence on the presses, and an hour or so daily. Mr. and Mrs. Wallace made a fortune on their product. Every mail order and tele- marketing outfit in the USA today has lust in their heart wanting to get the RD list ... but I understand they guard the list very closely, and only rarely let it out to other businesses. I don't give out or sell the TELECOM Digest subscriber's list either. I've been asked, but I just don't do it. The fact remains however, I have to get a new corporate sponsor sometime *soon*. And I don't plan to take advertising, so don't worry about that. But if by sometime this summer a new corporate sponsor is not found, it will again get harder and harder to keep the bills paid and (of most importance!) the phone -- my link to the net -- turned on. Please bear that in mind and see what can be done. I hate begging. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #231 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri May 10 14:05:58 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA05023; Fri, 10 May 1996 14:05:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 14:05:58 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605101805.OAA05023@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #232 TELECOM Digest Fri, 10 May 96 14:04:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 232 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Archives CD ROM (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Can CID be Altered? (lr@access1.digex.net) Re: Is There an Auto-Gain Control on my Data Line? (Ken Stox) Re: Editorial: Overlaying Area Codes (Dave O'Shea) Re: Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX (Karen Joe) Re: PCS Basestation Location: What Does it Take? (lr@access1.digex.net) Want History of (US) Telecom Book (Leo J. Irakliotis) Re: 10-Digit Dialing is Easy (Bob Goudreau) Re: Toshiba Strata and Voice Mail (Al Niven) Re: 1-800 Number Calling Cards: What to Get? (Jeff Segal) Re: Last Laugh! Robin Loyed Has a Long Commute (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: No More 10-ATT-0 (Linc Madison) Re: MCI True Lies (Michael Quinn) Re: Further Notes to Those Who Ordered Clocks (David Breneman) Re: Wanted: Email to GSM Notification (Jason Crellin) 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, 10 May 1996 13:11:26 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Telecom Archives CD ROM At the start of this year I mentioned that the Telecom Archives was being put on a CD-ROM, and that project is finished. The archives as they were as of the end of 1995 is now available and in stores everywhere. I believe the price in most places is $39.95, but that may vary at different outlets. I have nothing to do with that part of it. The disk can be searched for keywords and phrases. In addition, the indexes which have been available in the Archives itself for a few years now are also included. What you get are the past fourteen years of TELECOM Digest (almost every issue; there were a couple of issues along the way that got erased accidently in year's past); all the essays of George Gilder; all the special reports and special issues of the Digest from the past; the history of area codes files which were prepared by Carl Moore and others; the Frequently Asked Questions file; lots and lots more. Please look for it in stores where computer CD-ROMs are sold. The purchase price includes a small royalty to the Digest. ----------------------- The Telecom Archives remains a free, and open to all users repository of TELECOM Digest and related telecommunications topics. There is no charge for its use via anonymous ftp massis.lcs.mit.edu. In addition, a help file is available to use the Archives via email. Write to tel-archives@massis.lcs.mit.edu for a copy. PAT ------------------------------ From: lr@access5.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: Can CID be Altered? Date: 10 May 1996 17:04:14 GMT Stan.Schwartz@IBMMAIL (usfunx2b@ibmmail.com) wrote: > For the last few weeks, I've been puzzled by a number that had been > appearing on my all of my CID devices (I'm up to 5 in the house). It > wasn't any valid NPA or NNX and the name showed up as "--------------". > Last night, it clicked. The number displayed is the first ten digits > of an account number that I have with a bank in the northeast. This > doesn't seem like mere coincidence to me. What piece of software is > able to manipulate CID, and does the FCC know about this? This has > the potential of rendering CID data useless. You wouldn't happen to have a scanphone or some similar device for accessing your account via the phone lines (or a credit terminal)? The CID string is just a old Bell 202 modem burst, so it's possible that some device is just fooling the CID boxes. Theoretically, the CID boxes aren't supposed to listen when the phone is off hook, but probably aren't real robust. ------------------------------ From: stox@dcdkc.fnal.gov (Ken Stox) Subject: Re: Is There an Auto-Gain Control on my Data Line? Date: 10 May 1996 17:06:47 GMT Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL In article , Justin.Hamilton1@ Bridge.BellSouth.Com (Justin Hamilton) writes: > A quick question, is there anything I can ask my Telco to change on my > data line that may make it perform better? > Is there some Auto-Gain control they can twiddle? > I'm just wondering if I can push my V.34+ to it's absolute limits > since I only get 26.4Kbps to my ISP's V.34+ modems. Sounds like you might be on a SLC-96. If so, 26,400 is as good as it is going to get. Your only hope is to get off the SLC-96. Ken Stox ------------------------------ From: dos@panix.com (Dave O'Shea) Subject: Re: Editorial: Overlaying Area Codes Date: 10 May 1996 12:39:30 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Tad Cook (tad@ssc.com) wrote: > Editorial > {Merced Sun-Star} (Merced, California) on `overlaying' area codes: > The telephone company is proposing the worst idea since somebody came > up with playing Muzak for callers on hold. > It goes by the innocuous name of "overlaying," and it's a plan where > one area code could overlap another. > Under the overlaying concept, it would be possible that a Merced > household with two phone lines could have two different area codes. > It's conceivable that your area code could be different from your > next-door neighbor's but could the same as someone in San Diego ... I have a household where there are four phone lines, and three different prefixes. So what? > While geographically splitting up an area code is easier on customers, > it's harder for the phone company. Pac Bell would prefer the > overlaying area code because it is cheaper to implement. Here in Houston, a geographic split was recently approved. Result: nearly half of the residents will have their phone number changed within the next few months. That's tens of thousands of signs, billboards, letterhead, business cards, invoices, answering services, audio announcements, directories, phone lists, autodialers, and so on all have to be changed. All at the expense of the subscribers. Onder the overlay plan, only *new* service would have been given the new area code. What you got your new phone number, you'd make not appropriately. And since the geographic split makes less efficient use of numbers, a third area code is predicted to be needed within a few years, meaning that several million people get the thrill of changing phone numbers yet again. I fail to see how this is a whole lot easier on the 50% of current customers that are affected. (note to self; buy Kinko's and Moore Business forms stock every time there's another area code split) > If Pac Bell confined the overlaying area code to one kind of service > -- ideally cellular phones that are already mobile -- it could work > with a minimum of trouble. But if the phone company assigns the new > area codes in a helter-skelter way, it will create a customer > nightmare ... The same Luddite nonsense was said when several exchanges covered the same area. People got used to it quickly, and the death toll was lower than predicted by the technophobes. ------------------------------ From: klj@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Karen Joe) Subject: Re: Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX Date: 10 May 1996 12:47:08 -0400 Organization: The George Washington University In article , Atri Indiresan wrote: > At the University of Michigan, we need to dial '9' to access external > lines. The switch is programmed in such a way that, if while dialing > 9-1-(long distance number), the pause is too long after 9-1, it > completes the call as 911. Have the telco change their digit interpretation table to send 91 to intercept tone, and 911 to the emergency 911 number. They should also be able to change their inter-digit timeout setting (usually around 6 seconds) to give the caller more time; this would extend set-up time for variable length calls (e.g., IDDD). Karen L. Joe Internet: klj@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu Voice: 301 774-6571 ------------------------------ From: lr@access5.digex.net (Sir Topham Hatt) Subject: Re: PCS Basestation Location: What Does it Take? Date: 10 May 1996 16:54:02 GMT Organization: Intentionally Left Blank Bob Jacobson (bob@worldesign.com) wrote: > The location of basestations (miniature transceivers) for PCS, > personal communication services, is a complex process. I would be > interested in discussing with PCS network planners and engineers the > intricacies of this process, to better understand what is involved and > how the tools and techniques used can be improved. It's also a lie (that they are miniture) around here. I regularly follow the local planning hearings for siting these things and they are as instrusive and large as conventional cellular sites. Ron ------------------------------ From: irakliot@lance.colostate.edu (Leo J. Irakliotis) Subject: Want History of (US) Telecom Book Date: 10 May 1996 16:18:59 GMT Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 I am looking for one (two at most) books outlining the history of the telecom industry in the US. In particular, I am insterested in the era spanning from Theodore Vail's universal service vision, all the way to MCI's judicial fight in the late 1970s and AT&T's divestiture in early 1980s. If such a book is not available (yet), I will appreciate any reference(s) to papers, artixles, and other texts dealing with the particular subject. Direct responses via private email will be greatly appreciated. Regards, Leo Irakliotis irakliot@lance.colostate.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 10:55:48 -0400 From: goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) Subject: Re: 10-Digit Dialing is Easy Mark J. Cuccia writes: > IMO, there *SHOULD ALWAYS* be a *MANDATORY* '1+' required before *ANY* > toll call. All toll calls would be dialed as ten-digits, regardless of > whether it is in the Home NPA or in a distant NPA, and regardless of > "local" dialing procedures. Er, don't you mean *eleven* digits (1-NPA-NXX-NXXX)? Given that true ten-digit dialing (NPA-NXX-XXXX) also has a role to play (as you describe later), it is important not to confuse the two. > Local calls would be dialable as > ten-digits *anywhere and everywhere*-- it would be required in dense > metro areas while *strongly* recommended everywhere else. Less dense > areas would still be able to "get by" with seven-digits, although > telco's printed directories and directory assistance quoting should > always be in the full ten-digit format. > ... > Rural areas *should* still be allowed to use full ten=digits, > permissive seven-digits, and even four or five digits, as long as the > local dialing area is not really complex >... > Also, *any* local call *should* be dialable even as 1+ten-digits and > should not be charged any tolls. The "1+" would be *required* on all > toll calls (ten-digits) but shouldn't be prohibited even on ten-digit > local calls. So, to summarize these rules (which I like too), the uniform dialing plan for toll calls would become the one already used by a large majority of the NANP: 11 digits: always allowed and required ... while the dialing plan for local calls would standardize as: 11 digits: always allowed 10 digits: always allowed 7 digits: allowed in some (less dense) areas, but only for local calls within the same NPA 4/5 digits: *never* required, but allowed (in extremely rare cases) as a short-cut for local dialing *if* the telco permits, and only if there is no possibility of ambiguity Bob Goudreau Data General Corporation goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com 62 Alexander Drive +1 919 248 6231 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA ------------------------------ From: Al Niven Subject: Re: Toshiba Strata and Voice Mail Date: 10 May 1996 15:06:13 GMT Organization: Video, Voice, and Data, Inc. Putting voicemail on a strata is difficult but I have done it twice. Which strata do you have? 6 or 12? Basically you will need single line cards and a ring generator and a "tail", then you will be able to transfer callers into a mailbox and also have auto-attendant. You will loop back a line port to an analog station port in order to give the analog port touch tone capability. On the strata after you dial an analog port the handset "goes dead" so there would be no way to enter dtmf to retrieve your messages. So you have to do this "loop back". By the way, I have a Vicki dongle (Vicki Voicemail) sitting in my drawer which I could give you for $500 which is a real steal. I have installed over 15 brands of voice mail on something like 250 PBX's but I really don't do voicemail much these days as the money has graduated into custom ivr (interactive voice response) systems. Two analog ports, ring generator, and tail will probably cost $500 - get them from any secondary dealer listed in "Telecom Gear". Installation and loopback will probably cost another $300 from your local phone vendor. Al Niven Video, Voice, and Data, Inc. 292 Fifth Avenue, #201 NY NY 10001 212-714-3531 ------------------------------ From: jeffsegal@aol.com (Jeff Segal) Subject: Re: 1-800 Number Calling Cards: What to Get? Date: 10 May 1996 11:51:30 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: jeffsegal@aol.com (Jeff Segal) You might also consider using the NYNEX "Change Card" that is usable at the YELLOW payphones located around the campus and the city. They are much easier to use and make a great souvenier!. You can get cards from NYNEX Customer Service by calling 1-800-545-EASY. ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 15:41:48 GMT Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Robin Loyed Has a Long Commute Each Day In article I said: > ... www.switchboard.com reports precisely one Robin Loyed in all > of America ... > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: . . . . An entire check of 816/913 > produced only one listing for 'Loyed' ... Here's a listing for Robin Loyed in Texas: Loyed, Robin (male) [approximate birth date 00/54] Loyed, Roxanne (female) [approximate birth date 09/57] Loyed, W. Address: 601 Vicksburg Ct., South Lake TX 76092-9379 County: Tarrant Type: single family Purchase date: 10/5/1995 Mortgage amount: $370,000 Telephone: 1-817-481-9838 I hope this helps Sprint customers to get the information they need. I would stress however that there is no absolute proof this is the same party; nor under any circumstances should harrassing phone calls be made to him or family members. It may well be this is the same person whose earlier phone listing in Shawnee Mission, Kansas is no longer in service. You'll want to verify it is the same person before discussing any business matters, and a final attempt to reach Robin Loyed at his office would also be in order. In the event it is the person who works for Sprint, should he question why you are calling at home a valid response would be, 'because you do not accept phone calls at your office!'. Encourage him to accept phone calls at the office and offer to call him at the office if he agrees to become responsive to customers who do so. Remember: NO HARRASSMENT; NO REPEAT CALLS, ETC. If you are told not to call someone a second time, then honor that request. When I tried the number just now, an answering machine with a child's voice came on the line saying 'we are not home right now, leave us a message please.' PAT ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Subject: Re: No More 10-ATT-0 Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 00:40:04 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , zev@wireless.attmail.com (zev) wrote: > Dave Yewell (and similarly Ron/Sir Topham Hatt) >> Zev, could be that way in your part of the world, but I was in >> Monterey CA yesterday, and could not use 102880 to call within the >> area code. The LD provider on the pay phone was not ATT, so I thought >> I could get ATT access with 102880 - no luck, just "sorry your call >> cannot be completed as dialed". > Try dialing with a 10-digit number. Here in Oakland, if I dial 102880 > and follow that with a 7-digit number, I get reorder after 3 digits > (when the CO can tell it's not an NPA), but if I dial 10 digits > (starting with my area code of 510) I get the AT&T bong tone and > branding. You cannot dial 0 + 7-digits for any call in North America on any carrier. It is prohibited everywhere. If you dial 0+ you must *ALWAYS* dial the area code, even if it is the same. This is because area codes and prefixes are now fully interchangeable. If you are dial 0-423-xxxx, for example, there is no way except timeout for the switch to tell whether you're calling 0-423-xxxx (in your own area code) or 0-423-xxx-xxxx (in eastern Tennessee). To keep the user interface as uniform as possible, you must now dial 11 digits for all 0+ calls. This applies for 0+, 10XXX-0+, and 101XXXX-0+. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 09 May 1996 19:29:00 GMT From: Quinn Michael Subject: Re: MCI True Lies This is a followup to my earlier note in TC Digest #225 about the discrepancy beween MCI's marketing rep, and the actual provisions of their long distance plan. After another fruitless discussion with a service rep the next day, I finally reached the "escalation desk", and spoke with a supervisor, who essentially corroborated what the customer service reps had told me. He said he would refer my complaint, and that I should receive a call within 96 hours. And indeed, I was called today by a knowledgeable and helpful manager in the "Executive Office", who apologized for the incorrect information I had received, expressed puzzlement at the source of the info that the telemarketer had used (never did he imply that I had misunderstood the terms), and offered to comply with the terms that the telemarketer had offered. By this time I had already shifted back to Sprint, so I declined. He also expressed concern for my multiple tries to reach a supervisor, asked for specifics on the times I had called, noted that are "escalation procedures" that the reps should have known and used, and indicated that they would take corrective action. Case successfully closed, albeit not without some frustration and wasted time, and as several TELECOM Digest readers kindly observed, the lesson learned is: get the offer in writing before jumping. ------------------------------ From: david.breneman@attws.com (David Breneman) Subject: Re: Further Notes to Those Who Ordered Clocks Date: 10 May 1996 19:56:21 GMT Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. In article roellig@cig.mot.com (Eric Roellig) writes: > TELECOM Digest Editor writes: >> This is a note to those of you who contacted Jim Hill regards getting >> Western Union clocks. > I finally got mine last week. It's nice to hear that somebody got a response from Mr. Hill. I sent him email asking about the clocks and in response got a copy of the announcement posted here -- for all I know it could have been an autoreply. I sent mail again asking for a copy of the gif that the announcement said was available, but got no reply. Assuming he was having trouble with the picture, I sent mail again about a week later saying that the picture wasn't necessary, but I'd like to know if he had any left, and a description of them. Nothing in reply. A couple weeks later a followup. Again nothing. I never heard anything back except the original reply which, as I said, was verbatim what was posted here. Does anybody know of a reliable way to reach Mr. Hill? Or, if there are any clocks left? David Breneman "Better things for better living Unix System Administrator through radio telephony." AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. david.breneman@attws.com Ph: +1-206-803-7362 Fx: +1-206-803-7410 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am sorry to hear about your experience. All I can tell you is he is in Lompoc, California and I think perhaps he has a clock shop there although I do not know that for certain. At one point he wrote me and said if he had a dozen more clocks, he could have sold them all, based on the amount of mail he got. If he simply quit answering mail because he ran out of the clocks and got so much mail he could not respond to it all, that is one thing. If any of you sent money and did not get a clock that is quite different, but I have heard nothing like that from anyone. No one has reported any dishonesty, and most of those who wrote me said they did get a clock or an answer eventually from him. If anyone else knows a source for old Western Union clocks please let me know; I will post it here. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jason Crellin Subject: Re: Wanted: Email to GSM Notification Date: 10 May 1996 12:59:41 GMT Organization: The Post Office (UK) I dont know of any commercially available software -- but I'd be interested in any details you obtain. It should be fairly simple to build a macro which composes a new message on receipt, and sends it via an email/ sms gateway to your phone. You could hardcode a standard notification or get it to strip out the title and part of the message (ie up to 160 characters). Sonnet Systems Limited (0181 664 6000) runs a commercial gateway to Cellnet, Vodaphone & Orange, though its relatively expensive. There are other commercial gateway providers but I dont have any details. Jason ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #232 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon May 13 12:37:04 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA19536; Mon, 13 May 1996 12:37:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:37:04 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605131637.MAA19536@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #233 TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 May 96 12:37:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 233 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson NYNEX Spends Millions To Promote Obsolete Name (Van Heffner) Cheap, Secure Transactions via Modem (Carl E. Grzybowski) CMIP, CORBA and SNMP People Needed! (Michael J. Amend) Sprint Business Sense Billing Errors (srb@t10.lanl.gov) Local Broadcast of Apple Development Conference 5/15 (Kelly Breit) Judge Dwyer Decision: Cities Can Regulate Wireless Facilities (B Jacobson) ITAA Slams ACTA On Net Phone Issue (Van Heffner) Excel Goes Public (Tad Cook) Escaping From the Tele-Slime (Andy Sherman) Suggestion: Place Introductory Message at End of Digest (Leo Bueno) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 23:34:38 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: NYNEX Spends Millions To Promote Obsolete Name Pat, Another humorous article about NYNEX! OPINION: Those Friendly Local Monopolies By Michael S. Lelyveld, The Journal of Commerce Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 13 -- Why is Nynex spending millions on name-identification ads when it is about to become Bell Atlantic? The answer is, it's hard to tell. The Northeast phone giant has launched a huge campaign for the Nynex name with full-page ads in the shape of a modular plug, coinciding with the April 22 announcement that it will merge with Bell Atlantic to be called, of all things, Bell Atlantic. Nynex officials are better at explaining these things than I am. "That's not an image campaign," said Jan Keeler, Nynex vice president for marketing communications. "That's a brand-retention campaign." The curious part is that the brand name won't be around for long. The problem for Nynex is that it won't be known as Bell Atlantic until it completes its $22 billion merger in about a year. In the meantime, it has to advertise something because deregulation will bring competition for local phone service onto its turf starting Oct. 1. Switching the "attributes" to Bell Atlantic should be relatively easy later on, said Ms. Keeler. Nynex won't say what it is spending on the campaign. Watching monopolies worry about competition is more interesting than the ads they produce. The Nynex appeal is to our reliance on the little plug -- and the big company behind it -- for everything from friendship to cold sesame noodles. Personally, I prefer hot noodles and still have doubts about the plugs -- that is, the ads. It seems that every time telecommunications companies split or merge, thousands of jobs are lost. Each time, the change comes with an ad campaign, leaving some to wonder why they don't just save their breath, their budgets and some people at the same time. In the case of the Nynex-Bell Atlantic merger, the companies plan to cut 3,000 jobs to save $300 million. It's less than AT&T's plan to shed 40,000 workers, but analysts say there may be more layoffs to come. Nynex argues that without ads to "grow" the business, it can't create jobs. That's believable. But I also can't help thinking that the telecommunications industry loves those plugs. Electric utilities face similar deregulation pressures, but we hear far less about their juice. There must be something about telecommunications that makes people talk. For a decade after the 1984 AT&T breakup, consumers in my icy corner of the country were jangled by jingles for New England Telephone. "We're the one for you, New England -- New England Telephone," they crooned. The operative word was "one." It was a monopoly, and there seemed to be little call for an ad barrage. Now, New England Telephone has given way to Nynex, which still calls itself "the one" that "brings it all to you." Soon, Nynex will be gone, too. While competition may give phone companies a reason to advertise, the fact is they advertise whether there is competition or not. Are they worried that we will start using two Dixie cups and a string, or do they just love the sound of their own voice? If they can save money on people, why not on ads? How about a half-page ad that reads, "We spent the other half on a job." That's the one that will get my call. Michael Lelyveld is national correspondent for The Journal of Commerce. ------------------- Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ ------------------------------ From: grzbo@teleport.com (Carl E Grzybowski) Subject: Cheap, Secure Transactions via Modem Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 21:51:44 -0700 Seeking ideas for conducting secure event transactions between a central web server and many remote locations nationwide via a dedicated modem connections to the Internet. Any advice would be appreciated. Work Flow: New entries and updates to the custom POS database (ODBC) will need to be posted in near real time to a central web server database residing on the Internet. A copy of the combined inventory, derived from the many remote locations, will made available for query. Specific requests made through the central server will then be authenticated (via encrypted keys) and forwarded to the associated location. Confirmation of the change will need to be reported back to the central server and the end user. Network: Since the amount of data to be exchanged each day is very small (approx 100K) an analog connection will be sufficient for performance. ISDN is not available in most locations. To get the near real time response the circuits must be dedicated. (In most locations unlimited Internet access is available for $20/month - although a Dynamic IP address may be assigned) At the remote locations the database will be hosted on Windows NT or Novell server. The client application runs on Windows 3.1.1 workstations. The LAN protocol would be either NETBEUI, IPX or TCP/IP over Ethernet. Alternative One: A modem could be connected directly to the server or a LAN connected workstation. In this scenario: What would be the best way to keep both the Network and COM port be active at the same time? Is it possible to create a secure connection to avoid unauthorized access? Alternative Two: A modem would be connected to a inexpensive PC that provides a secure gateway into the LAN and pass only the transaction data. What type of programing would be required? Are there any commercial packages that do this? Alternative Three: A inexpensive router or network modem that supports access rights and filtering. Any suggestions and how this would be set up? Is there ANY other way to do this (i.e. X.25) without a lot of network or H/W S/W costs at each site? I prefer e-mail, but feel free to post responses too if you think it'd be useful to others. Thanks in advance, Carl Grzybowski grzbo@year.com 1-503-293-2573 Grzbo@teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~grzbo ------------------------------ From: mamend@eos.eos.net (michael j amend) Subject: CMIP, CORBA and SNMP People Needed! Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 01:17:16 +0100 Organization: the apex group We have many IMMEDIATE contract or permanent positions available in Seattle, San Jose and St. Louis for people with any of these skillsets. Seattle: CMIP or strong telnet background, C++, UNIX, networking, or a good combination of the above. Availability is immediate and flexible. Pay is OPEN. 100% on-site is preferred, but the right candidates may be able to do a 50% onsite/50% remote split. St. Louis: CORBA, Object Oriented Design or programming and NT experience is a pre-requisite. Availability is immediate and flexible. Pay is OPEN. 100% on-site is preferred, but some may qualify for a 50/50 split onsite/remote. San Jose: SNMP/OSI or strong telnet experience, C++ and UNIX is preferred. Any combination of the above will be considered. Availability is immediate and flexible. Pay is OPEN. If you qualify for any of the above positions, please email your resume to me at mamend@eos.net at your earliest convenience. If you want to fax your resume or have any questions please call me at 513-398-3501. Please leave a voice mail if I am not available and I will return your call as promptly as possible. We also have many other positions available thoughout the U.S. If you kinow someone that may have the above qualifications, please forward them this message. If you would like to be considered for another position, please email or fax us your resume. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mike Amend mamend@eos.net 513-398-3501 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 96 08:14:56 MDT From: srb@t10.Lanl.GOV (srb) Subject: Sprint Business Sense Billing Errors Hi all, Due to a billing errors Sprint is charging to the Friday calls made prior to 4/19 to the so called blacklisted countries. The rep simply told that it was a 'computer billing error' and agreed to give credit. Sam [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So, now they have reneged completely on that part of the Friday Free program; even going so far as to backdate all the calls people assumed would be free under the terms of the agreement. What a bunch of con artists! As has been stressed here before, Sprint customers with disputes of any kind on their bill and *especially* those customers who have been vitimized in the so-called 'Friday free' promotion should be withholding all payments from Sprint until Robin Loyed and/or others involved respond with written explan- ations and the required credit. You are not required under Federal Trade Commission rules to pay bills in dispute until the dispute has been resolved. Instruct your accounts payable department to place a complete freeze on all payments Sprint alleges are due to them until they get this mess straightened out. If enough customers refuse to pay them anything at all, Sprint will eventually begin inquiring what is wrong. Then you tell them, and demand they make it right. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 16:03:02 -0500 From: kelly.breit@netalliance.net (Kelly Breit) Subject: Local Broadcast of Apple Development Conference 5/15 Forwarded to the Digest FYI: From: JULIBER1@AppleLink.Apple.COM (Juliber, Curtis) Subject: Broadcast of Dev. Conf 5/15 ***Apple's World Wide Developer's Conference (WWDC) Satellite Broadcast*** ***Wednesday, May 15*** Find out what's new and exciting at Apple Computer with Apple's new strategic direction as well as internet and components technology ... See the satellite broadcast of keynotes by Dr. Gil Amelio and Larry Tesler and Cyberdog and OpenDoc sessions from Apple's World Wide Developers' Conference in San Jose, CA. Logistics: ---------- Date: Wednesday, May 15th Time: 10:30 am - 5:30 pm CST Come and go as your schedule allows. A box lunch will be provided around 11:15 am. Where: Apple Computer Market Center 8400 Normandale Lake Blvd., Suite 250 Bloomington, MN 55437 (494 & Normandale/Hwy 100) R.S.V.P. via email to Heidi Bodette: bodette@applelink.apple.com Limited space is available, so R.S.V.P. ASAP. Sessions: --------- 10:30-11:10: Keynote: Apple's New Strategic Direction --Dr. Gil Amelio, CEO 11:10-12:30: Keynote: Apple's Internet Strategy --Larry Tesler, R&D VP 12:30- 1:30: OpenDoc: The Future is Here 1:30- 2:30: Cyberdog Unleashed 2:30- 3:30: Cyberdog: Building Internet Components 3:30- 4:30: Adding Internet to Your Applications 4:30- 5:30: Cross-Platform OpenDoc Detailed Session Descriptions: Session Title: Gil Amelio's Apple Strategy Keynote Session Length: 40 minutes Session Title: Larry Tesler's Internet Strategy Keynote Session Length: 80 minutes Session Title: OpenDoc: The Future is Here Description: Now that OpenDoc is shipping to end users, true component software is a reality. This session will provide a strategic overview of where OpenDoc is today as well as how it will affect the future of software development. Whether you're an ISV, in-house developer, or solutions provider, you won't want to miss hearing how OpenDoc creates new opportunities for revolutionary products. Session Length: 60 minutes Session Title: Cyberdog Unleashed Description: Cyberdog is here and the Internet will never be the same. In this session, we'll take you on a tour of Apple's new OpenDoc-based Internet client and point out opportunities for you to leverage Cyberdog in your own software. Session Length: 60 minutes Session Title: Cyberdog: Building Internet Components Description: Learn how to use Cyberdog to easily create Internet components. This session is for all N&C developers as well as anyone with data types accessed via a network. Session Length: 60 minutes Session Title: Adding Internet to Your Application Description: See how easy it is to enable your current software to support Cyberdog. This session explains how to convert your existing application into an OpenDoc container that supports the embedding of parts. Session Length: 60 minutes Session Title: Cross Platform OpenDoc Description: OpenDoc isn't only for MacOS. This session profiles the Windows and AIX versions of OpenDoc and provides tips on how you can easily produce platform-specific versions of your component software. Session Length: 60 minutes Late breaking news and more information about this event will be posted to our web sites on Monday, May 6th. http://opendoc.apple.com http://cyberdog.apple.com Please join us for this very exciting day! ------------------------------ From: Bob Subject: Judge Dwyer Decision: Cities Can Regulate Wireless Facilities Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 15:00:12 -0700 Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C. In a court case decided last week in Seattle, Federal District Court Judge Dwyer ruled that cities' land-use regulatory powers unaffected by the new Telecommunications Reform Act, which sought to overrule those powers in favor of vendors' locating facilities wherever they liked. The case was the City of Medina (Bill Gates's future home), which refused to permit Sprint Express to locate a PCS tower adjacent to Highway 520, one of the main commuter routes between Seattle and its suburbs. This means that PCS, cellular -- in fact, all providers of telecom service except actual public utilities, if any are left -- must get local governments to approve sitings of equipment. Given the tight five-year deadline imposed on the PCS industry by the FCC, to get up and running, some means of reaching an accommodation is urgently needed; and a process to carry it out. Otherwise, vendors may not be able to provide service in a timely fashion and users may not be able to get service. The cities aren't bad guys; the telecommunications industry should have considered this possibility before using the bludgeon of legislation to get their way. An appeal, by the way, could take longer than the FCC's fiat that all PCS systems must be up and running by 2000. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 00:02:08 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: ITAA Slams ACTA On Net Phone Issue From: Newsbytes WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A., 1996 MAY 10 (NB) -- Seeking to block "modern day Luddites" the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) has called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to deny a petition filed to block the growth of telephone calls made over the Internet. In comments filed with the FCC this week, ITAA termed the American's Carriers Telecommunications Association (ACTA) a "modern day Luddite," seeking to maintain the status quo, ITAA spokesman Bob Cohen told Newsbytes. ACTA has asked the FCC to impose severe restrictions on Internet software vendors, asserting that such companies act as telecommunications carriers by allowing telephone calls on the Internet, Cohen said. The petition filed by ACTA last March requested the Commission to order computer software vendors to stop providing Internet telephone software unless they comply with provisions of the Communications Act of 1996. ACTA also asked the FCC to assert its jurisdiction over interstate and international telecommunications services provided through the Internet, and that the Commission institute a rule making on the kinds of telecommunications services which may be transmitted over the Internet. "The ACTA petition is thoroughly misguided, both in terms of legal interpretation and marketplace intent,' ITAA President Harris N. Miller told Newsbytes. "The group (ACTA) is seeking to make the FCC a modern day King Canute trying to hold back the technological waves," Miller said. In its comments to the FCC, ITAA called the claim that Internet telephone software vendors are telecommunications carriers "preposterous." ITAA also noted that Title II of the Communications Act "applies only to common carriers providing basic transmission services," and that Internet telephone software vendors "provide neither a service nor a transmission capacity." ITAA also rejected ACTA's argument that FCC regulation is required to maintain marketplace competition, calling the assertion "eerily reminiscent of an era whose time has long since passed." Even if Internet voice transmissions were free, which they are not, Cohen said, "such a circumstance would still be irrelevant to the regulation of Internet telephone software as a telecommunications service." (Bill Pietrucha/19960510/Press Contact: Bob Cohen, Information Technology Association of America, tel 703-284-5333) ------------------ Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS - Eureka, California Van Hefner PublisherDiscount Long Distance Digest 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: Tad Cook Subject: Excel Goes Public Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 01:02:06 PDT Excel Communications Stock Nearly Doubles on First Day NEW YORK (AP) -- Shares in Excel Communications Inc., a long-distance marketer whose methods have yielded both hyperfast growth and controversy, nearly doubled on their first day of trading Friday. Excel's stock, priced at $15 on Thursday, opened at $27, rose as high as $33.12 1/2 and closed at $29.37 1/2 on the New York Stock Exchange. About 11 million shares changed hands, making it the most actively-traded stock on NYSE. The company issued 10 million shares, about 9 percent of its 107.5 million total. At $29.37 1/2 each, Excel emerged with a market value of $3.16 billion. The Dallas-based company's marketing has drawn scrutiny from some state attorneys general and its accounting practices have raised eyebrows on Wall Street. Excel buys long-distance minutes from Frontier Communications in Rochester, N.Y., and resells them through direct marketing representatives. Its revenue has grown from $31 million in 1993 to $507 million last year. The company recruits people to sell the long-distance time as well as recruit other sellers, a tactic known as multi-level marketing that is also used by companies like Mary Kay Cosmetics or Amway. The representatives earn money from the sale of long-distance service plus bonuses for the performance of the people they recruit. While Excel is besieged by people wishing to become marketers, it is also having a hard time retaining previous representatives. The company has also acknowledged that claims by some of its representatives have prompted consumer complaints to attorneys general in some states. On Wall Street, analysts have raised questions about the way Excel defers expenses, which makes earnings look better than they are. The company last year reported a profit of $44.5 million. But it deferred expenses of $85 million in the first two months of this year along. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 00:01:19 -0400 From: Andy Sherman Organization: Home, Home on the Range Subject: Escaping From the Tele-slime > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Bear in mind however you still have to > receive that first call before you can tell them not to call in the > future, and the results obtained when you tell them that are dubious > at best. It is quite time-consuming to enforce your rights. PAT] When I tell a phone solicitor firmly I'm not interested early in the conversation, guess what happens? They get off and call the next guy. Remember, these guys don't get commissions for making you angry, they get commissions for selling something. If you are an obvious no-sale, they won't waste their time. The ones I get rid of in two seconds flat are the brokers and investment counselors. If you don't mind lying, you can use this one too: "Look, save your energy. I work for (name any large investment bank or broker-dealer) and as you would certainly know I can only trade through the office." Andy (from home) ------------------------------ From: Leo Bueno Subject: Suggestion: Place Introductory Message at End of Digest Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 08:52:43 EDT Although I look forward to reading the digest of messages in this list every time I log on and check my mail, I have read the introductory message (the one that describes the list, tells of its sources of funding, etc.) enough. Yes, I can scroll past it, but man, I've had to do it a zillion times already. I urge our list manager to consider placing the introductory stuff at the *end* of each digest message. What do you think? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Okay, I'll try it that way for awhile. But if I catch anyone not reading it all the way through to the end I'll put it back on top where it always was before! PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #233 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Mon May 13 14:23:11 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA29428; Mon, 13 May 1996 14:23:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 14:23:11 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605131823.OAA29428@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #234 TELECOM Digest Mon, 13 May 96 14:23:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 234 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telecom Archives CDROM Ordering Details (TELECOM Digest Editor) Call For Papers: Enterprise Networking (ENM-97) (Michael W. Goodwin) Book Review: "NetWare to Internet Gateways" by Gaskin (Rob Slade) Public Comment on Area Codes (Tad Cook) PCS "Offered" in the Carolinas (Stan Schwartz) Drastic Changes at BellSouth -- $33 For all Features (Ron Elkayam) WUTCO, WECO, Graybar (was Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper) (Mark J. Cuccia) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Telecom Archives CDROM Ordering Details Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 18:42:16 -0700 From: TELECOM Digest Editor People have been asking how to order the Telecom Archives CDROM by mail order. Not everyone has been able to find it in a store as of yet. If you can find it in a store, you will save on the shipping charges, however it might simply be easier for you to order it direct from the publisher, so details are given below. The Telecom Archives is a fifteen year collection of the stuff which has appeared in TELECOM Digest since 1981 along with a few hundred other files of telecom related material. There are a lot of technical files, historical files, etc. Everything that was there through the end of 1995 is included. The cost is $39.95. Please buy a copy, as the royalties will help me a lot. Also, if sales are good, there will be an update with the 1996 material on it at some future point. ============================================================================ shipping information: ============================================================================ Shipping is $5 in the USA, Canada, and Mexico for First Class. Overseas is $9 PER ORDER. There is an additional $3 COD charge (USA Only). UPS Blue Label (2nd day) [USA Only] is $10 PER ORDER, UPS Red Label (next day) [USA Only] is $15 PER ORDER. Federal Express (next day) [USA Only] is $20 PER ORDER. For overseas courier rates, please email us. Ordering Information: You can order by sending a check or money order to Walnut Creek CDROM Suite E 4041 Pike Lane Concord CA 94520 USA 1 800 786-9907 (Toll Free Sales) [open 24HRS] +1 510 674-0783 (Sales-International) +1 510 603-1234 (tech support) [M-F 9AM - 5PM, PST] +1 510 674-0821 (FAX) orders@cdrom.com (For placing an order) info@cdrom.com (For requesting more information or for customer service questions) support@cdrom.com (For technical questions and technical support) majordomo@cdrom.com (Info Robot-automated product information and support) We accept Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover, and Diner's Club. ALL credit card orders MUST include a phone or fax number. COD shipping is available for $8.00 in the US only, NO COD shipping to P O Boxes. Checks and Money Orders payable in US funds, can be sent along with ordering information to our normal business address. California residents please add sales tax. Shipping and handling is $5 (per ORDER, not per disc) for US, Canada, and Mexico, and $9 for overseas (AIRMAIL) shipping. Please allow 14 working days ( 3 weeks ) for overseas orders to arrive. Most orders arrive in 1-2 weeks. -------------------- Therefore, unless you want next day delivery by FedEx which would make it quite expensive you would send $39.95 plus $5 to Walnut Creek at thier address above, or authorize them to charge your credit card, etc. As noted also, customers outside the USA need to pay additional shipping costs. Write to Walnut Creek at the addresses above. If you can find it in a retail outlet then you save shipping and handling charges. In any event, please buy one today! PAT -------------------- The Telecom Archives remains a free resource for the Internet and is available using anonymous ftp massis.lcs.mit.edu. ------------------------------ From: Michael.W.Goodwin@att.com Subject: Call For Papers: Enterprise Networking (ENM-97) Date: 12 May 1996 18:56:45 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories A Mini-conference on Enterprise Networking (ENM-97) is being organized to be held in parallel and co-located with the ICC-97 (8-12 June 1997 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada). A separate proceedings will be published and each of the ENM-97 registrants will receive a copy. ENM-97 (June 11-12, 1997) is sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society's Technical Committee on Enterprise Networking. It provides an open forum for the enterprise networking communities to review the new and emerging technologies, services, their implications from both business and technological viewpoints. The objective is to bridge the gap across: (a) Enterprise-wide business drivers and (b) Technology- driven solutions and enablers. Some examples of enterprise drivers are: (i) Cost reduction via process re-engineering, (ii) Revenue enhancement using new services, (iii) Effective interaction, efficient information access and distribution across the enterprise. The mini-conference includes keynote speeches, panel discussions, papers and poster sessions by the leaders, recognized experts and active researchers in the field. Special emphasis will be put on case studies involving efficient design/re-design, operations and management of enterprise wide computing and communications utilities with the right mix of technology and business process updates. Instructions: The title page must include corresponding author's full name, complete postal and e-mail addresses, telephone and fax numbers, and a 200-word abstract. Five double-spaced copies of the panel proposals and papers (12 point times font, maximum 3000 words) on 8.5"x11" papers should be sent to the ENM-97 program chair at the address given below. Schedule: Complete Manuscript Due: November 15, 1996 Acceptance Note Mailed: February 01, 1997 Camera-ready Paper Due: March 01, 1997 Technical areas of interest include but are not limited to: * Utilization of new and emerging technologies like ATM, PCS, CTI, full-duplex LAN services, etc. for evolution of enterprise networks to meet business and customers needs, * IntraNets, Middlenets and Internets: How they are shaping Enterprise Networks, * Handling of the legacy systems or technologies with the new and emerging ones for graceful migration to deployment of new technologies, * Integration of subsystems of enterprise networks, such as e-mail gateways, LAN switches, bridges and routers, database systems, and security and authentication mechanisms with the internets to provide "end-user" oriented services, such as video- conferencing, multi-media mails, etc., * Integration between applications and services offered by the enterprise network itself e.g., multicast service, policy routing, information retrieval, etc., * Interconnection and interoperability of all pieces of an enterprise network * Enterprise-wide computing, including distributed processing systems, distributed applications, client-serving computing, etc. * Enterprise information resource management. Enterprise Networks Management (e.g., configuration, fault, performance, accounting, security, etc.), * Business processes re-engineering using computer and communications resources distributed across the organization * Pros and cons of outsourcing the operations, management and design of enterprise networks, Negotiating for outsourcing, Insourcing after outsourcing, etc., * Integration of network and systems management from an enterprise viewpoint. * Interaction and relationship of public versus private networks, especially in light of the Telecom Act of Feb.08, 1996. Program Committee: Chair: Bhumip Khasnabish, GTE Labs. Inc., 40 Sylvan Rd., Waltham, MA 02254, USA. Tel +1-617-466-2080, Fax +1-617-890-9320 E-Mail: bhumip@gte.com Vice-Chairs: Ken Pogran (pogran@bbn.com), BBN, USA Douglas N. Zuckerman (w2xd@mtnms.att.com), AT&T, USA Publicity Chair: Vijay K. Bhagavath (bhagavath@bell-labs.com), Bell Labs., USA Business and Finance: Robert S. Braudy (braudyb@aol.com), BTG, LLC, NJ, USA. Local Arrangements (TBC): Mustafa K. Mehmet-Ali (mustafa@ece.concordia.ca), Concordia Univ., Canada ComSoc Co-Ordinator: Tom Stevenson (t.stevenson@ieee.org), IEEE ComSoc HQ, USA Committee Members (to-date): Majid Ahmadi , U. of Windsor, Canada Salah Aidarous, NorTel, Canada Vijay K. Bhagavath, Bell Labs., USA Robert S. Braudy, BTG, USA Nim K. Cheung, Bellcore, USA. Celia L. Desmond, Stentor Canada Chris Douligeris, U. of Miami, USA Ahmed Elhakeem, Concordia U., Canada Bob Fike, RNF Systems, USA Harvey Freeman, LANWORKS, USA Jerry Hayes, Concordia Univ., Canada Heinz-Gerd Hegering,LRZ M., Germany Ron Horn, NorTel, Canada Rudolf Jaeger, BetaTechnik, Germany David Kirsch, NDC, USA John E. Knecht, Bell Labs., USA Ken Lutz, Bellcore, USA Branislav Meandzija, GI, USA Hussein Mouftah, Queen's U., Canada Robert J. Ordemann, Boeing, USA Craig Partridge, BBN, USA Ken Pogran, BBN, USA Roberto Saracco, CSELT, Italy Steve Weinstein, NEC, USA Yechiam Yemini, Columbia U., USA Mac Yoshida, NTT, Japan Wolfgang Zimmer, Germany Douglas N. Zuckerman, AT&T, USA. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 10:07:06 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "NetWare to Internet Gateways" by Gaskin BKNWINGT.RVW 960417 "NetWare to Internet Gateways", James E. Gaskin, 1996, 0-13-521774-1, U$44.95 %A James E. Gaskin james@gaskin.com jgaskin@mcimail.com %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1996 %G 0-13-521774-1 %I Prentice Hall %O U$44.95 +1-201-236-7139 fax: +1-201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 532 %T "NetWare to Internet Gateways" As with his earlier "Novell's Guide to Integrating UNIX and NetWare Networks" (cf. BKNGIUNN.RVW), Gaskin has put together an extremely useful reference for a very interesting topic. NetWare LANs often need connectivity to other systems, with the Internet being the hot topic of the moment. Six chapters provide the basic concepts and background. There is an overview of the Internet itself, technological aspects and ideas, the business case for the use of the net, service providers, connection options, and access procedures. The bulk of the book consists of detailed reviews of major Internet gateway systems for NetWare, arranged by platform. (Demonstration versions of six of these are included on a companion CD for the readers' own assessment.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKNWINGT.RVW 960417. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca | "In questions of science, the Institute for rslade@vanisl.decus.ca | authority of a thousand is not Research into Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/| worth the humble reasoning User .fidonet.org| of a single individual." Security Canada V7K 2G6 | - Galileo ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Public Comment on Area Codes Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 10:25:35 PDT SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 10, 1996--In a victory for consumer rights, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has ruled that Californians have the right to receive information about and be heard on multiple area code relief plans, rather than being limited to commenting on only one proposal. The ruling by Administrative Law Judge Thomas R. Pulsifer came as a blow to a coalition of companies led by long-distance giants AT&T, MCI and Sprint, which asked the Commission in March to allow only one type of area code relief plan -- a geographic split -- to be discussed at upcoming public meetings next month for the 415, 714 and 916 area codes. "This is clearly a setback for those companies trying to stifle and limit public comment and involvement in the area code relief process," said John Gueldner, regulatory vice president for Pacific Bell. "This sends a clear signal that the CPUC believes the industry should provide more -- not less -- information to consumers." Both geographic splits and overlays were proposed in telecommunications industry meetings for the 415, 714 and 916 area codes, but representatives were unable to reach consensus on any one relief alternative or on the process for state-required public meetings and declared an impasse. As part of its petition, the coalition sought to prohibit Pacific Bell and other companies from proposing overlays as an alternative to geographic splits during industry meetings or at the public meetings. The coalition maintains that state law allows the industry to select only one option to go before the public. In his ruling, Pulsifer called the coalition's objections to presenting more than one option 'unwarranted.' "The coalition interprets (state law) too narrowly in arguing that it precludes the presentation in public meetings of both overlay and geographic splits as options for introducing new area codes," the judge wrote. "Nothing in the (law) precludes discussion of multiple (area code relief) options ... including a split or an overlay." As to the coalition's request to prohibit the proposal of overlays, the judge said a final decision on the merits of overlays would be premature at this time. He said the Commission will consider the issue in July when results of a statewide consumer opinion survey on area code relief preferences are available as well as more information on issues related to overlays. In the meantime, he ruled that both geographic splits and overlays should be presented at public meetings in June for 415 and 916 and the 714 area code in Southern California. The ruling clears the way for the area code relief process, bogged down by disagreements and the industry impasse, to continue with full disclosure at the public meetings for the three regions. In a geographic split, about half of the customers in the existing area code get a new area code and the remainder retain the old one. With an overlay, a new area code is placed over the existing one within the same geographic boundaries. But the new area code is given only to people who request a new phone number. Generally, overlays are cheaper, can be implemented faster, last longer and allow existing customers to keep their area codes, thus avoiding the expense and inconvenience of printing new stationery, business cards and notifying callers of the change, Gueldner said. Nationwide, the first overlay area code was introduced in New York in 1992. And last year, the Maryland State Public Utilities Commission ordered an overlay for the 301 area code serving the entire state. Pacific Bell is a subsidiary of Pacific Telesis Group, a San Francisco-based diversified telecommunications corporation. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 10:52:08 EDT From: Stan.Schwartz@IBMMAIL Subject: PCS "Offered" in the Carolinas An ad in today's {Charlotte Observer} is the first I've seen for PCS service in this market. Alltel Mobile (the B-side cellular carrier in Charlotte) has an add announcing "PCS is Here! Complete Carolinas Coverage for 32c a minute or less." A call to the local Alltel Mobile store/office tells a different story. What Alltel is offering is the Motorola PT5 phone for $59.95 (price includes activation) or three Ericsson models starting at $159 with STANDARD CELLULAR SERVICE until July. Once the BellSouth Mobility towers are available for public use in July, you'll be able to flip to the digital service with the same handset and no change in hardware. BellSouth Mobility had a demo at a street fair here about a week ago, and I played with their Ericsson DCS phone. The BellSouth rep told me that the service wouldn't be available here until July, and it would be priced a bit lower than cellular in this market. This is why the $49.95/month for 110 minutes + 32c for additional minutes sounds a bit fishy to me. Are there any P(D)CS/analog cellular dual-mode phones on the market? Will my Motorola TDMA dual mode phone work with the new service? It seems like there will be quite a bit of confusion around this in the coming months. Stan (stan@vnet.net) ------------------------------ From: relkay01@fiu.edu (Ron Elkayam) Subject: Drastic Changes at BellSouth -- $33 For All Features Date: 12 May 1996 20:05:35 GMT Organization: Florida International University God bless the Telecommunications Act. Today when I opened my latest phone bill, I was up for one heck of a surprise ... BellSouth is now offering Complete Choice plan for residential lines. Lets you pick from virtually all touchstar services, as many of them as you'd like, for a flat rate of $26/month. (Comes out to $33 when you add access charges and taxes). You can even add and remove from a generous list of services as often as you'd like with no connection /disconnection fee. It's simply an amazing offer. So I call 1-800-463-5463 and I place my order: * Call Waiting Deluxe - includes Caller ID Name/Number, Anonymous Call Rejection, and Caller ID while in the middle of the call. It will still work on my older Caller ID Name/Number boxes according to the rep; the only difference is that when/if I get the nifty phone that supports Spontaneous Caller ID (or Caller ID on Call Waiting), that phone will also show me the incoming Caller's ID while offhook. * Call Return - just in case the Caller ID box messes up, or when I'm on the phone on another call and ignore the Call Waiting tone. * Three-way Calling * Speed Calling - the rep actually gave me a choice between 8 and 30 number-memory ... guess which one I picked... * Call Forwarding - when I'm on the modem, I'll probably forward to the other line, or to the cellular phone when it's during nights/weekends. * Preferred Call Forwarding - I always liked forwarding certain people to #'s like "All circuits are busy" or "Please deposit 25 cents" * Remote Access to Call Forwarding - when I move around. * Flexible Call Forwarding - some complex service to assure you always get the call (or something...) When I get the instructions on how to use it, I'll be smarter... * Call Block - for the telemarketers. * Call Selector - so when I hear a specific ring pattern, I'll know to let the answering machine pick up the call. * RingMaster Service - I got two new additional numbers. Lots of things I can do, like give out one of them to people I don't want to talk to (but have to give a # to...) Or to give one number to people I REALLY want to talk to, so when I hear the specific ring pattern, I rush to the phone. Or, maybe I'll get one of those fax/voice/modem redirecting-boxes. * Call Tracing - Three times and you're out kinda thing. No charge now. * Customized Code Restrictions - 976/900 block, 3rd-party billing block; was thinking about collect call block, but decided someone, somewhere, sometimes might have an emergency. Pretty friggin' cool for $33/month (including taxes!) Wonder how soon before I'm starting to see 20c/min to Israel ... two years max I suspect ... (If not completely free via a Dialogic/Iphone relay method.) Have fun boys and girls, Ron Miami, FL [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: From what we have seen at one time or another in the past, as soon as one telco starts a new plan, quite often the others offer the same thing shortly thereafter, so perhaps it will not be long until all the Bell Companies offer this sort of fla rate package for features. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:54:56 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: WUTCO, WECO, Graybar (was Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper) The following is culled from AT&T's publication "Events in Telephone (Telecommunications) History" (a publication first issued around 1958 and frequently updated and reissued), and from memory, from reading various telephone and related historical materials: In 1869, a patnership of George W. Shawk and Enos M. Barton was formed to take over an electric shop in Cleveland which Western Union Telegraph had decided to abandon. A silent partner, Civil War vereran General Anson Stager stipulated that the business move to Chicago which was accomplished that year. A few months later, Shawk sold his interests to Elisha Gray. The partnership became knwon as Gray and Barton. In 1872, the Gray and Barton partnership became the Western Electric Manufacturing Company of Chicago. Thus Western Electric predates the telephone itself. In April 1878, competition in telephony began when WUTCO established a subsidiary, the American Speaking Telephone Company and the Gold & Stock Telephone Company. Their telephones used a *receiver* developed by Elisha Gray and a *transmitter* (microphone) developed by Thomas Alva Edison. They even developed a *handset*, basically an metal rod connecting the separate transmitter and receiver. WUTCO used telegraph plant where they had competitive telephone service. In November 1879, WUTCO and the National Bell Telephone Company settled a suit brought by National Bell against WUTCO. WUTCO acknowledged A.G.Bell's patents and agreed to stay out of voice telephony. National Bell agreed to buy WUTCO's telephony properties and stay out of public telegraph service in areas occupied by WUTCO. (NOTE: this agreement did NOT stipulate that Bell stay out of telegraphy altogather! ONLY that Bell wouldn't go into direct competition with WUTCO regarding telegraphy in areas where WUTCO provided services!) March 1880: The American Bell Telephone Company (a successor to National Bell) was formed to consolidate Bell and WUTCO telephone properties. It remained the parent company of The Bell Telephone System until 1899. In November 1881, Western Electric acquired the only existing licenses to manufacture Bell equipment. In February 1882, American Bell and WECo agreed that Western would be the *sole* supplier of Bell telephones and equipment. December 1899: AT&T (the toll side of Bell) took over American Bell Telephone, thus becoming the parent company of The Bell System. December 1910, AT&T acquired 30% of stock of WUTCO. This was dissolved with "Kingsbury" in 1913. The building at 195 Broadway, New York, was being planned in this time frame. Both AT&T and WUTCO had ownership of this building. Even after "Kingsbury", WUTCO maintained offices and and interest in the building. In 1930, WUTCO moved out of the building to new offices further uptown in Manhattan and AT&T purchases WUTCO's interests in the 195 Broadway building. I've seen advertisements of the 1920's showing where (AT&T's) Western Electric was still manufacturing and marketing household electrical appliances such as vacuum cleaners, lamps (and probably light bulbs), radio recievers (AT&T's 1920's era delve into radio broadcasting and "talkies" motion pictures is also quite interesting), etc; things which were *not* directly related to the regulated telephone industry! In 1925, WECO set up Graybar Electric (from the old Gray and Barton?) as a subsidiary to handle non-telephone manufacturing and sales. In 1930, WECO sold Graybar Electric to Graybar's employees. I've seen the name Graybar Electric Company in existance all the way up through the 1980's. It manufactured various electrical parts and appliances, including telephones and telephone parts. Those telephones and parts were mostly sold (I would assume) to independent non-Bell telcos, later, to the general public when they could "legally" buy and plug-in "foreign attatchments" to the telephone system. I would also guess that businesses bought Graybar telephone equipment for PBX's and intercom systems in the 1930's, 40's, 50's and 60's. In April 1951, the FCC approved Bell's acquisitions of WUTCO's telephone business. It seems that WUTCO operated telephone services (I don't have many details) in either California and maybe other states (Oregon, Washington, parts of Idaho?) also served by (Bell) Pacific Telephone and Telegraph. Also included here is that Pacific Telephone & Telegraph would sell its public *telegram* services to WUTCO. As for radio broadcasting and "talkies" motion pictures in the 1920's, Western Electric (AT&T) as well as Westinghouse and General Electric (and later RCA- the Radio Corporation of America) were developing radiotelegraph and radiotelephone services. By the early 1920's, radio broadcasting was beginning. Initially, there were cross-licensing arrangements between the above mentioned companies as well as the United Fruit Company (associated with Tropical Radio Telegraph. In the late 1970's, the TRT Telex sales office in New Orleans still had its suite in the local United Fruit Company office building). AT&T started radio station WEAF New York (which later became WNBC/WRCA and I think is now WFAN-660am). AT&T even began a broadcasting network, but would only let stations using WECO/Bell-Labs licensed transmitter and associated equipment join as affiliates. Stations owned by GE, Westinghouse and RCA (such as WJZ New York, now WABC-770am) or those not using WECo/Bell-Labs equipment were shut out. They formed a second radio network, but could only use WUTCO telegraph trunk circuits to do a broadcast hook-up. Telegraph circuits were inferior, as they weren't designed for voice. Well, eventually, AT&T sold its broadcast operations to the GE-Westinghouse-RCA consortium in 1926, and thus you had NBC -- the National Broadcasting Company. RCA owned 50% of NBC, GE and Westinghouse owned 20% and 30%, but I don't remember which owned which. RCA bought out GE and Westinghouse's interests in NBC around 1930 or so (and GE bought out RCA about ten years ago. The thought of selling NBC-TV has since been tossed about; NBC-Radio is now associated with the group or management of Westwood/Infinity/Mutual/etc). In the late 1920's, the old AT&T WEAF network became NBC-Red; the old RCA/Westinghouse/GE WJZ network became NBC-Blue. In the late 1930's or early 1940's, the FCC began an investigation of monopolization of "chain" broadcasting (network radio), even though there were two other national networks, namely CBS -- the Columbia Broadcasting System, and the Mutual Broadcasting System. NBC-Blue (historically the original WJZ RCA/Westing- house/GE network) was sold off and became ABC -- the American Broadcasting Company. AT&T/WECo developed equipment for "talkies" in the mid to late 1920's. I know that there were some anti-trust or consent violations regarding this, but I'm not all that sure of the details of exactly what happened in the 1920's period. However, in old movies I've seen from the 1930's through early 1960's, including old *filmed* TV programs of the late 40's through early 60's, in the credits there is mention of *either* "An RCA Sound Recording" *or* "A Western Electric Microphonic Recording". By the late 1950's, I've seen mention in the credits as "A Westrex Recording". Sometime in the early 1960's, Westrex became part of Litton Industries. The Western Electric (or Westrex) indication of sound recording equipment used in these films was written in the traditional 'lightening-bolt' script of WECo. 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: Thank you very much for this most interesting article to conclude this issue of the Digest. It does not happen much any longer, but occassionally when there is a *really old* movie on television from the 1930's, the closing credits will indicate the sound/audio work was done by Western Electric. WECO also did a couple of experimental things with phonograph records in the early 1930's. One which comes to mind was the recording made by organist Edwin H. LeMare (1865-1934) in the last couple years of his life at the Atlantic City Auditorium. LaMare, a native of Great Britain who had lived in the USA for many years and had been employed as municipal organist for the City of Atlantic City, NJ was mostly known for his transcriptions of Richard Wagner, but in this case he recorded a collection called 'Bach on the Biggest' on the organ at the Auditorium, an instrument which has sadly been in much disrepair for many years now. Originally on several 78-rpm disks, it was re-issued around 1948-49 as a single 'new style' 33-rpm disk, which is also now long out of print and unavailable. Western Electric intended it to promote a new sound recording technique they had developed. I've heard it and it was of amazing sound quality. As a writer said earlier in this issue, let us all praise divestiture, and to be sure, there has been good from it, but I don't care what anyone says, *no one will ever duplicate the glorious history* which was part of this business for the first century. Call me a nostalgic old fool if you want, as I sit here typing this and listening to some of LaMare's transcriptions of Wagner playing on a recording in the background. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #234 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue May 14 11:07:18 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA26328; Tue, 14 May 1996 11:07:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 11:07:18 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605141507.LAA26328@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #235 TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 May 96 11:07:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 235 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Administration Opposes ACTA Petition (Monty Solomon) GST Sues City of Tucson Over Right-of-Way Payments (Nigel Allen) Pac*Bell Targeted Direct Marketing (Linc Madison) Pac Bell Behind the Times (was: Public Comment on Area Codes) (L. Madison) Book Review: "Internet in Plain English" by Pfaffenberger (Rob Slade) Pyramid Scam on the Internet (Tad Cook) Anyone Else Slammed by Heartline? (Robert Bononno) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 00:04:59 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Administration Opposes ACTA Petition Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 21:13:48 -0400 From: "Thomas A. Kalil" Subject: Administration opposes ACTA petition May 8, 1996 The Honorable Reed Hundt Chairman Federal Communication Commission Room 814 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington D.C. 20554 Re: RM 8775 Dear Chairman Hundt: This letter addresses the petition for rulemaking filed before the Commission by America's Carriers Telecommunication Association (ACTA) in March 1996. ACTA asks the Commission to: (1) order Internet software providers to "immediately stop their unauthorized provisioning of telecommunications software"; 2) confirm the Commission's authority over interstate and international telecommunications services offered over the Internet; and 3) institute rules to govern the use of the Internet for providing telecommunications services. On behalf of the Administration, NTIA strongly urges the Commission to deny the ACTA Petition. The Petition not only mischaracterizes the existing law, but also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the way in which the Internet operates and of the services now making use of the Internet. ACTA requests that the Commission stop firms such as the Respondents from selling software that enables "a computer with Internet access to be used as a long distance telephone, carrying voice transmissions, at virtually no charge for the call" [ACTA Petition at i]. ACTA asserts that such firms are common carrier providers of telecommunications services that should not be allowed to operate without first obtaining a certificate from the Commission [ACTA Petition at 6-7]. That argument is wrong. The Respondents provide their customers with goods, not services. Although the software that those firms sell does enable individuals to originate voice communications, all of the actions needed to initiate such communications are performed by the software users, rather than the vendors. At no time do the Respondents engage in the "transmission" of information, which, according to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is the sine qua non of both a telecommunications service and a telecommunications carrier. [See Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, 3(a) amending Section 153 of the Communications Act of 1934 to add new definitions of "telecommunications," "telecommunications service," and "telecommunications carrier."] In that critical sense, the Respondents are no more providing telecommunications services than are the vendors of the telephone handsets, fax machines, and other customer premises equipment that make communications possible. ACTA also asks the Commission for a declaratory ruling "confirming its authority over interstate and international telecommunications services using the Internet." [ACTA Petition at 6. While ACTA claims the Commission has jurisdiction to regulate the Internet pursuant to Section 1 of the Communications Act, citing United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968), ACTA also acknowledges that such jurisdiction is limited to actions ancillary to the effective performance of its specific responsibilities under other parts of the Act. Id. at 5,7-8. ACTA suggests that unregulated growth of the Internet presents "unfair competition" to Title II regulated interexchange carriers that "could, if left unchecked, eventually create serious economic hardship on all existing participants in the long distance marketplace" and could be "detrimental to the health of the nation's telecommunications industry and the maintenance of the nation's telecommunications infrastructure." Id. at 4, 5. Voice telephony via the Internet, however, is still a limited and cumbersome capability: both parties to the call need computers and must have compatible software. Moreover, there is no assurance that a call placed will be completed or not interrupted. While the technology involved may improve rapidly, presently there is no credible evidence to justify Commission regulation of the Internet.] In fact, as the Federal Networking Council pointed out in comments filed on May 4, there are no telecommunications services currently being offered via the Internet. The services that now involve the Internet are more likely to be "enhanced," or information services over which the Commission has disclaimed jurisdiction under the Communications Act. The Commission decision in the 1980's not to regulate enhanced services was a wise one that has conferred substantial benefits on American consumers. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 in no way requires a change in that decision. The Internet now connects more than 10 million computers, tens of millions of users, and is growing at a rate of 10-15 percent a month. This growth has created opportunities for entrepreneurs to develop new services and applications such as videoconferencing, multicasting, electronic payments, networked virtual reality, and intelligent agents. Perhaps more importantly, it creates a growing number of opportunities for consumers to identify new communication and information needs and to meet those needs. The Commission should not risk stifling the growth and use of this vibrant technology in order to prevent some undemonstrated harm to long distance service providers. If Internet-based services eventually develop to an extent that raises concerns about harm to consumers or the public interest, the Commission would have ample time to more fully address the issue. Now is not that time. NTIA, therefore, urges the Commission to reject the ACTA petition without delay. Larry Irving Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information cc: The Honorable James H. Quello The Honorable Rachelle B. Chong The Honorable Susan Ness ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 00:40:48 -0400 From: Nigel Allen Subject: GST Sues City of Tucson Over Right-of-Way Payments Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Here is a press release from GST Telecommunications, Inc. regarding a lawsuit against the city of Tucson over right-of-way payments. I don't work for GST, and I don't have any information about the dispute beyond what appears in the press release. I found the press release on the Canadian Corporate News web site at http://www.cdn-news.com/ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: GST Telecommunications, Inc. Robert Blankstein 1-800-667-4366 or GST Telecommunications, Inc. John Warta (360) 254-4700 FOR: GST TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. AMEX SYMBOL: GST MAY 13, 1996 GST Tucson Lightwave, Inc., Sues City of Tucson to End Discriminatory Licensing Practices VANCOUVER, WASHINGTON -- GST Tucson Lightwave, Inc., a subsidiary of GST Telecom, Inc., filed suit today in U.S. District Court, seeking to set aside the City of Tucson's regulations regarding telecommunications carriers' use of public right-of-way. GST alleges that the City of Tucson is violating the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by applying its regulations in a discriminatory manner. The City of Tucson seeks to impose substantial licensing and franchising fees on new entrants in the City's telecommunication market. The city has granted, without any explanation, an exemption from such fees to one favored local carrier. GST's lawsuit asks the court to strike down the city's unfair terms, or to apply them equally to all telecommunications carriers providing service in Tucson. GST maintains that the city government actions favor the incumbent local telecommunications company and that such actions violate the Telecommunications Act, which clearly mandates that state and local governments treat all competitors equally with regard to the use of public rights-of-way. Further, GST contends that the Telecommunica- tions Act prohibits local government from discriminating against one class of carrier in favor of the long-established, dominant local telecommunications carrier. According to GST Telecom President Earl Kamsky, "The city's actions have the effect of promoting one service provider over others and denying the benefits of open competition in the local telecommun- ications market. In addition, the city's actions are illegal under the Telecommunications Act. The city is creating an unfair business climate, ultimately denying the citizens of Tucson the benefit of choice." Jeffrey Mayhook, legal counsel for GST, added, "GST had no alternative but to take action against the city. After several months of negotia- tions in an effort to reach an agreement, the city insists that GST pay the fees and waive its rights under the Act." GST Telecommunications, Inc. (AMEX:GST), currently operates networks in fourteen cities in the western United States and Hawaii, with an additional six cities under construction in the San Francisco Bay area. The company provides a broad range of integrated telecommun- ications products and services, through the development and operation of competitive access and other telecommunications networks. GST's primary focus is customers located in Tier II and Tier III markets in the western United States and Hawaii. In addition, the company manufactures telecommunications switching equipment and provides network management and billing systems through its wholly-owned subsidiary National Applied Computer Technologies, Inc. of Orem, Utah. ------------------ forwarded by: Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:30:43 -0700 From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Pac*Bell Targeted Direct Marketing Lest any of you wonder why we're having so many area code splits, consider this letter I got in the mail last week from Pacific Bell. PACIFIC * BELL N E T W O R K How will you use it?[SM] Use an extra phone line from Pacific Bell and you can talk, fax, e-mail and surf to your heart's content Dear Linc Madison: Chances are, you like to talk on the phone whenever you want. For as long as you want. That's why you have one additional phone line already. But these days, phone lines can be used in many different ways. Besides just talking, you may want to use your lines to fax, e-mail or surf the Internet. All of which can make it more challenging to share the phone, even when you already have two lines. Add a third phone line and keep it to yourself [cartoon text balloon: "for just 37 cents a day!"] It can make a lot of sense to get another phone line from Pacific Bell. Especially if you'd like to make it easier to work at home. Or use your phone line for more than just conversation. Think about it. You could use one line to talk. Another line to send faxes to the office. And a third line to hit all the hot web sites on the Net. An extra line is surprisingly affordable. For just $11.25 a month, our flat rate residential line offers you unlimited local calling. With this option, your local service is only 37 cents a day. If you don't make many local calls, you can lower your cost even more by using our measured rate service for $6 a month. And with a low installation charge of $34.75 (we can bill you over three months, interest free), adding an extra line makes it easy on your budget, too. Sign up now and save up to $326 on a Panasonic phone or fax machine. Order a third line from Pacific Bell by May 31, 1996, and you can save from $20 to $50 on a Panasonic phone. Or from $163 to $326 on a Panasonic fax machine. See the enclosed insert for complete details. So let Pacific Bell help you enjoy another one of life's little extras. Just call us at 1-800-314-6712 to set up an appointment to have a third line installed in your home. Then if you ever want to talk, fax and surf the Net -- all at the same time -- there won't be anything to stop you. Sincerely, Mark Pitchford Vice President, Consumer Markets P.S. When you order an extra line, check out the enclosed insert to get great savings on a Panasonic phone or fax machine. [fine print at the bottom of the page: ... Due to capacity levels, Pacific Bell cannot guarantee the availability of additional lines in all areas. ...] ------------------------------------------------ Well, I know for a fact that the wiring in my apartment will not handle a third line; it's good old RGBY. I don't know the gauge by sight, but it's definitely thicker than the stuff used in modern multi-pair wiring. Aside from that, if I were to get a third line, it would probably be ISDN, which they don't mention. It is interesting, though, that they seem to pretty clearly imply that I can get measured rate on the new line even if I have flat rate on the existing lines. Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * LincMad@Eureka.vip.Best.com ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Pac Bell Behind the Times (was: Public Comment on Area Codes) Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:52:46 -0700 Organization: Best Internet Communications In article , Tad Cook wrote: > SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 10, 1996-- > [Pac Bell press release about the CPUC decision to allow Pac Bell to > present both overlay and geographic split options for area code relief] > Nationwide, the first overlay area code was introduced in New York in > 1992. And last year, the Maryland State Public Utilities Commission > ordered an overlay for the 301 area code serving the entire state. Hello? Pacific Bell? There's this little thing called "area code 410." It covers about half of the state of Maryland. It has since 11/1/91. The state of Maryland will be adding *TWO* overlay area codes, one for each of the existing area codes. Oh, by the way, area code 268* (Antigua & Barbuda, active for over six weeks now) is still blocked at the switch by Pacific Bell. Perhaps the merger with SBC is getting bogged down because Pacific Bell keeps trying to dial 512 for San Antonio. Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 12:21:48 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Internet in Plain English" by Pfaffenberger BKINTIPE.RVW 960417 "Internet in Plain English", Bryan Pfaffenberger, 1994, 1-55828-385-4, U$19.95/C$25.95 %A Bryan Pfaffenberger bp@virginia.edu %C 115 West 18th Street, New York, NY 10011-4195 %D 1994 %G 1-55828-385-4 %I MIS Press/M&T Books/Henry Holt %O U$19.95/C$25.95 +1-212-886-9378 fax: +1-212-633-0748, +1-212-807-6654 %O 76712.2644@compuserve.com http://www.mispress.com fburke@fsb.superlink.net %P 463 %T "Internet in Plain English" This isn't an Internet guide. Or, then again, maybe it is. Pfaffenberger has compiled a glossary of Internet related terms and jargon. Beyond simply giving you the definitions, though, he has added real explanations of the significance of most of the items. The book is somewhat daunting in size, or, at least, thickness. (The small page size produces one oddity: the publisher has put headers showing the first and last term on the page. Since a single definition can easily span more than one page, and very few pages have more than three definitions, these headers are of much less help than they might be otherwise.) If the author has erred, it is on the size of inclusion. Very few Internet users will need to know what a High-speed Digital Subscriber Loop (HDSL) is. On the other hand, a few will be very interested. By and large, the definitions, and explanations, are excellent. There is a strong emphasis on netiquette and net culture. For once, in a general work, the definition of virus contains sound advice and not a single error. (Not all of the book is perfect. The entry for telnet, while it is not in error, gives an unusually misrepresented picture. The very complete coverage of the "V." data communications standards even includes a panning of the misleading "V.32terbo" marketing phrase -- but *doesn't* include the valid v.32ter standard.) This book is highly recommended for those who are new to the net, and active, but are finding themeselves constantly asking "what do you mean by _____?" copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKINTIPE.RVW 960417. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. ================== Vancouver roberts@decus.ca | This space Institute for rslade@vcn.bc.ca | intentionally Research into rslade@vanisl.decus.ca | *not* left blank User Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca | Security Canada V7K 2G6 | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would like to remind all readers that the Telecom Archives also has a glossary area, with several differeent glossaries on file for review. When using the Telecom Archives Email Information Service, the glossaries can be searched interactively via email by using the GLOSSARY command. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Pyramid Scam on the Internet Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 01:11:39 PDT Here is a news item about a pyramid scam that is being promoted on the net. By the way, I am looking for a listserver where pyramid and Ponzi schemes are discussed, and where I could post updates on scams like this. Any suggestions anyone? Tad Cook tad@ssc.com ----------------- Some Kentucky Investors Say Fortuna Alliance Is A Pyramid Scheme By Sam Greene, Lexington Herald-Leader, Ky. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News LEXINGTON, Ky.--May 13--An organization known as Fortuna Alliance which promises members 2,000 percent in profits-is apparently making inroads in Kentucky. Before investing in such a program, consumer groups like the Better Business Bureau caution potential participants to carefully consider claims of quick profits. But some Fortuna investors say they already feel duped. "It's a total scam," said Kevin Stinnett, a senior at Centre College in Danville who invested $250 in Fortuna in January. "Either it's just not going to work, or it was a total scam to begin with. I can't get a straight answer." Fortuna Alliance, described as "a profit-sharing association" on several Internet sites in the United States and abroad, promises members who invest $250 profits of $5,250. The system, in which every investor must be supported by many more investors, resembles a pyramid in structure. In Kentucky, operating or participating in a pyramid scheme is a felony, punishable by five to ten years imprisonment and up to $10,000 in fines. (The fine may be replaced by double the monetary gain from the crime, whichever is greater.) The state Attorney General's office does not have statistics about pyramid schemes because complaints are filed by company name and not by category, said Jennifer Schaaf, director of communications. Fortuna has several web sites on the Internet, but recent calls to office telephone numbers in Bellingham, Wash., and in Texas have reached only recorded messages. Fortuna did not return calls seeking comment. In Washington, the Better Business Bureau opened a file on Fortuna in November, but no complaints have been filed. The BBB said Fortuna is not licensed with the Washington state Department of Financial Institutions Securities Division. Fortuna is also not licensed as a financial institution in Kentucky. "We haven't been able to identify what it is that they (Fortuna) sell," said Tracey McLarney, president of the Better Business Bureau of Central and Eastern Kentucky, which recently listed pyramid schemes as one of the top three scams of 1996. One person who has been trying to get an answer to that is David Anderson, a professor of economics at Centre College. He has been following Fortuna mathematically ever since one of his students started promoting it. "It requires an infinitely expanding investment pool from a finite population," Anderson said. "Only the people at the top of the pyramid are going to make what they are supposed to." ON THE INTERNET: Visit Kentucky Connect, the World Wide Web site of the Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader. Point your browser to: http://www.kentuckyconnect.com/heraldleader ------------------------------ From: bononno@acf2.nyu.edu (Robert Bononno) Subject: Anyone Else Slammed by Heartline? Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 02:03:38 -0400 Organization: New York University A few weeks ago I received a bit of a shock when I opened my phone bill and found a bill from some outfit called Heartline Communications in Texas. My local is NYNEX and my ld has been MCI for at least two years. The bill came from an outfit called US Billing (I believe), whom I had never heard of. The bill consisted of some short ld calls and a "monthly fee" for about $6. When I called US Billing, they said I would have to pay. I then called MCI. They had me listed as a customer in their database but said it didn't mean much and that I should dial the 713 number to find out my _current_ ld carrier. When I dialed I was shocked to hear a recording from someone called Frontier Communications. (???) I then called NYNEX and told them what had happened. One of the reps was familiar with Heartline and told me that get around 50 complaints a day about them. NYNEX changed me back to MCI and put a lock on the account. I called MCI and had to switch back to their service. I called Heartline (after being put on hold for around 45 minutes) and spoke to a rather antagonistic rep. I was told that I had switched and I had to pay. When I told them I had never heard of them and asked for proof in writing, they told me I had authorized the switch and they would fax me the proof in 48 hours. Well, 48 hours came and went. A week later I received a letter from Heartline stating that they wanted "my signature" so they could compare it with their records and resolve my concerns. They sent me a photocopy of some simple form with nothing more than a name and address and signature. It had my name and address on it and a signature, but it is clearly a fraud. So I'm wondering a) where they got this and b) how they have the audacity to forward it to me? Does anyone have any additional information on Heartline? I'd be interested in hearing other reports. I'm seriously considering writing to the Public Service Commission here in NY and the FCC. I mean, this is fraud after all. >> Robert Bononno ++++ bononno@acf2.nyu.edu ++++ Techline << ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #235 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue May 14 11:53:52 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA01829; Tue, 14 May 1996 11:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 11:53:52 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605141553.LAA01829@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #236 TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 May 96 11:52:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 236 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Sprint Eliminates Calling Card Surcharges (Van Heffner) Some Statistics on the Cost of Phone Fraud (Van Heffner) 800/888; 10-XXX/101-XXXX and COCOTS (Mark J. Cuccia) Macintosh Extensions Guide (Kelly Breit) What is "Feature Group A"? (Jason Fetterolf) Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? (J. Fetterolf) Employment Opportunity: Engineers Needed - Telecom Start-up (Jim Oakley) Average Calls per Cellular Subscriber? (R. Schechtman) NZer Travelling to America: Cellphone Connected Wanted (Andrew Knox) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 00:32:41 -0700 From: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS Organization: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 1-707-444-6686 Subject: Sprint Eliminates Calling Card Surcharges Kansas City, MO, May 13, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- In a surprising move today, Sprint announced that it is eliminating all surcharges on it's domestic calling card calls. Like AT&T and MCI, Sprint has normally imposed an $.80 surcharge to it's customers on each of their calling card calls. As of today, the company will be begin re-issuing their Sprint FoNCARDs, and dropping the domestic surcharge alltogether. In addition, the company will be marketing the card at a new "flat rate" of $.25 per minute, anywhere in the U.S., anytime of day. Previously, the company had charged a variety of per-minute rates that varied according to mileage and time-of-day. The elimination of the surcharge, coupled with a flat rate which is less (in most cases) than previous rates, could save Sprint customers as much as 80% off the price of a call, as compared to the old rate structure. "Sprint Sense FONCARD is the first in the 57-year history of major telephone calling cards to offer a flat rate and no surcharge," said Brian Adamik, vice president, consumer communications at the Yankee Group of Boston, a leading telecommunications research firm. "Typical long distance calling cards charge consumers 80 cents per call. In fact, last year alone," Adamik said, "Americans spent approximately $1 billion on calling card surcharges." Sprint will still impose per-call surcharges upon customers making international calls. Though the offer does not beat that of smaller rival companies, which have offered no-surcharge calling cards at lower rates for sometime, the move could prompt AT&T and MCI to eventually eliminate their surcharges as well. Seems strange that Sprint's prepaid SPREE calling card actually costs MORE than their new standard calling card rate. It remains to be seen what the ramifications will be upon other cards though. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 00:32:41 -0700 From: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS Organization: VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 1-707-444-6686 Subject: Some Statistics on the Cost of Phone Fraud Telecommunications fraud is expected to reach $3.375 billion in 1995 -- an increase of $70 million over the previous year. A survey of over 90 businesses who were victims of toll fraud found that losses ranged from a few thousand dollars to $4 million. The "average" loss for all reported business cases is estimated at $168,000. The amount of long distance charges stolen through customer premise equipment in the U.S. is around $1.3 billion. Average losses caused by customer premise equipment (CPE) toll fraud have dropped to about $20,000 per incident. The average loss per incident was $24,000 in 1994. The cost to users in "800" line charges -- run up by thieves and attempted thieves -- is estimated to reach a minimum of $235 million in 1995. "Hackers" unsuccessful, random calls constitute about 1% of the 2 billion annual calls to "800" numbers. Total Annual Direct Cost of CPE (Customer Premise Equipment) Fraud: $1.625 Billion TELECOM INDUSTRY TOLL FRAUD LOSSES (1995 estimates) -- Cellular toll fraud: $450 million -- Calling card toll fraud: $450 million -- Pay phone toll fraud: $90 million -- Subscription fraud: $450 million -- Call forwarding fraud: $70 million -- Hits to Carrier Switches & Networks $190 million -- Prisoner toll fraud: $100 million Total Annual Direct Cost of Industry Toll Fraud: $1.75 billion Source: Telecom & Network Security Review ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:34:35 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: 800/888; 10-XXX/101-XXXX and COCOTS I've never used a COCOT which I didn't HATE! Recently there was a question in TELECOM Digest about their local telco (I think it was Sprint-Centel or Sprint-United in Florida) charging them on their bill for calling 800-555-1212. There is *not* supposed to be a charge to call *any* 800 number (that's to actually dial and complete a connection to the 800 number). As for PAY-PAY-PAY-per-calls using an 800 number, I think that the FCC is really cracking down on the fraud of the number-holders and billing agencies in those cases. We haven't really heard much about problems with them recently, have we? I'm not saying it doesn't still happen, but the problems seem to have dwindled. Well, for years, I've noticed COCOTS that have their synthesized voice demand money to call 800-555-xxxx numbers. It seems that the rating program defaults *any* or *every* NPA+555 to charge something (it could range between $0.50 to $1.00 or even more), including the toll-free NPA, 800. This can cause problems in calling 800-555-1212, Canada-Direct at 800-555-1111, AT&T/Lucent at 800-555-8111 and other long-standing "special" 800 numbers using 555. While I have found at least two major owner/vendors of private-payphones in the New Orleans area have no problem accepting 1-888- and 1-800- including 1-800-555- as toll-free and untimed (although you do run into the problem where they turn their keypad off and disconnect the microphone when you try to use a pocket tone dialer), I still run across many COCOTS improperly trying to charge for 1-800-555-. For those which don't handle 1-888- properly, there are oh so many variations ... "Please do not dial a '1' before this local number" as there is a (504)-888 exchange here in New Orleans ... "Invalid Number" or "SORRY! you may NOT dial 1888nxxxxxx from this pay- phone" ... "DEPOSIT TWO DOLLARS and SEVENTY FIVE CENTS for ONE MINUTE" after dialing 1-888-NXX-X (thinking it is 1 + seven-digits) ... and the like. As you can see, I've never used a COCOT that I haven't HATED! Some other "recordings" are: "DO NOT DIAL the area code when calling this long distance number" when I've dialed 0-504-seven-digits for Home NPA "0+" or 1-504-seven- digits for Home NPA toll. Of course, I'm not really going to put coins into a COCOT for any toll call, nor use "traditional" 0+ dialing from a COCOT. I do use 800-CALL-ATT and 800-3210-ATT, and even (when not blocked) 10-288/101-0288+0+ten-digits. Even doing the latter, I've gotten COCOT recordings telling me not to dial the area code if it is a Home NPA AT&T 0+ call. If I did 10-288/101-0288+ 0+seven-digits Home NPA toll, the Bell dialtone c/o switch would either time out as a partial dial or cut to vacant code, as it expects a full ten digit string on this type of 0+ call. I really have no control over the pre-programmed touchtone-outpulsing of this damned COCOT. As for Toll-Free 800-555- and 888-, you can't always even reach the LEC (BellSouth in my case) Operator on a single "0". The phones frequently outpulse a 950-xxxx or 1-800- number of *THEIR* long-distance operator account. Many of the AOSlime "operators" either refuse to give you "back" to the LEC/Bell operator, although maybe the really just don't have the capability to do so. (BellSouth doesn't have an 800- or 950-xxxx number nor 10-XXX/101-XXXX code to reach its Operators, or if it does, I'm not aware of any that work from here). And if you do get an AT&T operator (via 10-288-0/0#/00 or its 800-CALL-ATT or 800-3210-ATT access), AT&T operators can only assist in connecting *AT&T* handled 800 numbers, as the OSPS system doesn't seem to check the *LEC* 800/888 number database to then hand the call to the proper carrier. LEC Operators have access to the 800/888 database which shows *which* carrier to hand the call off to. "Canada Direct" at 800-555-1111 doesn't seem to use AT&T (it probably uses MCI, as Stentor now has a business relationship with MCI). However an LEC operator can dial that 800 number for you. So I guess you're out-of-luck if the COCOT wants $1.00 to call 800-555-1111, you try to get the LEC (Bell) Operator on "0" to dial it for you, but instead of getting the LEC (Bell) Operator, you get some AOSlime on "0" who either refuses or just doesn't have the proper interface to either dial the 800-555-1111 number or "give you back" to your LEC/Bell Operator. As to AOSlime "giving you back" to the (proper) LEC/Bell Operator, many COCOTS and their associated AOS use a specific tone. When it all works the way it is supposed to, upon requesting/demanding the AOSlime to "give you Bell", she (or a recording) instructs you to "hold the handset away from your ear momentarily as there will be a loud tone". A button is pressed which causes this loud touchtone (I haven't been able to determine if it is the DTMF '#' or 'D' or something else) followed by a modem screech. The COCOT's internal chips recognizes these tones and then *internally* goes on-hook to the loop momentarily, then goes off-hook to the loop getting telco central office dialtone. It then touchtones out the proper DTMF digit string, such as '0' or '0+intralata' over the loop. Sometimes, when using a COCOT with its AOSlime and demanding a Bell Operator (I HAD entered 0(#) or an intralata 0+ten-digits string but the COCOT still diverts me to AOSlime), the AOSlime will do what they are supposed to instructing me an pressing the transfer-back tone button. However the inside chips of the damned COCOT will DTMF over the loop something like 10-222-0(+) or 10-333-0(+), or some other 10-XXX-0(+), thus *still* routing me to something *other* than my BellSouth intralata Operator or TOPS services. This is *particularly* frustrating when I want to bill a *local* call to my calling card, but want to place it through BellSouth's TOPS and *not* an IXC (not even AT&T). BellSouth charges $1.00 FLAT (untimed) for *local* calls billed to calling cards for here in Louisiana. When you can access an AT&T Operator (or any IXC operator), they don't recognize the fact that the call is really *local* and thus charge you a timed rate also based on mileage between the originating NPA-NXX and destination NPA-NXX, even though it really is *local*. (And as mentioned above, I'm not aware of any working 1-800 or 950 number nor 10-XXX/101-XXXX code to reach a BellSouth Operator from here in Louisiana). And while the law mentions 10-XXX-0+ access from COCOTS, when the law was written it didn't really mention 101-XXXX. Try dialing something like: 101-0x19-00 for the Operator of the carrier using any "x19" or "0x19" fg.D code. As far as the COCOT chips are concerned, you've just dialed: 10-10x-1-900, and COCOTS block 1-900 numbers. IMO, the FCC/FTC and the various state agencies *should really* been been policing COCOTS *MUCH* more strictly than they actually have been for the past twelve or so years. And I think things are only going to get worse. But what about those Canadian visitors here trying to dial 800-555-1111 (which Bell Canada and its "sister" Stentor telcos are heavily promoting) and actually *any and every* holder of an 800-555-xxxx number (and toll free 888 number)! COCOTS (as well as Hotel/Motel/Hospital/Dormatory/etc. PBX's) and their associated AOSlime seem to be accountable to nobody! 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, 14 May 1996 08:44:09 -0500 From: kelly.breit@netalliance.net (Kelly Breit) Subject: Macintosh Extensions Guide Forwarded to the Digest FYI: Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 18:53:33 -0400 From: MacWay@aol.com Subject: Macintosh Extensions Guide At last: I've been wishing for this for a long time! Guy This tidbit is from: (Jason Haas) Macintosh Associates/Madison Web Works announces the Macintosh Extensions Guide! --- Have you ever wondered what A/ROSE is for? Do you want to remove MathLib from your Mac Plus, but aren't sure what would happen if you do? What are these enablers in my System Folder for? Find out in the Macintosh Extensions Guide! The Guide is a catalog of most of the Mac's extensions, control panels and enablers. Each item's function is explained in plain English, and whenver possible, special tips, tricks and caveats are included. Currently, the Guide encompasses the bulk of extensions found in System 7.5 and higher, with items from 7.1, 7.0.1 and 6.0.x being added weekly. The Guide is divided into four sections: Control Panels, Extensions, Enablers and Open Transport. Within each section, there is an alphabetical listing of extensions, with links to a page containing a description of the extension's function, and, where possible, a screen shot. The Enablers are grouped by the models of Macintoshes, and listed in two formats: a Netscape 2.0-based table, and a plain-text listing. We hope you enjoy the Guide, and invite all Mac users to learn what's in their System Folders! Aim your browser at: ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:13:05 -0400 From: Jason Fetterolf Subject: What is "Feature Group A"? Organization: Apollo Concepts I was recently asked by an friend who sells phone systems if I (as a marketer of several LD services) could provide/recommend a low cost feature group A (FGA) installation. My friend did not know anything about FGA, except that it was recommended by another competing interconnect, as a way to reduce local toll costs. According to my friend, the small company that was told they should have FGA installed is only using this for voice applications, and has about 10 employees total. This company is located in West Chester, PA, 25 mi W from Phila. Monthly traffic unknown, but must be moderate for intraLATA. My questions are these: 1. What is the purpose of FGA? 2. What are the more cost effective alternatives to FGA usage? 3. Is this obsolete technology? 4. Can I offer a more simple technology (dialer to route intraLATA calls, etc) to help them reduce costs? Thanks to all TELECOM Digest readers who may have some answers! Regards, Jason ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:13:07 -0400 From: Jason Fetterolf Subject: Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? Organization: Sometimes I live in Southeastern Pennsylvania, where Bell Atlantic reigns over 215/610 (PA) and 302 (Delaware)area codes as its intraLATA territory. The *69 feature (call return to last calling party) is offered here, and I have noted in the past that if I dial a long distance company 10XXX code before making an intraLATA toll call, that any attempts by the receiving party to later use the *69 feature, and call me back, would prove ineffective. The other party would simply get a message stating: "We're sorry, but this service can not be used for a call that is out of this sevice area ..." or something like that ... Any how, the other day, someone used the *69 feature to call me back, but I was *certain* that I had dialed 10XXX before the seven digit toll call. HOW could this happen? Does not the routing of calls through the LD carrier's switch cause this *69 feautue to be disabled? Thanks to anyone with some knowledge/experience on this matter. Regards, Jason ------------------------------ From: Jim Oakley Subject: Employment Oppoortunity: Engineers Needed - Telecom Start-up Organization: ArrayComm, Inc. Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 18:33:15 GMT ArrayComm, a rapidly growing company in San Jose California, is developing base station technology for wireless communication 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 looking for strong numerical C programmers and assembly level DSP programmers who enjoy working with a superb team of engineers. If you have experience with cellular communications protocols such as AMPS, IS-54, IS-95, GSM, DCS 1800/1900, PACS, etc, as well as a strong mathematical background, experience with UNIX workstations and real-time programming, experience with Motorola or AT&T DSP systems, and an interest in bringing up new hardware, we have the job opportunity for you. Successful SOFTWARE ENGINEERING candidates will have substantial experience in one or more of communications protocol programming, DSP programming (Mot., AT&T), scientific/numeric programming, real-time systems; and one or more of the following pluses: extensive C/Unix experience, signal processing and numerical analysis background, digital circuitry and/or communications system background, an advanced degree. BS required. Successful HARDWARE ENGINEERING candidates will have at least 5 years' experience with PCB-level high-speed digital design, including familiarity with RISC processors, DSP designs, and designing using FPGAs/PLDs. This position also requires hands-on lab prototyping and testing, and familiarity with schematic entry and PCB layout. Knowledge of RF, signal processing techniques and/or diagnostic software is a plus. BSEE required, MSEE preferred. Successful LABORATORY TECHNICIAN candidates will have strong troubleshooting skills for high speed digital circuits including DSPs and CPUs. Knowledge of RF techniques and measurements is a plus, as is experience with cellular phone test equipment and with Allegro PCB layout. Some familiarity with Unix and Windows-based workstations is required. Successful APPLIED RESEARCH candidates will participate in continued development of the company's core technologies which are the syntheses of methods from numerical analysis, statistical signal processing, estimation and detection theory, communications theory, channel and source coding, electro-magnetic theory, and operations research/optimization. Successful candidates should be capable of realizing their solutions in a high-level computer language, and designing and participating in experiments of test modeling assumptions and proposed solutions. Experience in the wireless communications industry will be considered a significant plus, as will experience with RF hardware, real-time signal processing or embedded systems. This position requires an MS or a Ph.D. All candidates should be creative and self-motivated, possess strong analytical skills, strong interpersonal skills and be comfortable in a team-work setting. Excellent verbal and written communication skills are required. Please send your resume via e-mail to Hum.Res@arraycomm.com (ascii text, postscript), by fax to (408) 428-9083, or by mail to: Human Resources Department, ArrayComm, Inc., 3141 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95134. A skills test may be required. EOE. ------------------------------ From: R. Schechtman Subject: Average Calls per Cellular Subscriber? Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 10:57:33 -0500 Organization: BBN I'm looking for statistics on calling patterns for cellular subscribers, in particular, average number of calls per month. Any pointers? ------------------------------ From: aj.knox@auckland.ac.nz (Andrew Knox) Subject: NZer Travelling to America: Cellphone Connection Wanted Date: 14 May 1996 04:22:13 GMT Organization: University of Auckland Hi, I will probably be travelling to USA and Mexico in late October-> late November and today asked my local Cellular Service Provider about roaming in North America. They want to charge me USD$0.99/min + toll rates for both incoming and outgoing calls within the US and will only allow international calls via a Telecom NZ phonecard which costs $2.80+/call + toll fee + cellular per minute charge. I was wondering whether there are any US Cellular carriers who will connect for 1-2 months and if so what there rates are. Are there any schemes which do not charge for incoming calls (in NZ I pay for outgoing calls only)?. Also does anyone know which are the best American Calling cards and what their rates are to NZ -- also are they available to NZers? I can be reached by email to aj.knox@auckland.ac.nz. Thanks, Dr. Andrew Knox ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #236 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue May 14 14:34:50 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA17027; Tue, 14 May 1996 14:34:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 14:34:50 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605141834.OAA17027@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #237 TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 May 96 14:34:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 237 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Drastic Changes at BellSouth -- $33 For All Features (Joseph Singer) NYNEX, et al, Have Never Marketed! (John Stahl) Re: Is There an Auto-Gain Control on my Data Line? (Colin Povey) Re: ISP Sharing Protocol (to Compete With Big Money ISPs) (Kevin Shea) Re: WUTCO, WECO, Graybar (was Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper) (G. Wollman) Re: Excel Agents Sue Company (Ken Leonard) Re: A Further Note to Those Who Ordered Clocks (Eric A. Roellig) Re: Want History of (US) Telecom Book (Michael Ward) Re: Want History of (US) Telecom Book (Ronda Hauben) About This Digest: See notes at the very bottom of this issue about who we are and how we operate. It's important! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 07:45:24 -0700 From: jsinger@scn.org (Joseph Singer) Subject: Re: Drastic Changes at BellSouth -- $33 For All Features Reply-To: jsinger@scn.org relkay01@fiu.edu (Ron Elkayam) wrote: > BellSouth is now offering Complete Choice plan for residential lines. > Lets you pick from virtually all touchstar services, as many of them > as you'd like, for a flat rate of $26/month. (Comes out to $33 when > you add access charges and taxes). You can even add and remove from a > generous list of services as often as you'd like with no connection > /disconnection fee. It's simply an amazing offer. > * Call Waiting Deluxe - includes Caller ID Name/Number, Anonymous Call > Rejection, and Caller ID while in the middle of the call. US West doesn't offer anonymous call rejection here, but in the package they are offering they are offering the specific call rejection (up to 12 numbers.) > * Speed Calling - the rep actually gave me a choice between 8 and > 30 number-memory ... guess which one I picked... US West is offering _both_ speedcall 30 _and_ speed call 8. > * Preferred Call Forwarding - I always liked forwarding certain people > to #'s like "All circuits are busy" or "Please deposit 25 cents" > * Flexible Call Forwarding - some complex service to assure you always > get the call (or something...) When I get the instructions on how > to use it, I'll be smarter... US West calls this selective call forwarding. e.g. if you want only calls from your mom to go through only only this one call will go through and the others go to another destination such as voice mail. > * Call Tracing - Three times and you're out kinda thing. No charge now. In US West area charged on a per use basis. Also in the US West package is continuous re-dial. US West is only charging $14.95 per month with a one time installation fee. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: From what we have seen at one time or > another in the past, as soon as one telco starts a new plan, quite > often the others offer the same thing shortly thereafter, so perhaps > it will not be long until all the Bell Companies offer this sort of > fla rate package for features. PAT] It probably also has to do with the fact that the local Bell companies are shortly not going to be the only game in town. They've got to have some incentives to keep people around. JOSEPH SINGER ======= SEATTLE, WASHINGTON USA ======== jsinger@scn.org == ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 14:52:23 GMT From: BigJohn Subject: NYNEX, et al, Have Never Marketed! In V16, #233 of TELECOM Digest, Van Hefner, Editor, Discount Long Distance Digest, wrote about NYNEX advertising their name while the merger with Bell Atlantic grinds along. Perhaps we all forget that even though the AT&T divestiture happened over 12 years ago, most all of the resultant RBOCS have never lost the "only game in town" attitude toward their perceived customer. They have put in place, albeit it reluctantly, a token sales and marketing organization. But for the most part, the people manning these positions have come from within the organization, most probably have the ingrained 'old Bell mentality' and are not seasoned professionals who have experience satisfying present and future customer needs while recognizing that there are other players in town. The RBOCS will have to open their eyes even wider as newer "rules of competition" are before them from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The CATV MSO's, the CAP's and other telecommunications providers, with eyes towards the large established customer base these LEC's have enjoyed for many years, are certain to grab many of these customers away with enhanced and combined services. To reinforce this point, just recently, there also appeared in TELECOM Digest, a report that related how the new Bell Atlantic/NYNEX company would abandon any establishment of video services; presumably originally targeted to compete with the CATV providers. As the report indicated, the company would instead concentrate on long distance service. Their reasoning regarding the comparative costs to get into each of these business' is certainly financially prudent, but, in effect, they are telling the world that anyone can come in to their territory to provide enhanced services to the home or business with out any competition of a similar kind from them. Talk about providing an open opportunity for anyone to jump in, Wow, I would certainly like to be their competition! This seems to be the general mentality of the RBOC's: Take the path of least resistance, pretend they are the only game in town and above all else satisfy the stock holders. Aside from the obvious point that they will have a very difficult time to close the flood gates opened by the Act, they may also find that their future is drastically limited by these types of 'business' decisions. Perhaps, instead, the RBOC's should think of their customers communication needs for the future and how THEY will satisfy them. ISDN, ADSL, HDSL, ATM, etc., will all open the pipeline wider to satisfy the future communication requirements but who will own the pipeline that will be used and who will provide the resultant enhanced services? There are plenty of knowledgeable marketing and sales people available in the "real world" with the talent and knowledge to help the RBOC's effectively identify and satisfy their customer's future needs. But the RBOC's need to make the decision to tap this resource. Is it too late? Probably not, if they react quickly. After all, their competition seems to be doing it! John Stahl Aljon Enterprises Telecom/Data Consultants ------------------------------ From: Colin Povey Subject: Re: Is There an Auto-Gain Control on my Data Line? Date: 14 May 1996 13:15:01 GMT Organization: AT&T >> A quick question, is there anything I can ask my Telco to change on my >> data line that may make it perform better? >> Is there some Auto-Gain control they can twiddle? >> I'm just wondering if I can push my V.34+ to it's absolute limits >> since I only get 26.4Kbps to my ISP's V.34+ modems. > Sounds like you might be on a SLC-96. If so, 26,400 is as good as it > is going to get. Your only hope is to get off the SLC-96. Being on a SLC (of any type) has little or nothing to do with the quality of the circuit you are receiving. In fact, most newer buildings/areas are on SLC's and operate fine at the maximum data rate of the modem. All the SLC does is convert the analog modem signal into a digital (T1) signal for transmission. The telco is going to convert the signal eventually anyway, and the closer to your house the conversion is done (i.e. a SLC), the better. Under the tarriffs as they exist for phone service, there is nothing that you local telco must do for your line, if you can make an acceptable quality voice call over the line. If local competition is available in your area, you can try threatening to change your service to the competition. Or, you can try and get to a person at your telco who cares and try and get them to look at the line. But be aware that not every line is going to support 28.8 Kbps. Distance to the CO, age of the wire, and many other things affect the quality of your circuit. According to my companies engineers, the new unofficial 33.6 Kbps rate is likely to work on only about 20% of the local lines in the US, and even fewer outside North America. We are simply too close to the theoreaical limit for a modem/phone line combination. The theoreatical limit is around 36-38 Kbps, by the way. Hope this helps. Colin cpovey@gw.paradyne.com ------------------------------ From: telres@Gramercy.ios.com (Kevin Shea) Subject: Re: ISP Sharing Protocol (to Compete With Big Money ISPs) Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 22:48:02 GMT Organization: Internet Online Services jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen) wrote: > AT&T is now in the dialup slip and ppp business -- other long distance > companies and other big money companies are soon to follow. Long > distance carriers have a distinct advantage over smaller ISPs: they > can provide the travelling internet user with nation (and perhaps > world) wide access, without the need for making long-distance calls. > Smaller ISPs must deal with this issue, or AT&T and friends will > quickly put them out of business. > I propose that ISPs adopt a sharing protocol. This protocol will > allow a travelling internet user to dial any local internet provider > without having to go through the process of signing on and without > having to worry about paying multiple bills. How about forming a database, or databases, which would be administered by a third party and giving ISP's the opportunity to become a 'member' of this database, for a monthly or yearly fee? For example, each ISP would pay a fee to the administering party for each member (user) which it allows to be included in this database. The administering party would not be a competing company. The database would hold domain, user and password information for each member of this service. Each participating ISP would then allow other members, who are not direct customers, to log onto the net. Those members would then call a local ISP (if necessary and assuming this ISP is participating) and that local ISP would then query the database for the needed information. Once the ISP confirms the needed information, it allows the user to use it's system to access the net via PPP, SLIP, Shell, etc. Another scenerio could be that the database is not a "true" databse. It's sole purpose could be to do domain and login queries. This would be a 2 step process. The originating ISP (1st call from user) queries the primary database. Then the database queries the user's home base for login information and relays the information back to the originating ISP. Some of the statements made below refer to usage billing. I don't think this would work. The reasoning is that most ISP's promote unlimited access for a flat fee. If the ISP would incur time usage charges, they would need to pass those charges to their users. This would defeat a major marketing and promotional effort by the provider community as a whole. You might as well just stick with AT&T or AOL for that matter. Another issue addressed below is the credit problem. Well, while this might be a problem for smaller ISP's if each provider was charging time usage fees. However, if each ISP needed to pay a fee to the adminstrators of the database, there would be only one company risking the cash flow problem. This would be remedied by the administrator by removing the ISP from the database if they didn't pay their monthly fees I realize this is a raw suggestion to an increasing concern. However, if the telecom industry can form a similar solution when porting telephone numbers, I think the Internet community can collectively think of a possible solution in their scenerio. The whole issue is portability and I like the discussions happening about it. Actually, I would like to know more. If anyone knows of similiar discussions or is interested in pursuing something of this nature, I would appreciate an email. Kevin Shea Telecom Research Services telres@gramercy.ios.com http://gramercy.iios.com/~telres/telres2.html ------------------------------ From: wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Subject: Re: WUTCO, WECO, Graybar (was Re: An Old Stromberg Stepper) Date: 13 May 1996 15:38:58 -0400 Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science In article , Mark J. Cuccia wrote: > suite in the local United Fruit Company office building). AT&T started > radio station WEAF New York (which later became WNBC/WRCA and I think > is now WFAN-660am). You can tell this came from an AT&T source ... AT&T's original radio license in New York was actually a station called WBAY. (The callsign doesn't mean anything; the Department of Commerce, and later the FRC and FCC assigned call signs in sequence starting with WAAB and continuing in the form WxAy, WxBy, and so on.) The original idea behind WBAY was "the telephone booth of the air"; that is to say, it was a precursor of today's leased-time radio stations. The general public were invited to make their way to the location of WBAY's transmitter in Manhattan, pay AT&T some amount of money, and then broadcast whatever they wanted for fifteen minutes. Unfortunately, WBAY was located on top of a solidly-constructed steel-and-concrete building surrounded by a whole bunch of other steel-and-concrete buildings. When the then president of AT&T, who lived in southern Connecticut, held a gathering in his home to listen to the inaugural broadcast of WBAY, his party heard nothing but static. He was furious, and the WBAY effort was immediately cancelled. It turned out, however, that WEAF's transmitter was in a much more favorable location. WEAF was used to produce more traditional (for the time) radio programming, and WBAY sank without a trace. AT&T did its best to forget that it ever existed. AT&T and its affiliates also owned a number of other stations. The only one I can think of at the moment was WCAP, in Washington, D.C., which did stand for something: the >CaP Discount Long Distance Digest, Friday May 10, 1996 > EXCEL BEING SUED BY AGENTS - AS STOCK GOES PUBLIC TODAY The representative in question is very obviously in non compliance with corporate policy and hasn't a leg to stand on. The courts will prove this out. Also, the expected damaging results against the IPO did not occur per: By John Kirkpatrick, {The Dallas Morning News} Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 12--Dallas-based Excel Communications was a smash hit at its Wall Street debut Friday, when its shares nearly doubled from $15 to $29.375 in an initial public offering. The New York Stock Exchange's opening bell was rung by Excel founder and CEO Kenny Troutt. By the end of the day, Mr. Troutt had rung up about $1.9 billion in the value of his Excel stock putting him officially in the leagues of Texas' Big Rich. Mr. Troutt, 48, holds almost 64.2 million shares, none of which were part of the initial offering. The offering was for 10 million shares, with Excel getting $15 per share, or $150 million. Friday's performance made Excel the highest percentage-gainer on U.S. exchanges. It also was the third most active stock. Excel has become a somewhat controversial company in recent weeks, as some analysts criticized its accounting methods and other matters. But buyers evidently were unfazed. Shares went as high as $33.125 at one point Friday. "It's definitely a controversial company. Most people either love it or hate it," said Ryan Jacob, director of research at IPO Value Monitor in New York. "If you look at their growth record for the past three years, you can understand the interest in the stock." Excel's revenue grew from $30.8 million in 1993 to $506.7 million in 1995. During the same period, net income rocketed from $2.4 million to $44.5 million. In the first quarter of 1996 alone, net income was $34 million on revenue of $280.8 million. Excel is a reseller of long-distance service, although it is eyeing building parts of its own network. The company relies on multilevel marketing, whereby independent sales representatives -- not employees -- sell the service. These sales reps get commissions based on sales to their own customers, as well as the customers of reps they've signed up for Excel. In an unrelated matter, four Excel sales representatives have sued the company for $400 million in Tulsa, alleging that the company interfered with their incomes. Bloomberg Business News contributed to this report. ON THE INTERNET: Visit The Dallas Morning News on the World Wide Web. Point your browser to http://www.pic.net/tdmn/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 13:37:50 -0500 From: Eric A. Roellig Subject: Re: Further Notes to Those Who Ordered Clocks Organization: Cellular Infrastructure Group, Motorola In article you write: > In article roellig@cig.mot.com (Eric > Roellig) writes: >> TELECOM Digest Editor writes: >>> This is a note to those of you who contacted Jim Hill regards getting >>> Western Union clocks. >> I finally got mine last week. > It's nice to hear that somebody got a response from Mr. Hill. I sent I must admit that I was beginning to get rather upset at Mr. Hill myself. After I sent a bank check to him, it was several weeks before he sent my clock -- and at that I found that the packing left much to be desired. There had been some (not critical) damage due to shipping. The damage consisted of a bend in the face. Jim Hill does not seem to reliably read his email. I did find out that after I had sent my check he was in the hospital for some back surgery and is (was) suffering significant pain. I finally found the best way to contact him was via his home phone number that he had sent me when he was exchanging email with me. His address and phone number is: Jim Hill 517 E. Bush Ct. Lompoc, CA 93436 805-737-0272 As Pat had said, he knows a person that got "the cream of the crop" and has them available for a higher price. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I had been reluctant to give out the street address and phone number since he first said to me he would prefer email, but he recently supplied me his phone number also with a note of apology 'for being in the hospital'. Well, no one needs to apologize for being in the hospital with back trouble; I know what awful pain that can be. Once a few years ago I sprained by back a little; it was nothing permanent but for a few days I had to walk around like a gorilla; you know, bent over in the middle with my hands dangling in front of me as I walked around. Any effort to stand up straight was very painful. I imagine whatever WUTCO clocks he is able to round up at this point will probably be more epensive, but also probably in better shape. The one I got from him keeps perfect time. I had a bit of a hassle at first getting the pendulum adjusted correctly on it, and I had to go to a guy here who repairs old clocks and get a suspension spring from him which would support the pendulum correctly. All of the old 'self-winders' need a suspension spring which have a certain temper to them; more stiffness than usually found. Other than that and some rust plus a broken glass on the front it does fine. Anyone else who plans to buy one or two of these old clocks from Jim might want to contact him first to find out what the current status is and how long he thinks delivery will take, etc. If he has to bargain with someone else in the process it might take awhile. Also, unless you plan on spending $300-500 for one in mint condition, you might assume that for a couple hundred dollars you will get a running clock in need of cosmetics. You can probably hang it and operate it; but ... plan on spending a little bit of time fixing it up some. You can assume there is going to be some rust and possibly a few dents. If you already got one from Jim in the batch that he had available and are having trouble getting it installed or otherwise operating you can send me a note and I will try to help you. It is really too bad that someone abused these and left them laying in a damp, dirty warehouse for thirty years. The guy who runs the clock repair shop in Skokie has one that is in mint -- that's M-I-N-T condition. Perfect case, perfect hands and face; winds quickly (five seconds) and very softly. Accuracy is about five to ten seconds per month, depending on the weather and humidity, etc. Unlike others in his shop, it has no price tag. When I asked how much, he said five hundred dollars. He also has a grandfather clock with Western Union/Self-Winding Co. works in it. He'll 'consider' parting with that one for six hundred. I'm glad Jim could scrounge up the ones he did for us in the much lower price range. Anyway, stay in touch; let me know your results. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Michael R. Ward Subject: Re: Want History of (US) Telecom Book Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 09:59:42 +0000 Organization: Univ. of Illinois You might want to look at "The Fall of the Bell System," by Peter Temin with Louis Galambos, Cambridge University Press, 1987. This covers exactly the period in question from a policy perspective. Also, Gerald Brock has two excellent books on the effects of regulation and technology on the U.S. telecommunications industry (I do not have titles nearby). The first book starts with the telegraph and goes through divestiture. The more recent book covers the subsequent decade. Brock was an economist at the FCC during divestiture and now is at George Washinton Univiversity's Telecom program. ------------------------------ From: ronda@panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Re: Want History of (US) Telecom Book Date: 13 May 1996 12:08:50 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Leo J. Irakliotis (irakliot@lance.colostate.edu) wrote: > I am looking for one (two at most) books outlining the history of the > telecom industry in the US. In particular, I am insterested in the > era spanning from Theodore Vail's universal service vision, all the way > to MCI's judicial fight in the late 1970s and AT&T's divestiture in > early 1980s. The book "Wrong Number" by Alan Stone is valuable. It was published in 1989. Unfortunately it seems to be out of print. Ronda ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #237 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 15 13:29:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA28423; Wed, 15 May 1996 13:29:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:29:03 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605151729.NAA28423@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #238 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 May 96 13:29:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 238 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson FCC Establishes FRS (Bennett Kobb) Re: 800/888 and COCOTS (Van Hefner) Is There a Mexican FCC? (David Esan) Executone is Acting Like the Old Ma Bell (reb@local.com) Re: Anyone Else Slammed By Heartline? (Lawrence Rachman) Re: Anyone Else Slammed by Heartline? (Van Heffner) BA Announces Relief Plans For 215/610 (John Cropper) For Sale: Newbridge 3624 Main Street Channel Bank (Mark Engelhardt) CDPD in Salt Lake City, UT (Blair Shellenberg) Motorola Automated Data Dispatch System (Blair Shellenberg) COCOTs Without the Alphabet on the Keys! (reb@local.com) How to Learn of Planned NXX's Before Their Opening? (Steve Chilinski) For Sale: KX-TD 1232 Panasonic Phone System (Mark Engelhardt) Outrageous LD 0+ calls via Oncor Communications Inc. (Rupa Schomaker) Help Needed With Ameritech (Chicago)! (kevin@eagle.ais.net) Please read the information at the bottom of this issue! It is very important! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bkobb@netcom.com (Bennett Kobb) Subject: FCC Establishes FRS Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:08:48 GMT Yesterday the Federal Communications Commission announced it has created the Family Radio Service (FRS) in the 462 and 467 MHz bands. The FRS was proposed by Tandy/Radio Shack, supported by Motorola, Uniden and Cobra, and opposed by a substantial majority of commenters. A key issue is whether data communications will be possible in this low-power FM service (even if prohibited), and whether FCC rules will require that the radios be designed to inhibit data connections. I expect the Commission to release the full text of its decision and rules for the Family Radio Service this week. I will post this material on the New Signals web site. Bennett Kobb SpectrumGuide/America's Airwaves http://home.navisoft.com/nspi ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 07:09:39 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: 800/888 and COCOTS Mark J. Cuccia recently wrote: > Recently there was a question in TELECOM Digest about their local > telco (I think it was Sprint-Centel or Sprint-United in Florida) > charging them on their bill for calling 800-555-1212. > There is *not* supposed to be a charge to call *any* 800 number > (that's to actually dial and complete a connection to the 800 number). > As for PAY-PAY-PAY-per-calls using an 800 number, I think that the FCC > is really cracking down on the fraud of the number-holders and billing > agencies in those cases. We haven't really heard much about problems > with them recently, have we? I'm not saying it doesn't still happen, > but the problems seem to have dwindled. The state of Texas (for one) recently passed legislation allowing payphone operators to charge up to $.25 per call to ALL 800/888 numbers. In addition, the new charge for all local payphone calls in that state will also be raised (to $.50). This charge is NOT being imposed by the AOS, but by the COCOTs themselves, INCLUDING GTE and SW BELL (their idea in the first place). It is not just COCOT's ripping people off these days. BTW, I'm not sure how this plays out regarding federal regulations banning charging of a fee for "toll-free" calls. I guess that an arguement could be made that people are actually paying $.25 for "leasing the phone" for 15 minutes. Glad I don't live (or will visit) Texas. Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I would not let something as silly as that stop me from visiting Texas, which is a wonderful place with some very fine people. The theory behind charging for calls to 800/888 from a COCOT is that the COCOT owner has no way to be compensated for the call otherwise, and it is felt he is entitled to compensation on all calls, the same as any telco. Like any other long distance call, part of the charge (usually collected from the recipient in the case of 'toll free' calls) goes back to the originating telco. In other words, the revenue from those calls is divided among the carriers involved the same as on regular long distance calls. On regular long distance calls, the COCOT operator has you put the money in the box, therefore he gets his portion after paying the telco whose line he is on. In the case of 800/888, there is no money to put in the box, but he still wants his portion. A point could be made perhaps that telco should be required to pay commissions on long distance traffic handled by COCOTs which would take care of that problem, but that is not how it is done at this time. That is why the COCOT user has to pay. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Esan <103145.117@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Is There a Mexican FCC? Date: 15 May 1996 14:34:29 GMT Organization: MOSCOM Is there an organization analogous to the US FCC in Mexico? I want to be able to purchase TELMEX tariffs, and when competition comes, the tariffs of their competitors. Gracias in advance. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 09:58:03 +0000 From: Phydeaux Subject: Executone is Acting Like the Old Ma Bell Hi! I was just given an Executone Equity III phone system by a relative who has moved his office. I wish to install it in my home. Unfortu- nately, Executone is most uncooperative and refuses to provide any information whatsoever that will allow me to install the system. Aside from telling me it was against company policy to sell install- ation manuals, they claimed that it was "Against Federal regulations" for me to install it by myself. What a load of crap. For installation, they charge $180 to install the system plus $90 per extension. I've done all the inside wiring in the house for the phones and the computer network myself. Paying over $1000 for something I could easily do in an afternoon is totally unacceptable. I'm hoping that some TELECOM Digest reader out there will be able to provide information that will allow me to install the system. I also hope Executone realizes someday that 1984 has come and gone. Thanks, reb reb@local.com ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 96 09:14:10 EDT From: Lawrence Rachman <74066.2004@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Anyone Else Slammed By Heartline? Yeah ... we got slammed by these folks about a year ago. From Robert's description, it sounds like nothing has changed. As with Robert, I opened my phone bill one month to find the unpleasant surprise of the Heartline logo and monthly fee. I immediately called NYNEX, and they agreed to remove the charges and switch me back to AT&T. (We also had a heated discussion on the limited worth of the password I'd already placed on the account.) They did, however, indicate that Heartland would bill me directly unless I contacted them. Interesting side note here: The phone in question is billed to me, but listed in the phone book to my stepson. I called them up, ready for war. We went through the usual nonsense about someone else in your family requesting the change, etc., after which they "looked it up" and told me that they had a written request on file. I told them that I would be contesting the charges, and to please send a photocopy of the written request. What arrived in the mail some time later was one of these coupons you sometimes find a box of in restaurants or other public places. A great big headline that says WIN THIS JEEP!!!, a place to fill out your name, and some tiny text on the bottom explaining the real intent of a coupon. Usually, you're agreeing to be solicited for timeshare condos, but this one was a switch to Heartline Communications. My stepson's name, and a marginal attempt at his signature, was filled into the blanks. When I confronted him, he swore he hadn't filled in the form, that it wasn't his signature (didn't look that close to me, either), and that he *always* signs his name with the middle initial "W". The "W" was conspicuously absent from the signature on the form. Anyway, Heartline never tried to bill me for the three months of monthly service, and I never got around to mailing the whole package to the Attorney General's office. End of story. It seems to me like these folks were trawling the phone directory slamming folks. And I guess it worked often enough, as they're still doing it. Keep your eyes peeled; its dangerous out there, folks. LR ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 07:09:25 -0700 From: vantek@northcoast.com (VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS) Subject: Re: Anyone Else Slammed by Heartline? Robert Bononno recently said: > Does anyone have any additional information on Heartline? I'd be > interested in hearing other reports. I'm seriously considering writing > to the Public Service Commission here in NY and the FCC. I mean, this > is fraud after all. Heartline has a long history of complaints regarding slamming. Below is an excerpt from a recent article we did concerning known "slammers". The entire text is available in our April 1996 issue (available at the website below): HEARTLINE COMMUNICATIONS AKA TOTAL NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS (TNT) This is the newest company to enter the DLD Digest "Hall of Shame" (still under construction). The company seems to have a very colorful history, including multiple slamming complaints, alleged LOA forgery, targeting minority customers for slamming and operating in at least one state without proper licensing. The company has received a whopping 10,561+ slamming complaints against it since Novemember 1995 in the state of California alone. The California State Public Utilities Commission has launched an extensive investigation into the company's operations, and has scheduled a hearing to determine whether the company should have it's ability to switch a long distance customer's services revoked. The CPUC claims that the company not only operated without the proper licensing required for a reseller in that state, but has refused to respond to the CPUC about various allegations concerning their business practices. In addition, Heartline has been accused of signing-up customers illegally by offering "raffle tickets", then using the information contained on those tickets to switch the person's long distance carrier without their consent. The company seems to be operated by an ultra-conservate right-wing religious group in Houston, Texas. When we contacted them by phone several months ago (to investigate a slamming complaint lodged against them by one of our customers), they misrepresented themselves to us as being a long distance carrier, when in fact they are actually a switchless reseller of the WilTel Network. Their customer service representative was one of the rudest people we have ever come across (even worse than certain AT&T operators!). The {San Francisco Chronicle} reported earlier this month that the company is also being investigated for possible civil, regulatory and criminal misconduct. The article noted that over half of the customers that Heartline had switched to their service recently indicated Spanish as their primary language to Pacific Bell, leading to allegations that the company is targeting poor non-English speaking customers as easy slamming targets. It was also noted that some LOA's used by the company appareantly contained forged signatures. In one case an apparant victim of the company turned-out to be a communications administrator at a major electronics firm! We have seen several press clippings about the company recently, and we know of at least one feature article being written about them in a major mainstream magazine. This company has the potential to join the ranks of such illustrious firms as CTS/WORLDxCHANGE, Cherry Communications and Sonic! Stay tuned for more information on these guys. LATE UPDATE: 05/13/96 Heartline is attempting to block any action from being taken against them by the California Public Utilities Commission on the basis that they are "exempt" from PUC regulation. The company may be taking this to the federal level, though we are not certain what the basis for their claim is (perhaps separation of church and state?!!?). Van Hefner - Editor Discount Long Distance Digest On The Web: http://www.webcom.com/longdist/ VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS 326 "I" Street, Suite 148 Eureka, CA 95501-0522 U.S.A. (707) 444-6686 PHONE - (707) 445-4123 FAX ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: BA Announces Relief Plans for 215/610 Date: 15 May 1996 09:52:48 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA Yesterday, BA released plans to the media to introduce "two or more" new area codes to the 215/610 area. Projections now show the potential for 610 to exhaust by mid-1998, and 215 to exhaust by early 1999 (hence the need for action now). Several methods of relief will be introduced, and hearings held this summer. 610 split from 215 in 1994, and was originally projected to last until 2004. John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice: (800) 247-8675 fax: (609) 637-9430 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: Mark Engelhardt Subject: For Sale: Newbridge 3624 Main Street Channel Bank Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 18:21:48 -0500 Organization: Wayzata Technology Inc Reply-To: MarkEngelhardt@Wayzata-Tech.com For Sale: Newbridge 3624 Main Street Channel Bank; Configured for 22 Voice circuits (LGS) and 2 56K data circuits (DNIC); Includes a DTU (Model 2603 Mainstreet) for connecting to V.35; Asking $3000.00. Mark Engelhardt, CEO Wayzata Technology Inc 21 Northeast Fourth Street Grand Rapids, Minnesota 55744 Office.....................(218) 326-0597 Office (Toll Free)....... .1-800-735-7321 Office Fax.................(218) 326-0598 World Wide Web....http://Wayzata-Tech.com ------------------------------------------- E-Mail --> MarkEngelhardt@Wayzata-Tech.com =========================================== ------------------------------ From: blair@instep.bc.ca Subject: CDPD in Salt Lake City, UT Reply-To: blair@instep.bc.ca Organization: InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 20:50:22 GMT Hi there, I am looking for contact information for the CDPD provider in Salt Lake City, UT. I believe the provider is AT&T Wireless Services. If you know someone or are involved with AT&T in Utah, please contact me at . I look forward to your response. Sincerely, InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Blair Shellenberg ------------------------------ From: blair@instep.bc.ca Subject: Motorola Automated Data Dispatch System Reply-To: blair@instep.bc.ca Organization: InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 20:41:50 GMT I am interested in finding out more on a Motorola dispatching system called MADDS. Motorola Automated Data Dispatch System From what I understand, the system runs on Motorola UNIX boxes. Motorola apparently had so many problems with the product that they gave it away to the eight or so taxi companies that bought the MADDS system. These companies formed a group to service and enhance the MADDS product but do not have support from Motorola (we will call this the MADDS consortium). The system uses KDT-440 MDTs (Mobile Data Terminals) with private radio systems. What I would like to know is the following: 1) Which companies had/have the MADDS system. 2) Which companies are part of the MADDS consortium. 3) Any information pertaining to the MADDS system. If you can provide me with any of the information I am looking for it will be greatly appreciated. Please post your response on the newsgroup or contact me at my e-mail address . Sincerely, Blair [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You might want to contact a company called 'American Taxi Dispatch' here in the Chicago north suburban area. Essentially they are the radio dispatching service for a large number of taxicab drivers operating under the 'American Taxi' label in Skokie, Morton Grove, Arlington Heights and numerous other small communities in this area. The drivers are all independent business people, with their taxicab being an 'agency'. They all own their own cabs and they subscribe to or are members of American Taxi Dispatch. I *love* the automated system. In the past you could wait on hold for five minutes at times to reach an operator at the radio room when it was a busy period. The log jam was horrible, and then once you got through to an operator your order was written down and taken to another room where dispatchers talked on the air almost constantly giving out the orders. They would get the orders mixed up; some would get lost in the shuffle entirely, etc. The dispatcher would read your name and address over the air and anyone monitoring those frequencies with a scanner would hear the order. Competing taxicab firms would also monitor those frequencies then hurry over and steal the most lucrative or juicy orders before the assigned driver could arrive. Under the new system, you are on and off the phone in 30-45 seconds. You dial in and use the touchtone keys on your phone to enter the order directly into the computer which then plays it out in the form of a 'queue' with the radio dispatcher seeing the order on a terminal. When he locates a cab in the general vicinity using the radio, and detirmines the driver is free to accept an order he only has to type a few keys on the terminal and then announce over the radio to the driver that, 'the order is on your pager'. Each driver has a little display pager in addition to the radio. This display pager gives the address and other particulars so that part is not read over the air any longer in most cases. When you call in, if you know the voice prompts the computer is going to say to you, then you don't even have to wait for the prompts. You can 'punch through the prompts' in a matter of seconds. The first time they may not have your phone number on file, and that call will take a couple minutes longer, but after the first time, the computer matches your address to the phone number you give. At any time you can punch zero and bail out to an operator, but sometimes with a delay before an operator answers, but never as long as it used to be. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 18:04:33 +0000 From: Phydeaux Subject: COCOTs Without the Alphabet on the Keys! I've heard recently that some COCOT operators have been installing telephones WITHOUT the alphabet on the keys. This is so you will not know how to call 1-800-COLLECT of 1-800-CALL-ATT to bypass their overpriced long distance service. Talk about slime ... reb reb@taco.com ------------------------------ From: Steve.Chilinski@uunet.uu.net Subject: How to Learn of Planned NXX's Before Their Opening? Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 05:44:22 GMT Organization: Gateway to Internet Services Reply-To: chili@gwis.com Does anyone know how I can learn in advance the planned new telephone exchanges in an area code? Are there web sites available, or is there a number to call? I am located in the 330 NPA. Thanks, Steve ------------------------------ From: Mark Engelhardt Subject: For Sale: KX-TD 1232 Panasonic Phone System Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 18:49:37 -0500 Organization: Wayzata Technology Inc Reply-To: MarkEngelhardt@Wayzata-Tech.com I have a Panasonic KX-TD System with the XDP Port for sale: The system has the extra cards for all 12 CO Lines and cards for 24 extensions (still room for one more card). (Note with the XDP you get another 24 extensions.) I have 13 of the DISPLAY phones (#7230); And one DSS unit. I love this phone system but I have to sell it, Please make me a FAIR offer. I paid over $6000.00. It is only ten months old. Mark Engelhardt, CEO Wayzata Technology Inc 21 Northeast Fourth Street Grand Rapids, Minnesota 55744 Office.....................(218) 326-0597 Office (Toll Free)....... .1-800-735-7321 Office Fax.................(218) 326-0598 World Wide Web....http://Wayzata-Tech.com ------------------------------------------- E-Mail --> MarkEngelhardt@Wayzata-Tech.com =========================================== ------------------------------ From: rupa@rupa.com (Rupa Schomaker) Subject: Outrageous LD 0+ Calls via Oncor Communications Inc. Date: 14 May 1996 13:07:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Reply-To: rupa@rupa.com I received my phone bill today and one page on the end is for a $9.03 call that lasted two minutes from Beverly Hills CA to Sugar Land TX at 12:05pm. Over $4.5/min is ridiculous so I called the 800 number on the bill. I immediately got a service rep who explained to me that "because Oncor leases their lines rather than owning them they have significantly higher costs than AT&T and they just pass their calls onto the subscribers." After talking some more, it turns out they just do billing, ie: they are reselling service. I mentioned that traditionally such resold service is *cheaper* than going through AT&T. She says "well, we are just passing our costs on." After some more talk I remind her that 9.03 for a two minute call is ridiculous and is more than I'd be willing to spend even for interna- tional calls, what to speak of calls from CA to TX. After some more talking she says "let me put you on hold" and then after coming back offers to give me a pre-paid calling card with twelve minutes on it for free. At this point I simply agreed to take it since I didn't want to spend any more time dealing with it. Two questions: Should I have refused to pay for their portion of the bill? How can they get away with such a HUGE minute rate? I can see them marking up LD 100% but this is completely ridiculous. ------------------------------ From: kevin@eagle.ais.net Subject: Help Needed With Ameritech (Chicago)! Date: 14 May 1996 20:16:32 GMT Organization: American Information Systems, Inc. I need some help now on who to talk to, how to reach them, and what to say. Here are two situations I am fighting right now: Situation ONE: Billed --> Line 1 Billed --\____ Line 2 together --/ Line 3 All residential ... called 800-244-4444 to disconnect Line 3. They disconnect Line 2 and Line 3. Called to get Line 2 put back in service (it's been around for TWENTY years now) and it was placed back to the pair where Line 3 was. Now, after ten calls, it is supposed to be fixed tomorrow (40 some odd hours later). I have been bounced from the 244-4444 number to the installation office to the repair office. Everyone points the finger elsewhere. In the mean time I effectively have NO SERVICE. It took them 20 minutes to disconnect Line 2 and Line 3 but it's going to take them 24 HOURS to fix their mistake? Who can I complain to? And how can I get this fixed FASTER? Situation TWO: Have ten centrex lines. If I originate call -A- outside of the centrex 'group' (ie: 9, number) and then TAP/Flash the line and originate call -B- outside of the centrex group (ie: 9, number) and hang up call -A- is disconnected (this should transfer the call, btw). Incoming calls or originating call -A- or -B- INSIDE the centrex group will transfer the call as it should. The business these lines are used for is spread throughout the country and 99% of the time both calls (-A- and -B-) will be originating and outside the centrex group. 50% of those calls will need to be transfered to yet another location. Effectively I do not have phone service here as well. For the Centrex office (repair) I have all 708-524 numbers to call; Have had no luck for over two months on this problem (since installation/switch over from POTS). I was given a number to call, "Executive Appeals" (312-727-9411). Can I go any higher? Do I have *ANY* recourse? My combined Ameritech phone bills in a month excedes $5k (not including Cellular One and AT&T usage). I realize that I am small beans compared to the big guys, but... The bottom line is that I want service that I have already paid for but am not getting. I just want the service ... ANY help would be greatly appreciated! ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #238 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 15 16:51:03 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id QAA16629; Wed, 15 May 1996 16:51:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 16:51:03 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605152051.QAA16629@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #239 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 May 96 16:51:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 239 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson National Accounts, Inc. Sued by Three States (TELECOM Digest Editor) Book Review: "Netscape Virtuoso" by Keeler/Miller (Rob Slade) Lucent Ads: Clueless or Just Obsolescent? (Robert McMillin) Minnesota ISDN User's Group Announcement (Kelly Breit) A Problem and Prayers For a Solution (David Wolstenholme) Seeking Information on Nortel Meridian/Genesis Labs (Larry E. Holmen) GSM in USA? (Alistair Knox) Information on Short Message Service (Cellular GSM) Needed (T. Goschuetz) Preventing Picking Up on Busy Line (A. Padgett Peterson) Codec For ISDN Speeds (David Almagor) "Browsing" - a Poem (The UniPoet) "PRIVACY Forum" Reminder (Lauren Weinstein) Telco Voice Mail Signaling (Paul Chehowski) Great Circle Mileage (Robert S. Hall) AT&T Wireless Promo (Steve Kass) Non-Contiguous Area Codes (Stan Young) Traffic Modelling For Call Centres and PBX Trunks (Duncan Turnbull) Cell Towers Don't Have to be Ugly! (Ron Bean) Read the important message at the bottom of this issue. Very important! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 14:48:28 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: National Accounts, Inc. Sued by Three States The Attorney Generals in Illinois, Arkansas and New Jersey joined forces on Tuesday in filing suit against a long distance carrier in Parsippany, NJ charging that the firm slammed a large number of customers. The respective state governments charge that National Accounts, Inc. defrauded victims of thousands of dollars by switching their long distance service without their permission. The lawsuit, filed in New Jersey seeks restitution for at least nine companies and requests a court order to put National Accounts, Inc. out of business. The lawsuit states that National Accounts has prompted 16 complaints in Arkansas, 35 in Illinois, and nine in New Jersey, as well as 128 to the Federal Communications Commission. Messages left at National Accounts for its president Neil Lang and vice-president Richard Dubnoff, who are also charged as individuals in the lawsuit were not returned Tuesday. The company's director of operations, Chris Gushard, said, "Our comment is National Accounts is innocent of all charges. We intend to defend outselves. Beyond that we have no further comment." PAT ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 14:33:00 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Netscape Virtuoso" by Keeler/Miller BKNTSVRT.RVW 960421 "Netscape Virtuoso", Elissa Keeler/Robert Miller, 1996, 1-55828-462-1, U$24.95/C$34.95 %A Elissa Keeler ekeeler@uh.edu %A Robert Miller %C 115 West 18th Street, New York, NY 10011-4195 %D 1996 %G 1-55828-462-1 %I MIS Press/M&T Books/Henry Holt %O U$24.95/C$34.95 +1-212-886-9378 fax: +1-212-633-0748, +1-212-807-6654 %O 76712.2644@compuserve.com http://www.mispress.com fburke@fsb.superlink.net %P 462 %T "Netscape Virtuoso" This book is a very serviceable guide to the use of Netscape, and the World Wide Web as a whole. Explanations of use are clear and straightforward. The material is, at the user level, quite complete. Chapter six lists a number of helpful tips and hints. There are chapters on basic HTML (HyperText Markup Language), Web search sites, and other related topics. So far so good, and I would recommend this book as a very solid first step for those new to Netscape. The authors, however, feel that they have gone beyond the user level, and have provided "useful technical information" about advanced and specialized topics. There *is* mention, and even discussion, of areas such as caching, MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions), and security. Some of the points raised in these sections can be interesting to users, but the level of the content is neither sufficient for technical users, nor completely reliable. (The chapter on security, in particular, contains a number of errors and misleading statements.) copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKNTSVRT.RVW 960421. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. ====================== roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca "Look, Mum, `Barbies'!" - Ryan's reaction to "FashionFile" Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Lucent Ads: Clueless or Just Obsolescent? Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 20:17:33 GMT The full-page newspaper ads for Lucent show a business card with telephone numbers for calling that company. However, there's no web site and no e-mail address, leaving one to wonder just how much of a clue the marketing people have when it comes to digital data services -- which ought to be Lucent's bread and butter, not voice telephony. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com Ever feel like you're being watched? You will. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 16:43:23 -0500 From: kelly.breit@netalliance.net (Kelly Breit) Subject: Minnesota ISDN User's Group Announcement The Minnesota ISDN User's Group has been organized has a focal point for information regarding Integrated Services Digital Network techology in our state. U S West will address the MIUG at our next meeting in conjunction with the Strictly Business Computer and Graphics Expo on May 22 at 8:30 am. For further information regarding the Minnesota ISDN User's Group and to register for this meeting please visit our home page: http://www.miug.org/ The next meeting on June 18 will include a presentation on the variety of ISDN applications. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 15:25:17 PDT From: David Wolstenholme Subject: A Problem and Prayers For a Solution Patrick, Since you are so versed in the telecom world I thought I would pose this situation to you and ask for your comments. We are an ISP in Canada with approximately 1500 lines (500 analog and 1000 digital). Recently the monopoly phone company has hiked the rates from $37 to $96 making our phone bill rather large. Obviously they are not very anxious to help us reduce this and so I have been left the job of researching solutions myself. There is a service they offer called business measured service which is one pilot number with three overlines. These lines are inbound only and cost $40. My question ... if we divide 1500 lines into 500 business measured huntgroups to reduce our cost, how do we aleviate any problems for the dial in user. Is there any technlogy or "black box" you may be aware of that will route the calls accordingly from one busy hunt group to another with seamless integration to the end user? Regards, David Wolstenholme Internet Direct [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: First, you might want to make sure those 'three overlines with associated pilot number' are actual, physical pairs and not just some sort of fancy arrangement similar to 'multi-line ringing' or whatever it is called where you get a few different numbers each with its own ringing cadence but only a single actual pair; a lot of good that would do you. Second, it is hard to believe such an increase in the price was allowed by the governing commission. Are you certain where they were asking $37 for each of 1500 lines they are now asking $96 for each of the lines, or slightly under three times as much? Are these flat rate lines for unmeasured outgoing local service? Third, is there a difference in pricing between the analog and digital lines? If so, consider carefully how many digital lines you really need and if you can change the ratio of analog to digital to bring down the cost. Fourth, getting back to the offer they made of inbound only business lines at $40 each, ask them why there cannot be as many inbound-only lines as desired at $40 each with a single lead number and from thereafter hunting through the entire 1500 lines? Of course you did not say say if you have them all hunting one to the next now or if you have a few different 'entry points' depending on analog versus digital or depending on geographic locations, etc. To answer your question, I do not know of any device you couild have on your premises which would function as you desire. If in the telco's proposition you get a lead number and three others, then you get four per group and not three as you said, and you would need about 400 such groups rather than the 500 you said. You might ask telco if they could wire things so that if the lead number in each of the 400-500 groups was busy (i.e. all the 'overlines' under it were in use thus otherwise causing busy to be returned to the caller) it would hunt to the next 'cluster' of lead number plus 'overlines', etc. I think what we need to find out first before making any really intelligent responses is *how* you presently have the lines configured; i.e. all in one massive hunt group one after the other; divided by geographic areas; divided by aanalog versus digital, or what. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Larry.E.Holmen@cdc.com (larry.e.holmen) Subject: Information Needed on Nortel Meridian/Genesis Labs Date: 14 May 1996 20:42:31 GMT Organization: Control Data Systems, Inc. I am looking for information on a company called "Genesis Labs" (I think). They make a companion product for the Nortel Meridian 1 system that (among other things) enables skill based ACD routing. Any of you have any experence on, or knowledge of this company and it's products? larry holmen leh1@cdsmail.cdc.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 18:55:53 +0100 From: Alistair Knox Subject: GSM in USA? Organization: Macrovision UK Ltd. In article , shane potter writes: > GSM is indeed in operation in the United States Well -- I can (and have) take my UK-based GSM phone to France, Germany and even to South Africa, switch it on and make and receive calls instantly. The worldwide GSM system knows where I am, so people can call my regular UK GSM number and I will receive the call wherever I am in the world, even as far away as South Africa, Singapore, Australia or Hong Kong. Conversely, I can call local numbers in any of these countries that I might be visiting simply by dialling the local number -- just the same as a locally-based GSM subscriber can. This is what GSM is all about. On that basis I think one can say that GSM is *not* in operation in the United States. I do accept that the digital systems being introduced into the USA use GSM-type technology, but the fact is that the USA has opted for a non-GSM system. Alistair Knox ------------------------------ From: tgoschuetz@aol.com (TGoschuetz) Subject: Information on Short Message Service (Cellular GSM) Needed Date: 14 May 1996 16:04:44 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: tgoschuetz@aol.com (TGoschuetz) I'm looking for some technical information on the 'D1-Alphaservice' in Germany. I've found a software to send SMS to D1-phones via modem and would like to use this function in one of my own applications. Does anyone has infos on that issue (protocol etc.) Please answer by mail. Tom ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 9:13:45 EDT From: A. Padgett Peterson Subject: Preventing Picking Up on Busy Line Pat, I have a real telco hardware question: I have been told that there is a simple (e.g. one diode) circuit that can be used to prevent a phone from picking up on a busy line. With FAX, modem, or other data traffic picking up a handset can disrupt it. At the same time I need the phones to be able to pick up on either line on request (push button?) when used for voice. Can you point me to anything? (Checked Sandman -- he has a unit but single line only and blocks all pickup when in use). Warmly, Padgett ------------------------------ From: davida@galaxy.nsc.com (David Almagor x8629) Subject: Codec For ISDN Speeds Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 16:55:00 GMT Hi, I am looking for a single chips codec (A/D and D/A), which would be able to sample at 80 KHz (preferrably up to 100KHz), with an accuracy of 13-14 bits. If someone knows of such a device, please let me know. Dr. David Almagor, DSP Technology Group National Semiconductor Corporation 2900 Semiconductor Drive, Mail Stop D3-825, Santa Clara, CA 95052 Tel: (408)721-8629 FAX: (408)721-1872 email: davida@galaxy.nsc.com ------------------------------ From: bassman7@ix.netcom.com (The UniPoet) Subject: "Browsing" - a Poem Date: 15 May 1996 17:29:03 GMT Organization: Netcom BROWSING When I first started out, it was just on a whim, But it's something I'll never forget, So I got my ol' trusty computer hooked up And I got myself onto the Net. I was having a great time just looking around, But my wife, she was getting quite nervous. I had her convinced she was crazy until I got billed for my first month of service! After my heart palpitations died down And my wife had regained her composure, I knew that I had to do something real fast Or my marriage was coming to closure! So I finally signed up for "unlimited access" 'Cause time seem to always be fleeting, So now all my problems are solved, except one, I have no time for sleeping and eating! The UniPoet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 May 96 14:50 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: "PRIVACY Forum" Reminder Greetings. It's been quite sometime since I've sent a note regarding the PRIVACY Forum here to Telecom (hello Pat!), and since I've been getting increasing numbers of telecommunications related queries lately this seemed like an appropriate time. I've included general descriptive information below. For complete details, please send the single text line (subject doesn't matter): information privacy to: privacy-request@vortex.com You can also access this information, the full PRIVACY Forum archives (including keyword searching), and other related materials, via: http://www.vortex.com The Internet PRIVACY Forum is a moderated digest for the discussion and analysis of issues relating to the general topic of privacy (both personal and collective) in the "information age" of the 1990's and beyond. Topics include a wide range of telecommunications, information/database collection and sharing, and related issues, as pertains to the privacy concerns of individuals, groups, businesses, government, and society at large. The manners in which both the legitimate and the controversial concerns of business and government interact with privacy considerations are also topics for the digest. The PRIVACY Forum is supported in part by the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Committee on Computers and Public Policy [http://www.acm.org], "internetMCI" (a service of the Data Services Division of MCI Telecommunications Corporation) [http://www.mci.com], and Cisco Systems, Inc. [http://www.cisco.com]. These organizations do not operate or control the PRIVACY Forum in any manner, and their support does not imply agreement on their part with nor responsibility for any materials posted on or related to the PRIVACY Forum. Except when unusual events warrant exceptions, digest publication is limited to no more than one or two reasonably-sized digests per week. --Lauren-- ------------------------------ From: paulc@sulis.com (Paul Chehowski) Subject: Telco Voice Mail Signaling Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 03:34:49 GMT Organization: Bell Global Solutions Does anyone know how telco voice mail systems manage to signal a subscriber's phone when they have voice mail waiting? The signaling seems to be done without taking the phone off hook, and it seems to be done on a regular basis to the phone (if you disconnected the phone and plug it back in the light on the phone will come back eventually). Could someone point me to a reference on this type of signaling? ------------------------------ From: Robert S. Hall Subject: Great Circle Mileage Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 12:15:12 GMT I am searching for the algorithm to calculate Great Circle Mileage between two points given latitude and longitude for Points A & B. Many thanks in advance for any assistance. Rob Hall Hong Kong ------------------------------ From: SKASS@forest.drew.edu Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 10:37:06 EDT Subject: AT&T Wireless Promo If, like me, you were frustrated to see the new AT&T Wireless promotions that are cheaper and better than what you got when you signed on, you'll be pleased to know you can get the same deal. When I signed up, I committed for a year at $30/mo (30 min/mo included, and got 3 months of free off-peak air time. I just called them, agreed to commit until a full year from today, and will get not only a rate reduction to $25/month, but _six_ months more free off-peak time, starting with my next billing cycle. I figured they'd expect me to finish out my contract before giving me more free stuff, but they didn't. I'll be making most of my toll calls with a 17.5c/min, six-second billing (no minimum) VoiceNet calling card, and the combination seems like a real steal to me, especially if I can figure out how to program my Ericsson phone to dial the 36 digits I need to make each call. Steve Kass - skass@drew.edu ------------------------------ From: Stan Young Subject: Non-Contiguous Area Codes Organization: Pecanpi, Doraville, GA, USA Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 14:27:41 GMT Looking at the Georgia Area Code map, it struck me that the 706 area code is unusual, to say the least. I'm familiar with one area code surrounding another. I'm familiar with two or more area codes covering the same real estate. But are there any other area codes that cover two physically distinct pieces of real estate (excluding islands)? The two parts of 706 don't touch each other at all. Stan Young syoung@atl.mindspring.com syoung@pecanpi.atl.ga.us [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Take a look at the 312/708/847 areas. When everything (not) 312 was 708, the latter had separate parts not touching or connected in any way. For example, the little villages of Harwood Heights, IL and Norridge, IL are in 708 and are completely surrounded on all sides by Chicago, which is 312. The rest of 708 starts up again a little distance away. A small part of Norridge also touches an area called Unincorporated Norwood Park Township; an area which is not part of any city or town although also surrounded by a few. Norwood Park Township has some 312 and some 708 numbers. In fact this area is odd because it has two telcos (Ameritech and Centel) both in a rather small area of a mile or so and two area codes. Both telcos have some 312 numbers and some 708 numbers; in a few cases on the same block you will find the telcos across the street from each other and the houses at the other end of the block in a different area code, but on the same telco as yourself. I would defer to David Tamkin's expertise on this but I believe there is also a small part of 708 which is isolated from the rest of the area in the south/southwest suburbs where Chicago and the suburbs get jumbled together. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Duncan Turnbull Subject: Traffic Modelling for Call Centres & PBX Trunks Date: Wed, 15 May 96 10:31:00 GMT Hi Pat, Hope things go well over your way. I am interested in traffic models for both customer trunk capacity planning and call centre queueing/scheduling. e.g what are the optimum trunk numbers for a PABX, how is it affected by operating an ACD queue in front of these trunks, what about the number of agents for a call centre with multiple queues and overflow routes and varying required answer times? Currently I use a simple poisson based table from trunk estimation which works well and I can extrapolate these for call centres but I am sure there must be some cleverer ideas out there. If you can point me in the right direction I would be very grateful. Thanks very much, Cheers Duncan dturnbul@clear.co.nz ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 96 06:58:00 CDT From: madnix.uucp!zaphod@nicmad.nicolet.com (Ron Bean) Subject: Cell Towers Don't Have to be Ugly! Recently I heard a report on the radio about towns that are trying to use zoning to block big ugly cell towers from being built in their backyards. It occurred to me that the companies that build these towers should hire an artist to design some better looking towers. There is no law of physics that says they have to be ugly. Look at the big "infrastructure" projects of the 1930's -- they could have make the Golden Gate Bridge ugly, but they chose not to. Maybe they should have a contest to design a cell tower that doesn't "uglify" it's surroundings. madnix!zaphod@nicmad.nicolet.com (Ron Bean) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ameritech has been having a fight for sometime with the village of Winnetka, Illinois regards the placement of a cellular tower. Telco wants to put the tower at the highest point in the village they can obviously, and this apparently is on the roof of a church there. The church is happy to have it (or rather, the rent money they will collect for it) but the village trustees are in a snit about it because they say it will be ugly. This argument between Winnetka and Ameritech has been going on for a couple years. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #239 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 15 17:25:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id RAA20025; Wed, 15 May 1996 17:25:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 17:25:10 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605152125.RAA20025@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #240 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 May 96 17:25:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 240 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson BA Proposes 412 Overlay (John Cropper) 610 Split Also Likely (John Cropper) LATA List and Some Descriptions (Mark J. Cuccia) CFP: Very Low Bit-rate Video Coding (IEEE J-SAC) (Argi Krikelis) Telecom Archives CD-ROM Ordering Details (TELECOM Digest Editor) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: BA Proposes 412 Overlay Date: 15 May 1996 20:31:57 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA DWINDLING SUPPLY OF PHONE NUMBERS TRIGGERS NEED FOR A NEW AREA CODE IN WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA Bell Atlantic Proposes an "Overlay" Plan to the Public Utility Commission Pittsburgh, Pa. --Like grains of sand or stars in the sky, most people feel there's no end to the supply of telephone numbers. Not so. "The truth is, the reserve of telephone numbers in the 412 area code is diminishing at an astonishing rate," said Bill Harral, president of Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania. He estimates that the 412 area code will run out of available phone numbers in June, 1997. The shortage is triggered by the explosive popularity of cellular telephones, multiple residential phone lines, pagers, fax machines and modems. Further demand for numbers results from the entrance of new companies seeking to provide local service in the Pittsburgh area. Harral noted that prior to 1995 Bell Atlantic assigned about 140,000 new phone numbers a year in the 412 area. In 1995, that number climbed to 820,000. "We have to act now," said Harral. How do you come up with new phone numbers? Bell Atlantic has proposed to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission a plan called an "overlay." With an overlay, a new area code would be added within the same geographic boundaries as those of the 412 area code. Existing phone numbers in the 412 area would begin with "412" followed by seven digits, while new phones in the same area would have the new area code followed by the seven-digit number. "The advantage of the overlay is that it doesn't slice municipalities in half, and it doesn't force anyone to change his or her phone number," said Harral. The overlay does come with one necessary dialing change. Once it's introduced, all callers will need to dial the full ten-digit telephone number (three-digit area code plus the seven-digit number) for all calls -- an eventuality which is unavoidable in Pennsylvania, said Harral. "Because we need so many new phone numbers, ten-digit dialing is becoming a way of life in this country. By implementing an overlay, we will put Pennsylvania in the forefront in meeting the demand for phone numbers." Will a new area code change toll rates? "Absolutely not," said Harral. "A local call will remain a local call, even if it's in the new overlay area code." Harral noted that a less desirable alternative is to split the 412 area, assigning a new area code to the split-off portion. The downside of the "geographic split" is that "communities are divided and more than a million customers would be forced to change their telephone numbers," said Harral. Businesses in the new area code would have to change numbers on stationery, business cards, catalogs, promotional material and company vehicles. Businesses and other customers throughout the old and new area codes would incur expenses to reprogram equipment such as cellular phones and burglar alarms. Further, while businesses assigned to the new area code would bear the hardship of changing their telephone numbers, their competitors remaining in the current area code would not. Another disadvantage of the geographic split is that business and residence customers dialing between the old and new area codes would have to dial eleven digits (one plus the area code plus the seven-digit number). "After studying all the issues, we believe the overlay is the most practical and the least disruptive approach to meeting the growing need for phone numbers. Clearly, it's in the best interests of all customers," said Harral. Bell Atlantic Corporation (NYSE: BEL) is at the forefront of the new communications, entertainment and information industry. In the mid-Atlantic region, the company is the premier provider of local telecommunications and advanced services. Globally, it is one of the largest investors in the high-growth wireless communication marketplace. Bell Atlantic also owns a substantial interest in Telecom Corporation of New Zealand and is actively developing high-growth national and international business opportunities in all phases of the industry. #### JC's Note: 412 had the largest growth for a non-expansion NANP in the first quarter of 1996 (Jan-Apr) with 70 COCs added (700,000 numbers) for the period. Only the new 847 added more (80). Close behind were 510 (51), 415 (47), and 213 (41). John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice: (800) 247-8675 fax: (609) 637-9430 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: 610 Split Also Likely Date: 15 May 1996 20:15:08 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA From the Associated Press: PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The soaring demand for phone numbers to match with fax machines, online computers, and other communications gadgets could leave the Philadelphia region with four or more area codes before the decade ends. The 610 area codes, introduced just two years ago in hopes of keeping the region flush with new phone numbers well into the next century, is expected to dry up in 1998, along with the area's older 215 area code. Telecommunications officials assembled here earlier this month to brainstorm for ways to create new lines. All the proposals they developed would add area codes. The team of phone companies, cellular providers and paging services convened by Bell Atlantic came up with several proposals it plans to file with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in coming weeks. For the 215 area code, which covers the city, and some (northern) suburbs, the group developed a proposal that would split the area into two separate codes. AN ALTERNATIVE plan would create a second, "overlay" area code in the existing 215 boundaries, a plan that would leave some customers with two area codes at one address. With the overlay plan, existing lines would be able to keep the 215 area code. The panel developed similar proposals for 610, which covers all or part of ten eastern Pennsylvania counties. The PUC can accept the ideas, tell the group to try again or come up with its own plans. Bellcore, the research arm of the seven regional Bell companies, will assign the new area codes. ############# [JC's note: Basicly the same old, same old: A few two-way split plans, and one overlay plan per NPA involved. According to BA, 2.2 million numbers remain in 215, with 3.3 million in 610. Consumption rates are roughly 300K/quarter in 215 and 350-400K/quarter in 610 give/take 50K.] John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice: (800) 247-8675 fax: (609) 637-9430 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 14:19:52 -0700 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: LATA List and Some Descriptions While inTRA-LATA competition (particularly being able to choose a primary 1+/0+ default toll carrier for inTRA-LATA) and even *local* competition is becoming more available, as well as the local carriers being able to offer toll inTER-LATA, and the concept of "LATA's" might become meaningless or obsolete in the near future, LATA's still do exist. LATA's (ocal ccess ransport reas) were "created" in the early to mid 1980's as part of the divestiture (breakup) of the one corporate Bell System and the MFJ (odification of inal udgement). As mentioned below, there was an "initial" LATA scheme, but there were some changes to this just at the time of divestiture and the beginnings of "Equal Access" services. I am interested in what the original LATA scheme really was intended to be, including the LATA codes. I mention below *some* of the original intended LATA's and how they were actually changed when LATA's "officially" took effect in January 1984. If anyone has a list of the 1982/83 LATA's and the associated "LATA Codes", I'd be interested in some of these original but later modified LATA situations. LATA codes are three digit codes assigned to each LATA or LATA-Like territory. I don't know who did the original numbering scheme (AT&T/Bell? DOJ? USITA? NECA? FCC? or a combination of them?), nor do I know who maintains the LATA numbering for any slight modifications which might be necessary (Bellcore? FCC? ATIS or their forums? etc). The LATA codes are used for "administrative" and "organizational" purposes. They are not really intended to be network routing or switching codes (but what a particular interexchange carrier does within its *own* network for routing and switching is really its own business), but used to organize listings of NPA-NXX codes of a particular carrier or switching entity as well as for billing functions, such as division of toll revenues. LATA codes are indicated in such materials as: tariffs filed with the FCC by AT&T and other toll carriers; Bellcore TRA products; NECA products; etc. The listing below has been compiled from various sources, particularly from tariff filings. So any additions, corrections, further details will be appreciated! ------------------ LATA Names and Service Regions by LATA Number: Within "Bell" LATA's, there CAN BE and ARE independent telco central offices (there are 164 total "Bell" Latas); Within an "independent" LATA, there CAN BE and ARE are central offices of "other" independents; LATA's CAN and DO cross state/NPA lines -- sometimes in rather large chunks; sometimes just 'zigzagging' about a state/NPA boundary. There are even cross-state situations where one LATA contains central offices of an adjacent state served by a DIFFERENT Regional Bell Company (i.e. Some Bell South LATA's can extend into portions of TX and AR, and include central offices of Southwestern Bell as well as some small local independent telcos; Likewise, some Southwestern Bell LATA's can extend into portions of LA, MS, TN, KY and include central offices of Bell South as well as some small local independent telcos). 1NX (NYNEX) 2NX (Bell Atlantic) 3NX (Ameritech) 4NX (Bell South) 5NX (Southwestern Bell) 6NX (US West) 7NX (Pacific Telesis) 8NX (Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, US Virign Islands; also includes 'pseudo' LATA's for Canada, other Caribbean, etc) 9NX (LATA's and Lata-like regions of: Cincinnati Bell, Southern New England (Bell), large "independent" telco territory) This listing represents the Bell, "offshore" and "independent" LATA's of the US (including AK, HI, PR, USVI, etc) as finalized around 1984/85. There were some modifications made to the "initial" LATA scheme as submitted in 1982/83. Originally, there were to be only 160 "Bell" LATA's. After some AT&T and DOJ/Greene negotiations, there were four additional "Bell" LATA's. There were also to have been some additional "independent" LATA's using "9NX" codes such as: 955 Dothan AL - GTE (9NX code?) Las Vegas NV - Centel (9NX code?) Bryan TX - GTE 959 Jefferson City & Columbia MO - shared United and GTE (9NX code?) Ashland KY - GTE Some of the above "deleted" independent LATA's had their boundaries redrawn to become a "Bell" LATA, by adding some Bell central offices of an adjacent "initial/existing" Bell LATA. Others were just completely absorbed into an intial/existing adjacent "Bell" LATA. In addition, there were also some *additional* "independent" LATA's added to the "initial" scheme. Of the "Bell" LATA's, you will note that for the most part, they are all numbered with consecutive even numbers. There are a few exceptions to this in the listing. In the listing below, there are some "odd" numbered "Bell" LATA's as well as some "skipped" even number sequences. This might give some insight into what the 1982/83 "initial" LATA scheme was. 1NX - NYNEX (12 total) =========== 120 Maine 122 New Hampshire 124 Vermont 126 western MA 128 eastern MA 130 Rhode Island 132 New York City METRO (also includes two ratecenters of extreme southwestern CT handled by NY Telephone; includes Long Island and portions of some counties north of Bronx NYCity) 133 Poughkeepsie NY 134 Albany NY 136 Syracuse NY 138 Binghampton NY 140 Buffalo NY 2NX - Bell Atlantic (19 total) =================== 220 Atlantic Coastal area (NJ) 222 Delaware Valley area (NJ) 224 northern NJ area 226 Capital PA 228 Philadelphia PA (includes entire state of Delaware) 230 Altoona PA 232 northeastern PA 234 Pittsburgh PA 236 Washington DC METRO (includes MD and VA suburbs) 238 Baltimore MD 240 Hagerstown MD 242 Salisbury MD 244 Roanoke VA 246 Culpepper VA 248 Richmond VA 250 Lynchburg VA 252 Norfolk VA 254 Charleston WV 256 Clarksburg WV 3NX - Ameritech (29 total) =============== 320 Cleveland OH 322 Youngstown OH 324 Columbus OH 325 Akron OH 326 Toledo OH 328 Dayton OH 330 Evansville IN 332 South Bend IN 334 Auburn-Huntington IN 336 Indianapolis IN 338 Bloomington IN 340 Detroit MI 342 upper peninsula MI 344 Saginaw MI 346 Lansing MI 348 Grand Rapids MI 350 northeastern WI 352 northwestern WI 354 southwestern WI 356 southeastern WI 358 Chicago IL METRO (includes some WI and IN suburbs) 360 Rockford IL 362 Cairo IL 364 Sterling IL 366 Forrest IL 368 Peoria IL 370 Champaign IL 374 Springfield IL 376 Quincy IL 4NX - Bell South (38 total) ================ (note within Florida, there are *also* "sub-LATA zones" as per state regulatory stipulations. They are known as "Equal Access Exchange Areas", EAEA's; this *also* happens in "independent" areas in Florida using '9NX' LATA codes) 420 Asheville NC 422 Charlotte NC 424 Greensboro NC 426 Raleigh NC 428 Wilmington NC 430 Greenville SC 432 Florence SC 434 Columbia SC 436 Charleston SC 438 Atlanta GA 440 Savannah GA 442 Augusta GA 444 Albany GA 446 Macon GA 448 Pensacola FL (448-13 WA-EA; 448-14 CR-EA; 448-15 FW-EA) 450 Panama City FL (450-09 PC-EA; 450-10 SJ-EA; 450-11 QC-EA; 450-12 MR-EA) 452 Jacksonville FL (452-04 CL-EA; 452-05 LO-EA) 454 Gainesville FL (454-02 NW-EA; 454-03 OL-EA) 456 Daytona Beach FL (456-01 PO-EA) 458 Orlando FL (458-06 OR-EA; 458-07 LB-EA; 458-08 WI-EA) 460 southeastern FL (460-17 GG-EA; 460-18 GR-EA) 462 Louisville KY 464 Owensboro KY 466 Winchester KY 468 Memphis TN 470 Nashville TN 472 Chattanooga TN 474 Knoxville TN 476 Birmingham AL 477 Huntsville AL 478 Montgomery AL 480 Mobile AL 482 Jackson MS (covers a portion of LA across the river from Natchez MS) 484 Biloxi/Gulfcoast area MS 486 Shreveport LA 488 Lafayette LA 490 New Orleans LA 492 Baton Rouge LA 5NX - Southwestern Bell (27 total) ======================= 520 St.Louis MO (also includes a rather sizeable portion of central IL independent and Ameritech central offices) 521 Westphalia MO 522 Springfield MO 524 Kansas City MO area 526 Ft.Smith AR 528 Little Rock AR 530 Pine Bluff AR 532 Witchita KS 534 Topeka KS 536 Oklahoma City OK 538 Tulsa OK 540 El Paso TX 542 Midland TX 544 Lubbock TX 546 Amarillo TX 548 Witchita Falls TX 550 Abilene TX 552 Dallas TX 554 Longview TX 556 Waco TX 558 Austin TX 560 Houston TX 562 Beaumont TX 564 Corpus Christi TX 566 San Antonio TX 568 Brownsville TX 570 Hearne TX 6NX - US West (27 total) ============= 620 Rochester MN 624 Duluth MN 626 St.Cloud MN 628 Minneapolis-St.Paul MN 630 Sioux City IA 632 Des Moines IA 634 Davenport IA 635 Cedar Rapids IA 636 Brainerd-Fargo ND (also includes large part of western MN) 638 Bismark ND 640 South Dakota 644 Omaha NE 646 Grand Island NE 648 Great Falls MT 650 Billings MT 652 Idaho (southern) 654 Wyoming 656 Denver CO 658 Colorado Springs CO 660 Utah 664 New Mexico 666 Phoenix AZ 668 Tucson AZ 670 Eugene OR 672 Portland OR 674 Seattle WA 676 Spokane WA (includes small part of central Idaho) 7NX - Pacific Telesis (12 total) ===================== 720 Reno NV 721 Pahrump NV (southern NV, including Sprint's Centel Las Vegas) 722 San Francisco CA 724 Chico CA 726 Sacramento CA 728 Fresno CA 730 Los Angeles CA 732 San Diego CA 734 Bakersfield CA 736 Monterey CA 738 Stockton CA 740 San Luis Obispo CA 8NX - "offshore & international" ================================ 820 Puerto Rico (ITT) 822 US Virgin Islands (ITT) 824 Bahamas (pseudo-LATA) (C&W) 826 Jamaica (pseudo-LATA) (C&W) 828 Dominican Republic (pseudo-LATA) (GTE) 830 "other Caribbean islands" (pseudo-LATA) (C&W) (Trinidad & Tobago, Bermuda, Cayman Is, Turks & Caicos Is, British West Indies from British Virgin Is to Grenada including Barbados) 832 Alaska (AT&T Alascom) 834 Hawaii (GTE) 836 Midway-Wake (CNMI?, Guam? American Samoa?) (GTE/RCA) 838 Mexico (pseudo-LATA) (Telemex/ITT) 840 "international/overseas" (pseudo-LATA) Canadian "pseudo" LATA's 850 Bell Canada- Quebec (BCE- Bell Canada Enterprises; also, BCE's Telebec central offices are in this "LATA") 851 Bell Canada- Ontario (BCE- Bell Canada Enterprises; also, BCE's Northern Telephone of Ontario and the Ontario Government/Railways owned Ontario Northland Telecomm. central offices are in this "LATA") 881 Edmonton AB (EdTel, now part of "Telus" Corp) 882 Prince Rupert City BC (municipally owned "independent") 883 GTE's Quebec Telephone 884 Alberta (except Edmonton) (AGT is part of "Telus" Corp) 885 Newfoundland (NewTel is partially owned by BCE) 886 GTE's British Columbia Telephone Co. 887 Prince Edward Island (owned by MT&T) 888 Manitoba (MTS) 889 Nova Scotia (MT&T- Maritime Tel & Tel, partially owned by BCE) 890 New Brunswick (NBTel is partially owned by BCE) 891 Saskatchewan (Saskatel) 892 "Northwestel" (owned by BCE) (northern BC, YT, NWT-incl.old Bell Canada in eastern/Arctic) 9NX - "independent" LATA's (continental US) =========================================== 920 Connecticut (SNET, except for NY Tel's ratecenters; Woodbury Tel. in Woodbury CT is in this LATA) 921 Fishers Island NY (local independent telco) 922 Cincinnati Bell (OH, KY, IN) 923 Lima-Mansfield OH (two non-contiguous territories) SPRINT-United 924 Erie PA (GTE) 927 Harrisonburg VA 928 Charlottesville VA 929 Edinburg VA 930 Epps Fork VA 932 Bluefield WV 937 Richmond IN 938 Terre Haute IN 939 Ft.Myers FL (SPRINT-United) (939-01 Avon Park EA; 939-02 Ft.Myers EA) 949 Fayetteville NC 951 Rocky Mount NC 952 Tampa FL (GTE) 953 Talahassee FL (SPRINT-Centel) 956 Bristol-Johnson City TN (SPRINT-United) 958 Lincoln NE (Lincoln Tel & Tel) 960 Coeur d'Alene ID (GTE)- north Idaho 961 San Angelo TX (GTE) 963 Kalispell MT 973 Palm Sprins CA (GTE) 974 Rochester NY (Rochester Frontier Tel) 976 Mattoon IL 977 Macomb IL 978 Olney IL 980 Navajo Communications of Arizona 981 Navajo Communications of Utah 999 (default "lata" code for NPA's 500, 800, 900, etc) some other "major" independent telcos of the above 9NX "LATA's": (ICTC -- Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company) (SPRINT-United's Carolina Tel & Tel) (GTE/Contel- formerly Contel) (SPRINT-Centel) (SPRINT-United's Inter-Mountain Tel. Co.) (Citizen's Telecom- once was independent areas served by GTE) 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 ------------------------------ From: Argi Krikelis Subject: CFP: Very Low Bit-rate Video Coding (IEEE J-SAC) Date: 14 May 1996 17:14:13 GMT Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications Call for Papers Very Low Bit-rate Video Coding Technology advances and application demands lead to the inevitable merging of telecommunications and computing areas. Future user requirements are anticipated to be dominated by video-driven applications, with demands for a very high degree of flexibility and extensibility. Applications will include real-time, high quality interactivity using natural and/or synthetic video data over limited bandwidth communication lines and access of limited capacity storage media, providing ability to achieve scalability with fine granularity in spatial and temporal resolution and complexity. Such demands will require robust and efficient very low bit-rate video coding approaches, able to support resilient transmission/accessing of very high quality video pictures. Current video processing technologies and international standards will not be able to cope with such requirements because of well known limitations, e.g., block and mosquito artifacts. The development and evolution of alternative video coding techniques and video processing systems is necessary. The nature of the required research poses a number of challenges in algorithm development and specification and development of coding tools which will allow a very high degree of application-specific functionality, evolution of processing (especially highly parallel) architectures to efficiently support the required operations, etc. The IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications is developing an issue with the broad theme of very low bit-rate video coding. This issue will include, but is not limited to, papers on the following topics: Very low bit-rate video coding techniques for video transmission and storage content-based; model-based; vector quantisation; wavelets; fractals. Scalability issues in very low bit-rate coding; Very low bit-rate coding of hybrid (video and synthetic) data; Very low bit-rate video coding for multimedia (e.g. stereoscopic images and 3D views); Robustness of very low bit-rate video coding in error-prone environments; Processing architectures for very low bit-rate video coding. Prospective authors of original work should submit six (6) copies of their manuscripts to one the Guest Editors listed below, according to the following schedule: six (6) copies of the full manuscript September 1, 1996 notification of decisions December 1, 1996 final version of the manuscript Feburary 1, 1997 publication date Fourth quarter 1997 Guest Editors Dr. Kazumasa Enami Dr. Anargyros (Argy) Krikelis Science and Technical Research Labs Aspex Microsystems Ltd. Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) Brunel University 1-10-11 Kinuta, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 157 Uxbridge, UB8 3PH JAPAN United Kingdom Tel: +81 3 54942300 Tel: +44 1895 274000 ext 2763 Fax: +81 3 54942309 Fax: + 44 1895 258728 E-mail: enami@strl.nhk.or.jp E-mail:Argy.Krikelis@aspex.co.uk Argy.Krikelis@brunel.ac.uk Prof. Todd R. Reed Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering University of California Davis, CA 95616 USA Tel:+1 (916) 7524720 Fax:+1 (916) 7528428 E-mail:trreed@ucdavis.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Telecom Archives CDROM Ordering Details Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 14:42:16 -0700 From: TELECOM Digest Editor People have been asking how to order the Telecom Archives CDROM by mail order. Not everyone has been able to find it in a store as of yet. If you can find it in a store, you will save on the shipping charges, however it might simply be easier for you to order it direct from the publisher, so details are given below. The Telecom Archives is a fifteen year collection of the stuff which has appeared in TELECOM Digest since 1981 along with a few hundred other files of telecom related material. There are a lot of technical files, historical files, etc. Everything that was there through the end of 1995 is included. The cost is $39.95. Please buy a copy, as the royalties will help me a lot. Also, if sales are good, there will be an update with the 1996 material on it at some future point. ============================================================================ shipping information: ============================================================================ Shipping is $5 in the USA, Canada, and Mexico for First Class. Overseas is $9 PER ORDER. There is an additional $3 COD charge (USA Only). UPS Blue Label (2nd day) [USA Only] is $10 PER ORDER, UPS Red Label (next day) [USA Only] is $15 PER ORDER. Federal Express (next day) [USA Only] is $20 PER ORDER. For overseas courier rates, please email us. Ordering Information: You can order by sending a check or money order to Walnut Creek CDROM Suite E 4041 Pike Lane Concord CA 94520 USA 1 800 786-9907 (Toll Free Sales) [open 24HRS] +1 510 674-0783 (Sales-International) +1 510 603-1234 (tech support) [M-F 9AM - 5PM, PST] +1 510 674-0821 (FAX) orders@cdrom.com (For placing an order) info@cdrom.com (For requesting more information or for customer service questions) support@cdrom.com (For technical questions and technical support) majordomo@cdrom.com (Info Robot-automated product information and support) We accept Visa, Mastercard, American Express, Discover, and Diner's Club. ALL credit card orders MUST include a phone or fax number. COD shipping is available for $8.00 in the US only, NO COD shipping to P O Boxes. Checks and Money Orders payable in US funds, can be sent along with ordering information to our normal business address. California residents please add sales tax. Shipping and handling is $5 (per ORDER, not per disc) for US, Canada, and Mexico, and $9 for overseas (AIRMAIL) shipping. Please allow 14 working days ( 3 weeks ) for overseas orders to arrive. Most orders arrive in 1-2 weeks. -------------------- Therefore, unless you want next day delivery by FedEx which would make it quite expensive you would send $39.95 plus $5 to Walnut Creek at thier address above, or authorize them to charge your credit card, etc. As noted also, customers outside the USA need to pay additional shipping costs. Write to Walnut Creek at the addresses above. If you can find it in a retail outlet then you save shipping and handling charges. In any event, please buy one today! PAT -------------------- The Telecom Archives remains a free resource for the Internet and is available using anonymous ftp massis.lcs.mit.edu. ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #240 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 15 19:42:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id TAA03092; Wed, 15 May 1996 19:42:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 19:42:21 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605152342.TAA03092@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #241 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 May 96 19:42:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 241 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Sprint Eliminates Calling Card Surcharges (Robert McMillin) Re: Sprint Eliminates Calling Card Surcharges (Ken Levitt) Re: Does Sprint Provide NYC Local Service? (Robert Bononno) Re: Information Wanted on Omnipoint PCS Network (Richard Harris) Re: Average Calls per Cellular Subscriber? (Richard Harris) Re: Average Calls per Cellular Subscriber? (Jeff Bamford) Re: Is There a Mexican FCC? (Clive Dawson) Re: How to Learn of Planned NXX's Before Their Opening? (Peter M. Weiss) Re: How Will Local Telephone Competition Work? (Jorene Downs) Local Competition Not Just Reselling (Thomas Peters) Re: Local Competition (John David Galt) Re: Pac Bell Behind the Times (John Cropper) Re: Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX (Josef Finsel) Re: Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? (J Levine) Re: Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? (DSheafer) Re: Caller ID Picks up 800 Number Calls? (Jeffrey Rhodes) Re: What is "Feature Group A"? (John Dearing) GMSK Modulation and Demodulation Techniques (Ian Nigel) Re: Long Distance From Local Number? (Tim Updegrove) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rlm@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) Subject: Re: Sprint Eliminates Calling Card Surcharges Organization: Charlie Don't CERF Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 20:23:46 GMT On 14 May 1996 00:32:41 PDT, VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS said: > Kansas City, MO, May 13, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- In a surprising move > today, Sprint announced that it is eliminating all surcharges on it's > domestic calling card calls. > Like AT&T and MCI, Sprint has normally imposed an $.80 surcharge to > it's customers on each of their calling card calls. As of today, the > company will be begin re-issuing their Sprint FoNCARDs, and dropping > the domestic surcharge alltogether. > In addition, the company will be marketing the card at a new "flat > rate" of $.25 per minute, anywhere in the U.S., anytime of day. > Previously, the company had charged a variety of per-minute rates > that varied according to mileage and time-of-day. Wonderful. I'm a Sprint California Sense customer. Does this mean that, instead of $0.05/min for intra-California calls, I now pay $0.25/min? I can do better on my AT&T card! More games and more ruses. Long distance plans are made up to evade comparison and baffle the consumer. Robert L. McMillin | rlm@helen.surfcty.com | Netcom: rlm@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 96 12:18:59 EDT From: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org (Ken Levitt) Subject: Re: Sprint Calling Card Surcharges In TELECOM Digest V16 #236 Van Heffner wrires: > Kansas City, MO, May 13, 1996 (DLD DIGEST) -- In a surprising move > today, Sprint announced that it is eliminating all surcharges on it's > domestic calling card calls. I called Sprint today and asked about this. I spoke to a Jerry O'Connor who said that we still have a surcharge because we have a business account and the change in surcharges is only for residential customers. Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390 UUCP: zorro9!levitt INTERNET: levitt@zorro9.fidonet.org or levitt%zorro9.uucp@talcott.harvard.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They never can seem to get their stories straight can they? The press release said *all* surcharges then this guy comes along and says not really; just for one category of customer. So imagine all the business customers who read that press release and took it at face value; maybe even told thier employees to begin using the Sprint card all the time in light of this change. Won't they be suprised to get thier bill next month and see all those surcharges still there ... just like Friday Free where they said *all customers* and then later said they only meant certain customers and come back still later to say they did not mean everything free, just certain places, etc. And now, as a fitting conclusion to Friday Free, I am getting correspondence from people who say Sprint has *back-billed* them for international calls made on Fridays claiming 'international was never supposed to be part of the deal.' When challenged on it or enough of a stink is raised, Sprint is blaming it on 'a computer mixup' and crediting those calls. There was no computer mixup, the back-billing by Sprint was willful. I wonder how they will explain the 'elimination of all surcharges' notice to those customers who will still be getting surcharged? Possibly for those who notice it and call to complain, it will be just be treated as another 'computer mixup'. This is twice now in recent months this Digest has been burned by running press releases from Sprint which turned out to be -- well, basically fraudulent and misleading. There are people who read this Digest who place some credence in what is reported here. I cannot begin to catch all errors of fact which get published but when you have two as outstanding as these, I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Please don't send me any more Sprint press releases; I don't have time to personally verify if they are truthful or not before running them. If you have been lied to or cheated by Sprint about all I can suggest is you put a total freeze on payments to the company until the disputes get resolved, if they ever do. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bononno@acf2.nyu.edu (Robert Bononno) Subject: Re: Does Sprint Provide NYC Local Service? Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 23:34:32 -0400 Organization: New York University In article , vjp2@dorsai.dorsai.org (Vasos Panagiotopoulos) wrote: > Does anyone know anything about Sprint providing local service in NYC? > Any chance I can get a Sprint local line call forwared automatically > (ie no physical connection) to an existing nynex-connected number? > Anyone have any telephone numbers? (pls cc e-mail..tnx) I received a mailing from MCI a few days ago. They were offering to carry all toll calls from my region, calls that require a "1" to dial. They didn't list any rates or indicate a pricing plan as I recall. So they may not be offering "local" service but they're getting closer. Robert Bononno ++++ bononno@acf2.nyu.edu ++++ Techline ------------------------------ From: NMKL79A@prodigy.com (Richard Harris) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Omnipoint PCS Network Date: 15 May 1996 19:44:03 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Jon, Omnipoint received a pioneer preference for the New York MTA which covers approximately 26 million people in primarily, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. They also were the successful bidder on another 13 million pops in the C block auction in areas primarily in New York and Pennsylvania including Philadelphia, Buffalo, and Rochester. They are not yet operating in any of these areas so there is nothing on product offerings and pricing. Rich Harris Harris & Associates Consultants in Wireless Telecommunications nmkl79a@prodigy.com ------------------------------ From: NMKL79A@prodigy.com (Richard Harris) Subject: Re: Average Calls per Cellular Subscriber? Date: 15 May 1996 19:23:58 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY I estimate approximately 68 calls per month. This is based on an average of 145 minutes per user per month from an investment banker's research and 2.15 minutes per call from CTIA data. Rich Harris Harris & Associates Consultants in Wireless Telecommunications nmkl79a@prodigy.com ------------------------------ From: aa423@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Jeff Bamford) Subject: Re: Average Calls per Cellular Subscriber? Date: 14 May 1996 17:24:58 GMT Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet, Ontario, Canada. R. Schechtman (rts@bbn.com) wrote: > I'm looking for statistics on calling patterns for cellular subscribers, > in particular, average number of calls per month. Any pointers? Rogers Cantel (A-side for all of Canada) claimed something around 140 to 170 (I can't remember the exact figure) minutes/month for the first quarter of 1996 as the average usage. They commented that it grew over last year due to the increasing number of subscribers with flat-rate off-peak packages. You can check out their annual/quarterly reports at http://www.rogers.com (the website of their parent company) under the Wireless/Cantel logo. They report average use and average income per subscriber. Jeff Bamford Phone: +1-905-570-0130 fax: +1-905-570-1161 E-mail: jeffb@audiolab.uwaterloo.ca Looking for an audio consultant who has studied Ambisonics, Dolby Surround and Stereo? Check out: http://audiolab.uwaterloo.ca/~jeffb/consult/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 May 96 15:52:23 CDT From: Clive Dawson Subject: Re: Is There a Mexican FCC? [TELECOM Digest V16 #238] David Esan writes: > Is there an organization analogous to the US FCC in Mexico? I want to > be able to purchase TELMEX tariffs, and when competition comes, the > tariffs of their competitors. I believe the analogous organization is the "Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes" (S. C. T.) which is a cabinet-level department in the Executive Branch, (i.e. headed by the Secretary of Communication and Transportation who is a member of the President's cabinet). I don't know whether tariffs are obtained through them, or whether they can be "purchased". In fact I don't know how closely their entire tariff "system" (i.e. the concepts, the procedures, the laws and regulations) corresponds to what exists in the U.S. Clive Dawson AMD Austin, TX ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:53:16 EDT From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: How to Learn of Planned NXX's Before Their Opening? How soon before? They seemed to be announced "right here in river city" i.e., in TELECOM Digest. Pete Weiss ------------------------------ From: jcdowns@strategic-vision.com (Jorene Downs) Subject: Re: How Will Local Telephone Competition Work? Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 18:31:17 GMT Organization: Strategic Vision Reply-To: jcdowns@strategic-vision.com fringer@midget.towson.edu (Craig A. Fringer) wrote: > I am replying mostly to Pat's response to the original posting. > I agree, and further I believe that the customer is the least of > anyone's worries. The customer will get lost in the finger > pointing of who is to blame for the service outage, when it occurs. > Since I can't imagine that each company wishing to compete will > constructing outside plant facilities I have to assume that the > existing plant will support the competition. So when a customer has > trouble, their serving company will be able to say "Hey, all our stuff > checks out -- the problem is with the cable which is the Bell Company's > responsibility." The Bell Company will then say "Not us, you aren't > getting dial tone from your service provider." The customer will not > know who to go to and will get caught in an endless run around. Change a few names, and you have just described the current Internet situation. Shared ownership means multiple options for where the "blame" is directed when there is a problem with the service. This makes if more difficult for the customer, because the natural response when there is a problem is to contact the service provider. The consumer's complaint loses impact when you can't speak directly with the organization that can actually resolve the problem. This situation can get quite bloody for the customer service/tech support people in the front lines of the service provider. They take the heat even if the problem has been caused by another link in the communications puzzle that is out of their control. A lot of time will be spent educating the customer regarding the different areas of ownership/responsibility in the new world of mixed bag communications providers. However, this kind of circumstance will also - hopefully - drive those non-consumer-accessible organizations to improved service reliability. After all, it's one thing for a single individual to complain about poor service. It's another thing for a service provider to threaten to switch to another backbone (or whatever) company. This kind of competetive leverage should -- in the long term! -- create a situation where not only the costs are reduced by competition, but those providing the more reliable service will be the ones to survive. Jorene Downs ------------------------------ From: tpeters@hns.com (Thomas Peters) Subject: Local Competition Not Just Reselling Date: 15 May 1996 16:47:49 GMT Organization: Hughes Network Systems > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of course if your company were to > completely sever its connections with Bell and become totally self- > reliant by stringing its own wire and building its own phone exchanges > and such, then there would really be true competition wouldn't there? > Essentially all the local 'competition' is going to be doing is just > reselling the local Bell. What sort of competition is that? Pat, Reselling is only part of the story of local competition. Cable TV systems will provide independent phone service in many parts of the nation within a few years. I'm sure the horror stories about lousy cable plants are all true, but that just means it is going to take longer and cost more than the optimists hope. Cable companies have to improve their equipment anyway to stop the telcos from taking over the cable business. Also look for a lot of the PCS bandwidth recently auctioned off to be used for wireless local loop. This technology is already in large scale use in some parts of the world. It is especially good in areas where low population density and difficult terrain drive up wiring costs, but it is also used in urban areas. Fixed wireless systems can be much more reliable than mobile cellular because: 1. Phone weight is not an important issue. 2. Phones can plug into the wall for power. 3. RF coverage is always the same and can be verified at installation. 4. Bigger antennas and more transmit power can be used if needed. 5. No handoffs. 6. There is no roaming so the telephone company can control the phones. The last point is crucial. By supplying and maintaining the phones the carrier can add important features like compression and encryption without having to worry unduly about standards organizations and millions of old AMPS phones from coast-to-coast. Tom Peters ------------------------------ From: John_David_Galt@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Local Competition Date: Wed, 15 May 96 14:01:24 PDT > [... What sort of competition is that? But if > the newcomers had to invest the money, time and effort the Bells have > put into things over the past century, it is doubtful they would ever > get in business. Let that be a lesson to any of you who think you > have something the world needs and wants. If you do, and are at all > successful over a century or so, expect the government to come in and > rip you off when late-comers are sore because they did not think of > it first. PAT] Turnabout is fair play. The present local-service monopolies, and the Bell System's past near-monopoly on long distance on which you look back so fondly, did not come about because only Ma Bell was willing "to invest the money, time and effort." It came about because Bell threw its weight around in predatory schemes to destroy its competitors -- as you yourself recently described here -- and then got laws passed to make its monopoly permanent (or so it hoped). Is THAT the kind of "investment" you would like to see the newcomers make? If I were running things, I would not have just made the Bell System split up. I would prosecute the past officers of AT&T, if still alive, for antitrust violations and the like -- and since pretty much the entire company is the proceeds of those crimes, I would have the government confiscate it and sell it piecemeal, paying the stockholders nothing. John David Galt [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well ex-cuuuuuse me! You certainly do not resemble the John Galt of which Ayn Rand wrote about so fondly. I often wondered if that was by coincidence your real name or if you selected it as a screen name to make a point. I guess it must be your real name. PAT] ------------------------------ From: psyber@usa.pipeline.com (John Cropper) Subject: Re: Pac Bell Behind the Times (was: Public Comment on Area Codes) Date: 14 May 1996 20:23:08 GMT Organization: Pipeline USA On May 13, 1996 22.52.46 in article , 'Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com (Linc Madison)' wrote: > In article , Tad Cook > wrote: >> SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 10, 1996-- >> [Pac Bell press release about the CPUC decision to allow Pac Bell to >> present both overlay and geographic split options for area code relief] >> Nationwide, the first overlay area code was introduced in New York in >> 1992. And last year, the Maryland State Public Utilities Commission >> ordered an overlay for the 301 area code serving the entire state. > Hello? Pacific Bell? There's this little thing called "area code > 410." It covers about half of the state of Maryland. It has since > 11/1/91. The state of Maryland will be adding *TWO* overlay area > codes, one for each of the existing area codes. Errr, Linc ... you mis-read that. They actually meant the overlay was intended for the entire state, not just 301 ... either way, the report is dead wrong. On the bright side, look at PacBell's track record ... > Oh, by the way, area code 268* (Antigua & Barbuda, active for over six > weeks now) is still blocked at the switch by Pacific Bell. Perhaps > the merger with SBC is getting bogged down because Pacific Bell keeps > trying to dial 512 for San Antonio. Naah, they're still trying to find the operator to plug them in to SBC's office ... John Cropper, President NiS Telecom Division POB 277, Pennington, NJ USA 08534-0277 voice: (800) 247-8675 fax: (609) 637-9430 psyber@usa.pipeline.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 96 16:31 EDT From: joel@exc.com (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Re: Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX Organization: Excelsior Computer Services > At the University of Michigan, we need to dial '9' to access external > lines. The switch is programmed in such a way that, if while dialing > 9-1-(long distance number), the pause is too long after 9-1, it > completes the call as 911. Sometimes the problem is user error. The phones tell you to "dial 9 + number for a local call," "dial 9 + 1 + area code + phone number" for a long distance call. But some people, especially foreigners unfamiliar with the US phone system, see a number listed as "1 800 123 4567" and end up dialing "9 + 1 + 1 + 800 ..." Joel (joel@exc.com) ------------------------------ From: Snoopy Subject: Re: Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX Date: Mon, 13 May 1996 10:40:00 -0400 Organization: Internet Access Cincinnati 513-887-8877 Indeed, I've made a wrong call to 911. I was using the fax phone in the computer room because it was the only one handy and dialed 9 but didn't get anything so I dialed 9 again, then 1 and didn't hear the beep so 1 again. From that point on the digits all beeped correctly. I had been having intermitten problems with the keys sticking so I thought nothing of it until I heard the 911 operator on the other end of the line. I apologized and hung up graciously, but it was still embarassing. Josef Finsel [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Are you one of those foreigners Joel discussed in the previous message? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 May 96 19:54 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > HOW could this happen? Does not the routing of calls through the LD > carrier's switch cause this *69 feauture to be disabled? Not if they support SS#7, which they have to these days to support CLID. It's in the same package of features, if you pass the info for one, you pass the info for all of them. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof ------------------------------ From: dsheafer@delphi.com Subject: Re: Does Dialing LD Access Code Prevent IntraLATA *69 Function? Date: Wed, 15 May 96 09:07:02 -0500 Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) In Massachusetts (NYNEX) if you prepend 10288 on an intralata call *69 will still work from the called party's phone. Don't know about other 10xxx codes. David http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dsheafer ------------------------------ From: jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com Subject: Re: Caller ID Picks up 800 Number Calls? Date: Tue, 14 May 96 16:42:50 PDT Organization: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. In article , writes: > Need a conundrum? I got one for you! Someone ... please figure this > out for me. > I have seven phones at my business. All the lines (except the last > one) hunt from one to the next. I have an 800 number camped on my primary > line (first line in the hunt sequence). > I have Caller ID installed on line two. > Lately, when people call my 800 number, and it hunts over to line two, > I get the Caller ID readout of the calling party. Not when the 800 caller dials *67 first! When you say hunt group, is this a simple hunt group based on Call Forward Busy? If so, when A calls B and B is CFB to C and B is "busy", then C will see A's Caller ID information, eg. the calling number, "Private" or "Out-of-Area". This can be extended to D if C is CFB to D and both B and C are "busy", etc. It doesn't matter that B does not have Caller ID display feature. Incidentally, when you see the calling number, this may be different than the ANI or billing number. For example, an ISDN phone has two numbers assigned to it. The ISDN customer only gets one bill. It is simpler to make a billing system recognise ANI as the billing number, which is the same number as one of the ISDN numbers but not the other, so that the billing system does not need to keep track of which calling numbers are associated with which billing numbers. All the billing system needs to do is collect all the billing records for a given ANI and then show the calls for each calling number. Concentrating on ANI, not calling numbers, helps an ISDN LEC to NOT bill long distance calls that are invoiced separately by a long distance company. This is tricky and nobody wants to bill the customer twice for the same call. Jeffrey Rhodes at jeffrey.rhodes@attws.com ------------------------------ From: jdearing@netaxs.com (John Dearing) Subject: Re: What is "Feature Group A"? Date: 15 May 1996 01:04:50 GMT Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider Jason Fetterolf (jasonf@p3.net) wrote: -=[ Discussion about Feature Group A deleted to conserve space ]=- > 1. What is the purpose of FGA? I don't know what the original purpose of FGA was but the big advantage is that, at least in PA, outgoing calls placed from an FGA line are untimed and cost a very small amount of money (somthing like 2 cents each). Also, you can make these 2 cent calls to anywhere in the LATA. Yes, that's right, the LATA! As far as the end user is conecerned, it's a telephone line with a phone number associated with it but it has "special" billing characteristics (noted above). These things are great for companies that have to make a large number of outgoing calls all in the local area but that might otherwise involve local toll charges. You pay more than a regular business line but not that much more, as I recall. > 2. What are the more cost effective alternatives to FGA usage? Don't know. I supoose there might be for certain applications. > 3. Is this obsolete technology? Nope. It is provisioned right out of your local switch so it is as modern as your switch. > 4. Can I offer a more simple technology (dialer to route intraLATA calls, > etc) to help them reduce costs? It's all going to depend on the tariffs and if FGA is available in your area. Needless to say, this isn't something that Bell Atlantic is taking out ads to promote. 8-) John Dearing : Philadelphia Area Computer Society IBM SIG President Email : jdearing@netaxs.com U.S.Snail : 725 Ripley Place, Phila PA 19111-2524 (USA) Voice Phone : +1.215.725.0103 (after 5pm Eastern) ------------------------------ From: inc@ecr.mu.oz.au (Ian_Nigel CHAN) Subject: GMSK Modulation and Demodulation Techniques Date: 14 May 1996 07:14:53 GMT Organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne Does anyone know of a VCO that operates at around 200MHz and is fairly sensitive to minute frequency changes. Please notify me if you have a specific model number. Your help is much appreciated. ------------------------------ From: tdu@enter.net (Tim Updegrove) Subject: Re: Long Distance From Local Number? Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 04:52:46 GMT Organization: ENTER.NET > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Phones can certainly be forwarded to > wherever the owner wishes to have them go, however the cost of forwarding > is the responsibility of the person who does it, not the responsibility > of the people dialing in. ... Report results here please. PAT] I called the phone company to dispute the charges and as soon as I mentioned Scranton, they asked if I belonged to AOL. I said yes (GNN is an arm of AOL) and she indicated AOL had some problems with their local number and somehow switched the calls to the long distance number. She said I was about the one millioneth caller asking about these charges. Then, without asking, she told me to drop these charges off of my bill! Boy, it's great getting a nice customer service person on the phone. Thank-you for all of your help in this newsgroup. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am still curious to find out *how* they actually did it however, aren't you? PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #241 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri May 17 12:15:28 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA10750; Fri, 17 May 1996 12:15:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 12:15:28 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605171615.MAA10750@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #242 TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 May 96 12:15:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 242 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Class Action Suit Over 970 NPA (Denver Post via Tad Cook) Third Houston NPA (Houston Chronicle via Tad Cook) Sprint FONCARD Rates (Stuart J. Zimmerman) Bell Atlantic's "Ten Number Number" and Area Code Split (Paul Robinson) USBI Charges Reversed (was Re: Not Slammed) (Bill Garfield) Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service (Lisa Hancock) "NPA for Windows" 2Q96 Update (Bill Garfield) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tad Cook Subject: Class Action Suit Over 970 NPA Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 23:45:42 PDT Business Can Join Class-Action Suit over Colorado's New Area Code, Court Says By Stephen Keating, The Denver Post Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 17--Up to 10,000 businesses in Colorado's new 970 area code can join a class-action suit claiming damages against US West Inc. in conjunction with introduction of the new area code, a district court judge ruled. Notice of the class action will be sent with future phone bills to US West business customers in northern and western Colorado, according to an order signed Wednesday by Judge Al A. Haas in La Plata County. Trouble with the 970 area code began a year ago when callers outside the region had difficulty calling in. US West agreed to delay the switchover until this past January, while keeping the 303 area code, but some firms claimed the damage had been done. "People were losing business," said Thomas P. Dugan, the plaintiffs' attorney, who estimated total damages in the "multimillion-dollar" range. US West is "disappointed with the judge's decision," said company spokesman Jeff Garrett. "For the vast majority of customers, the change in area code had no impact on their business." US West, like other Baby Bells, has added new area codes to meet growth. There are more than 20 new area codes -- some with middle digits other than 0 or 1 -- that create problems for older telephone switching equipment that can't recognize higher middle digits, as with 970. Mail-order and tourism services that do business by long distance had the most trouble. George Crane, owner of Silverton Victorian Millworks Inc. in Durango, was the first plaintiff in the initial lawsuit filed last July. He claimed losses of $50,000 a week from customers who could not fax in orders for the company's decorative wood products. "The problems have been reduced over a period of time," a Silverton manager said yesterday. It may be difficult, however, for businesses to prove damages from calls that never came. "I think it's unlikely that any businesses will benefit" from the lawsuit, said Greg Walcher, president of Club 20, a Western Slope promotional group that pressured US West and the state Public Utilities Commission to delay the area code change. ON THE INTERNET: Visit The Denver Post Online, the World Wide Web edition of The Denver Post. Point your browser to http://www.denverpost.com ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Third Houston NPA Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 15:21:40 PDT Southwestern Bell May Ask Texas for a Third Houston Area Code By Michael Davis, Houston Chronicle Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 16--As state regulators and phone companies hash out the details of splitting Houston into two area codes, Southwestern Bell said Wednesday it is considering the idea of asking for a third area code for the city. Southwestern Bell is expected to file a petition with the Public Utility Commission on Monday laying out its plan for easing the transition of dividing Houston into more than one area code. Company officials said asking the PUC to authorize a third code for Houston is among the options being considered for the filing. Houston is one of the largest cities in the nation with almost complete local service. In cities such as Chicago or Los Angeles, many calls within the city limits are long distance. The PUC issued its order May 1 mandating that the city be split geographically into area code 713 inside Beltway 8, and area code 281 outside it. Those who are involved in the case have 20 days in which to file motions for rehearing or clarification of the order. Under the current plan, Houston will begin a "permissive period" in November in which calls between the area codes can be dialed with either a 713 or 281 area code. The final implementation of the split is set for May 1997. The notion of adding a third area code in Houston has come up before in PUC hearings, but to date no one has formally asked the commission to consider such a plan, said Leslie Kjellstrand, PUC spokeswoman. "We are going to be watching this filing Monday very closely," she said. Southwestern Bell has been issuing 281 area code numbers for wireless devices for the past year on the assumption there would be an area code overlay. Under a split, some of these 281 area code numbers would duplicate numbers that would change from the 713 area code. As it stands now, the party that had the seven-digit number first likely will keep it when the area code changes. That means the other person with the number will have to change to a different one. A third area code -- possibly an overlay -- would eliminate this duplication. But the Federal Communications Commission has said a service-specific overlay is discriminatory, so the notion of a general services overlay raises doubts as to whether it could be approved by the FCC. "In Austin, there are continuing discussions between our representatives and PUC staff trying to figure out what else can we do, and they are looking at other options that could include (a third area code) but it has not been decided," said Mike Turner, vice president with Southwestern Bell in Houston. Joe Cosgrove, an attorney with Southwestern Bell in Austin who is the company's representative in negotiations with the PUC, said the firm's petition on the problems it faces implementing the split would be filed Monday, although he would not confirm it would include asking for a third area code. "We're not ruling anything out," Cosgrove said. The situation is still very much in flux. Even if Southwestern Bell asks for a third area code, it remains to be seen if the commission would approve such a plan, Kjellstrand said. The commission will have 25 days to consider all the motions that have been filed regarding its May 1 order mandating the geographic split. It can extend that period for another 25 days, which would push the decision on a proposal well into summer. Southwestern Bell has favored an overlay since it became evident that Houston would require a second area code to handle the city's burgeoning telecommunications needs, stemming largely from explosive growth in the use of wireless devices such as pagers, cellular phones, computers and faxes. FOR ONLINE SERVICES: Visit Houston Chronicle Interactive, the online edition of the Houston Chronicle. On Prodigy, jump to: HCI. On the World Wide Web, point your browser to http://www.chron.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 17:01:16 -0400 From: f_save@SNET.Net (Stuart J. Zimmerman) Subject: Sprint FONCARD Rates There is further information on Sprint's FONCARD without surcharges program that you and your readers should know about. The program requires customers to sign up for it IN ADVANCE. Also, in order to get the 25 cents per minute rate they must be members of the Sprint Sense program. These requirements were not clear from the press release, but having seen this sort of thing before, it is not surprising. These marketing practices do seem quite sleazy. Fone Saver, LLC Phone: 1-800-31-FONE-1 Web: http://www.wp.com/Fone_Saver E-Mail: f_save@snet.net [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They are quite sleazy. Generally I have decided to not run any further Sprint press releases here; they are frequently misleading and deceptive. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 08:12:25 EDT From: Paul Robinson Organization: Tansin A. Darcos & Company/TDR, Inc. Silver Spring, MD USA Subject: Bell Atlantic's "Ten Number Number" and Area Code Split When I first heard about the upcoming practice, I was upset. What I started to say was, "In yet another example of their 'usual and customary' practice of doing very difficult things with ease and screwing up on the rudimentary, Bell Atlantic (Maryland) is about to institute what is one of the stupidest ideas around," but then I thought about it, and much as I don't like it, I realize they probably have no choice. What upset me is that Bell Atlantic is implementing mandatory ten-digit dialing, even for local, same-area-code calls. They are calling the practice the "Ten Number Number"(SM) (and even have the silliness to claim a servicemark right on that term, which is obviously generic.) A pamphlet enclosed with the latest bill I got from them for current (non-supplied) service for a line they disconnected over six months ago, states that Area Code 301 will be split with a new area code 240, and that area code 410 will be split with a new area code 443. In this region, one dials a number in one of three ways depending on where it is: Local in same area code Dial 7 digit number Local in same or another area code Dial 3 digit area code plus 7 digit number Local and all long distance calls Dial 1 Plus 3 digit area code plus 7 digit number Note that (right now) you can dial the area code even if it is the same as your own, and dialing 1 before the number does not cause it to be charged as a toll call. I like this feature because if you are at a pay phone, and aren't sure what area code the pay phone is in, you can always dial the ten-digit number on a local call and get through. For simplicity I am exclusing the use of a 10XXX (we don't have 10XXXX) carrier code before a number - which may be used even on a local call, if you want to pay per-minute rates on a call that might be free - in order to show that a local number can (now) be dialed with or without the area code, and with or without the number 1 before the area code, and that a local call outside this area code may be dialed with or without the number 1 in front of the area code. It does not change the price of a call or turn it into a toll-call even if you dial "1" first. But I don't like having this be forced on me, even though I understand that Bell Atlantic probably has no choice in the matter, since the area code used for a local number will look the same as a regular prefix, and as such, anyone calling a number local to them such as 443-xxxx or 240-xxxx would have to dial the area code anyway, which might be confusing. As a result, soon everyone has to dial ten digits for all local calls. Ten digit same-area-code local dialing will be mandatory in one year. I quote from the pamphlet: "Soon your area code will become part of your local phone number. That means every time you make a local call -- even calls within your own area code -- you should include the three-digit area code when you dial. It'll make every number a Ten-number Number(SM). Start practicing it today. Come May 1, 1997, all your local calls will require the Ten-number Number." The pamphlet mentions that calls to 911, 411, 611 and long-distance dialing remain the same, that rates will not change. It suggests that people reprogram computers, fax machines and automatic dialers since you can already dial ten digits now on local calls, and will have to next year. Telephone directories will now carry people's full ten-digit phone number since the person next door or across the street might be in a different area code: "Your area code and phone number won't change. But the area code of your new next-door neighbor might be different from yours." They list a number you can call for assistance: 1-888-4-AREA-CD, 9-5 Monday thru Friday. ------------------------------ From: bubba@insync.net (Bill Garfield) Subject: USBI Charges Reversed (was Re: Not Slammed) Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 05:25:45 GMT Organization: Associated Technical Consultants Reply-To: bubba@insync.net For the sake of continuity I have requoted my original remarks of 12/95: borids@aol.com (Borids) wrote: > File a formal complaint with the FCC. Filing a formal complaint with the FCC costs $140. The amount in contention, aside from the principle of being slammed, is $69.68. The correct amount of the bill, had I not been slammed, should be $11.62, including federal, state and local taxes. > USBI should be able to tell you the acronym for the reseller that is > billing you by way of USBI. The company name is "CCN" which is an acronym for CCN. USBI is merely a billing agent for CCN. I have a couple of definitions of my own for "CCN" but they're most unflattering. > You were given a line of #@!!! I was read to from a prepared script. Here now is my original reply: > On advise of counsel I have written -two- letters. The first to > Southwestern Bell instructing them to: > 1. Remove the USBI charges from my bill and notify USBI they will > have to pursue collection through direct methods with the customer > (me). I paid my SWBT bill, MINUS the contested charges from USBI. > 2. Reinstate my primary long distance service provider immediately. > 3. Never again change my LD service provider without prior WRITTEN > authorization from me. (It -IS- possible to demand this and Bell > is thereafter forever barred from allowing another change) > The second letter went to USBI, at PO Box 791285, San Antonio, TX, > informing them in no vague or unscertain terms whatsoever: > 1. That CCN is -not- my primary LD provider nor ever has been. > 2. That I have signed no Letter Of Agency authorizing a change of my > primary LD provider. > 3. Demanding that they furnish me with proof (the Letter Of Agency) by > which authority CCN has arbitrarily changed my primary LD provider. > 4. That SWBT has been instructed to remove all USBI charges from my > SWBT account. > 5. That if USBI or their client wish to pursue any portion of the > $69.68 in contested charges that they are to deal with me directly. > I assure everyone in this forum that I have not signed anything remotely > resembling the FCC's detailed description of the official "Letter Of > Agency" required under FCC rule subpart K section 64.1150 to effect a > lawful change in my LD provider. Further: > We have endorsed no paper checks (we use direct deposit) > We have entered no contests (we know better) > We have requested no credit cards > We have ordered nothing over the phone > We have signed no petitions > We have made NO CHANGES in any financial dealings > We have returned no surveys > We have spoken with no door-to-door purveyors > We have sent in no warranty registration cards > We have sent in no product purchase rebate coupons > We do not talk to telephone solicitors > We shred all mail, including occupant mail - yes, we really do > shred the mail after it's been read. I bought a Panasonic small > office shredder three years ago and use it religiously! > Now I suppose there -is- some distinct possibility that someone may have > rifled through our rural-style mailbox at the end of the drive and taken > something resembling one of those so-called "offers" in which a check is > enclosed that merely needs an endorsement to be cashed, but if so, the > endorsement is a forgery. > The calls in question were indeed made, no argument there. However, my > offer to USBI is $11.62 which I calculate as being the correct amount > for the calls. My attorney is all poised to jump on them and take the > case 'pro-bono' (free) if they give me any crap at all. > Film at 11. UPDATE: May, 1996 (yes, it's really been 5 months) I received a second bill for additional CCN charges in January - Total now in contention, $129.33 including tax. $0.78/min adds up in a hurry. In January I wrote to the Texas PUC and an informal letter to the FCC. I wrote another letter to SW Bell and another letter to USBI (via Certified Mail) offering to settle for $25.91, which was what I calculated the charges would have been had CCN not slammed me. Still no response. SW Bell did confirm that my LD provider was back to the original. I received a letter from the PUC acknowledging my complaint, but nothing from USBI or CCN. However, about the third week of April, a nice lady at SW Bell's business office called to inform me that in response to a PUC inquiry SW Bell was reversing the $129.33, charging it back to USBI (as requested) and crediting my residence account. Along with the chargeback to USBI, SWB included a letter to USBI offering them my billing address and informing USBI that they would have to pursue collection through direct billing as their (SWB's) customer had refused payment on the basis that the the PIC change was unauthorized and fraudulent and the charges were usurious. It's now been almost a month since the SWB business office called me. My May SW Bell billing has indeed been credited $129.33 though I have heard nothing from USBI. It will be interesting to see what happens next. By my calculations I owe USBI $25.91 (tax included) - but no bill from them yet. If USBI and/or CCN want to get ugly, we're ready. More news as the story unfolds. ------------------------------ From: hancock4@cpcn.com (Lisa) Subject: Hurting Public Utilities Hurts Public Service Date: 16 May 1996 02:35:26 GMT Organization: Philadelphia City Paper's City Net I agree with Pat's assessment of local telephone competition. A few things I'd like to add about today's regulatory political climate ... A newspaper columnist reported on concerns by the local power company over its investment in its very expensive nuclear power plant. The columnist's opinion was essentially "too bad" if the investment is lost -- why should the company be protected? This kind of attitude will hurt the consumer. Despite massive protest when the nuke plant was built, today its power is very much needed in hot summers for air conditioning (and PCs, faxes, etc.) Had that plant not been built, we'd have power shortages. (Some regions face that on bad summer days.) The company would not have built the plant, or not as big a plant if it felt the venture was too risky. As a regulated monopoly, the power company had reduced risk. Another benefit of regulation is lower rates. Because a service territory is guaranteed, the government dictates a low rate of return. Nobody gets rich on utility stocks. Further, the government dictates service standards. But, like telephones, the electric company will lower its rates to large users to meet competition, and raise rates to residences and small businesses since nobody will want to serve them. It troubles me that in both telephones and power the loudest voices for deregulation are potential businessmen who will make money from it. The everyday person is told "competition is good!", indeed, most people believe it, so they expect they'll get lower prices. When the phone company broke, what consumer expected higher prices for COCOT phones and long distance? What small business expected the frustration of finger pointing between local, long distance, and equipment suppliers? I'm a small potatoes consumer. Who's looking out for me? The utility companies don't really want my $25/month account -- they're looking to widen their territories and grab big industrial users. The so-called "consumer advocates" on PUCs care only about the very poor users, not the middle class. ------------------------------ From: bubba@insync.net (Bill Garfield) Subject: "NPA for Windows" 2Q96 Update Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 02:53:35 GMT Organization: Associated Technical Consultants Reply-To: bubba@insync.net I just learned that Robert Ricketts , Author of the telecom-popular "NPA for Windows" areacode/city/exchange locator utility has posted an updated version with 2nd quarter 96 lookup tables. Rather than try to explain what it is, here's the file description "brag screen" from the Zipfile NPAW96Q2.ZIP. The last sentence of which pretty much says it all. =================[snip]================================================= NPA for WINDOWS <15Apr96> - Comprehensive area code (NPA), prefix (NXX), and city name locator. Contains State, City, Prefix, AreaCode, over 100,000,000 ZipCode to NXX mappings ranked by frequency of occurrence, county name, estimated county population, lat/long for each NXX for inter-city or inter-NXX mileage calculation, NXX use type (landline/wireless), city time zone, and more for over 20,000 cities in the USA & Canada. Nearly 60,000 NPA/NXXs in all! All fields except lat/long & county population are key searchable! Tie US ZipCodes & Canadian Postal Codes to NPA/NXXs. Print, file output, and Optional Data Export. Most complete area code program you'll ever see! ==================[end]================================================= The program is available at: http://www.neosoft.com/~robert/pcc It is shareware, but not crippled. Of course there's the obligatory "beg screen" but a $35 registration payment will remove that. Looks like a pretty decent value for $35 IMO. Note that your $35 only covers the current release. Each quarterly update (new database) costs you another $35, but I believe you can also get a permanent registration for some reasonable amount (far less than the cost of anything competitive ... if there IS anything competitive). Requires MS Windows 3.x, Windows 95, etc. Nice program! ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #242 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri May 17 13:07:19 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA15228; Fri, 17 May 1996 13:07:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 13:07:19 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605171707.NAA15228@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #243 TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 May 96 13:07:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 243 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson India's Booming Market in Paging Services (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) ATM QoS Issues (Terje Myhre) Are You a Displaced AT&T or MCI Professional? (James Gorak) Telephone Extensions Using Existing Fast IP Link (Phil Lewis) CDPD Enabled ATM's (75260.710@compuserve.com) U.S. Wiretapping Laws (John Combs) Regulations in Utah? (Blair Shellenberg) One Western Union Telegraph Clock: Received! (Kent Borg) SDH/PDH Network Planning Tool Wanted (Claes Gussing) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 17:19:53 -0700 From: Rishab Aiyer Ghosh Subject: India's Booming Market in Paging Services The Indian Techonomist: bulletin, May 15, 1996 Copyright (C) 1996 Rishab Aiyer Ghosh. All rights reserved Easycall enthusiastic about India's pager boom May 15, 1996: Since India's first licensed paging service started last March, the market has grown to 200,000 subscribers; it is expected to cross 600,000 by the end of this year according to Motorola, which has an 80% market share in pagers. In the US it took 15 years to reach a similar subscriber base. That was 40 years ago, of course; more recently in the late 1980s, South Korea took six years to cross 400,000, a figure expected to be crossed in 18 months by India - arguably the fastest growing market today. The Indian Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has treated paging services very differently from cellular and basic telephony privatisation. It received bids for as many as four service providers in each of 15 cities; three in 11 cities; and two in the last of 27 cities put to auction. That was in July 1992 - it took three years of disputes clarifications before service could begin last year. In the meanwhile, All India Radio, India's state broadcaster, issued licenses for FM RDS paging (using excess capacity of its FM radio channels) which started before DoT's licensees but are likely to fall behind now due to their technological problems. Last year the DoT issued further licences for paging services for the rest of the country (beyond these 27 cities), and service is expected to commence in those areas by 1997. India's paging market is unusual in ways besides its exceptional growth. It overwhelmingly prefers alphanumeric pagers, which hold more than 95% of the market (as against below 20% in more developed markets). And demand has largely been, so far, from individuals - professionals and people with small businesses - with under 25% corporate subscribers. These figures are surprising only when seen in isolation, but not when placed in the larger context of the country's poor telecommunications infrastructure. India has less than one phone per 100 persons, though in the 27 cities with pager services the density is much higher. Even there, it costs between $100 and $1,000 to acquire a phone (and these are only the official rates; bribery is commonplace). A telephone no longer takes years to install, but can easily take months. Compared to these problems, a pager is heaven. It is cheap to buy - between $150 and $300, which should reduce once the new government lowers duties from the current 80%. It is cheap to run - under $5 per month for unlimited use was the upper limit allowed by the DoT, though this has been raised to a still low $8. It has some snob value (though much less than a cellular phone). Finally, of course, it is mobile and can take messages - hence the alphanumeric preference. A pager can also be your office - such is the promise of Easycall, which launched India's only personalised (secretarial) paging service earlier this month. Easycall started late, building fairly sophisticated infrastructure through the 25 cities where it has paging licences. Easycall is actually four companies: Matrix Paging India, ABC Communications, Telesistems India and Easycall Communications. They can safely be treated as one, for they are each promoted by the Indian Natelco Group, and 49%-owned (the maximum foreign holding permitted in a telecom service provider) by Easycall International. Natelco (1995 group sales: $125 million) specialises in telecom equipment manufacturing and service (trunk radio, VSAT), and has joint ventures with Australia's Telstra, Japan's NEC and America's Glenayre Inc, among others. With Glenayre, Natelco's consultancy division has already built 56 paging networks across the country according to company figures - including, obviously, for competitors of Easycall. Singapore-based Easycall runs paging services across Asia and Eastern Europe; it was earlier known by the name of its holding company, Australia-based Matrix Telecom. Easycall is taking the pager-as-office concept to its logical conclusion: when an Easycall pager number is called, the operator reads out a personalised message, decided by the Easycall subscriber. This alone is likely to attract customers in droves - it has proven popular in Hong Kong, and will do so even more in India. Beyond customised greetings, Easycall's other services (not all of which are as yet operational) include separate numbers for business and personal calls; message broadcast to subscribers groups; client line identification (pager terminal and management software installed at a major client's premises); fax- to-pager and e-mail-to-pager interfaces; cheap roaming across 25 cities (where another Natelco company's VSAT service will help). Being largest network, and the only service capable of offering such personalisation - it has invested over $40 million in infrastructure - Easycall expects to have 120,000 subscribers by the end of the year, with about 50% of new subscribers. Sajive Kanwar, President and CEO of ABC Communications (which operates Easycall services in the Northern parts of India) says that his region alone attracted over 3,000 subscribers in the first two weeks of operation. Yet they may not make any money for quite a while, due to DoT-specified flat monthly tariffs; all additional services will be offered by Easycall at no extra charge for the moment. To charge for any service beyond basic paging, Easycall will - like any other provider - have to approach the DoT to ask for clearance, perhaps on a case-by-case basis. Indian paging companies will have to do this soon, for as Mr Kanwar admits, profits will not be found in simple paging services. In fact, paging companies are running huge losses. The economics of Indian paging are as follows: each message costs about $0.04 to process, thanks to relatively low labour costs. But even with operators being paid about $120 a month, more than four messages per subscriber per day results in a loss: the average subscriber, paying $8, costs over $25 a month. Of course, volumes help. While the projected turnover (across 25 cities) of $20 million in its first year of operation will mean a proportionally higher operational cost for Easycall, it expects to break even in 1998. India will have several cellular services running nationwide by the end of the year, in addition to the year-old services in the country's four biggest cities. Assuming that the new government behaves itself, next year should see a huge growth in the availability ordinary telephone - installed within seven days of an order according to the licensing conditions, not months. The DoT is holding trial runs of CT2 (cordless telephone 2, another gadget popular in East Asia) in cooperation with France's Dassault; these may translate into cheaper mobile communications. Will the pager market be affected? Nobody expects a 200% annual growth rate to last for long, but nor should it fall below 50% for some years. The secret of India's pager potential lies in the exceptionally long per message time, which crosses 60 seconds, as callers interrogate operators on the mechanisms of paging. "Why can't I hear messages, if you send them by radio?" is an anecdotal caller's query, but not without basis. Pagers have already begun to reach a market quite ignorant of the concept, and the frequent prime time advertisements by the Indian Paging Services Association should help to educate an even wider market. Most impressive of all, the phenomenal growth seen and projected so far is - unlike most other new markets - for pagers in English. Motorola for one has announced its plans for pagers in Hindi and Gujarati soon, which should reach the small- business market of western India. As manufacturers break through the complexity of India's 15 official languages and make displays for at least some of the dozen distinct scripts, the tantalising prize of a 900 million-plus population is brought - ever so little - closer. Perhaps it is significant that the Paging Services Association's promotional advertisements are in, not English - the language of today's pagers - but Hindi. More on Motorola can be found in the Techonomist bulletin of March 18, at http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/ Information on cellular and basic telephony privatisation is at http://dxm.org/techonomist/news/bids.html 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 15:07:08 +0100 From: Terje Myhre Reply-To: Terje Myhre Subject: ATM QoS Issues Organization: Manasus Consulting AB Hello, I'm working on a concept development project regarding ATM services. The project deals both with service definition and pricing aspects. The issues below are fairly unclear to me, and I would appreciate if anyone could lead me in a direction towards clarity, either with comments, answers, or with pointers. 1. In case an ATM network has defined a QoS class which can be regarded as a deterministic bit rate, and one want to define less bit- deterministic QoS classes on the same network, to which extent can these lower grade QoS connections use bandwidth which the ATM network simultanously has contracted to the higher QoS? 2. In case there are two QoS classes operating on the ATM network; and both have allocated the same bandwidth (sustainable cell rate), how is it more economic for the network to use the lower grade QoS class. My assumption is that the lower grade QoS connections can be allowed larger buffers, thereby increasing the total delay of the cells, and the delay variation. However, the degree to which one should actually be able to price the lower grade QoS lower than the higher grade QoS - based on network utilisation, is for me fairly clouded. 3. In a case, three different ATM networks should be connected, one connecting to customer site A, one connecting between two ATM-local-loop networks, and one connecting to customer site B. Would the three networks need to have exactly the same QoS definitions. Or could the long-distance ATM network have a higher speficied QoS, without that bringing any quality degradation to the ATM-local-loop networks? Thank you for taking the time to read this. Please copy my private e-mail address if you answer this mail. Regards, Terje Myhre Manasus Consulting AB London N1, UK Mob. +46 70 512 7573 Fax / answ.mach. +44 171 713 5499 E-mail: myhre@manasus.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/manasus ------------------------------ Subject: Are You a Displaced AT&T or MCI Professional? Date: Fri, 17 May 96 07:56:25 -0500 From: James Gorak Pat, This message (spam?) appeared in my e-mailbox. I would be interested to hear more about this business and their offering. Regards, James Gorak jgorak@execpc.com ------- FORWARD, Original message follows ------- Date: Thursday, 16-May-96 07:14 PM From: Press Release \ Internet: (exd61469@interramp.com) To: Multiple Addresses Suppressed \ Internet: (multiple addresses suppressed) Subject: Are You a Displaced AT&T or MCI Professional? Are You a Displaced AT&T or MCI Professional? Do You Know One? Telecommunications Act of 1996 Bears Fruit Here is the first evidence of the coming revolution in the telecommunications industry - privately held and operated small phone companies. The telecommunications act of 1996, signed by the President in February of this year, specifically encourages entreprenuers to enter the telephone industry. LaraMar Communications, Ltd., a privately held company from Albuquerque, New Mexico, is making quite a commotion as they roll out "IQ MiniTel," a "turn-key" private telephone company. IQ MiniTel can be established in any city and offers an incredible array of products and services that go head to head with the local phone companies. LaraMar's Co-founder, Larry Host, says "the advantages of an IQ MiniTel are that feature for feature they exceed the offerings of most local phone companies." Mr Host went on to explain, "The public has almost an infinite number of long distance options but has had little or no access to extended calling features beyond those provided by the local telephone company. IQ MiniTel, provides an unusual assortment of enhancements to 800, voice mail, fax and other business telephone products and services at highly competitive rates. LaraMar, will be conducting a two day seminar on the IQ MiniTel in Albuquerque New Mexico, beginning Saturday, June 1st 1996. For more information call 1-800-944-3366. LaraMar Communications, Ltd. 625 Silver S.E., Suite 191 Albuquerque, NM 87102 1-800-944-3366 Non-disclosure document required before presentation ------- FORWARD, End of original message ------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It's just spam. Gee, who do we know in Albuquerque, NM who likes to send out worthless junkmail all over the net? That 800 number is an old, familiar one also, with the same voicemail machine setup they were using before, and the same cast of characters behind the different buttons you can press. Try pressing '0' as soon as it answers, or go through the various options. Do not press '#' or '*' when it answers, any other numbers not listed in the menu. Remember, calls to 800 numbers do render the calling number to the recipient when he gets his phone bill if not immediatly when calling in, so use good judgment when investigating this wonderful new business opportunity. Remember, I have warned you against pressing buttons not authorized for your use when you call that number. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil Lewis Subject: Telephone Extensions Using Existing Fast IP Link Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 15:35:11 +0800 Organization: Pacific Internet, Singapore Hi, We have two buildings linked by a 3Mbit/sec microwave link which is basically a wireless ethernet bridge. I would like to know if anyone knows anything which will allow us to use this link for PABX telephone extentions in addition to the existing IP traffic. We only require at most 10 channels and with speech compression 8kbps should be suffiecient for each thus giving 80kbps which is quite acceptable for the link we have. Basically I guess I need two 'boxes' which have 10 phone jacks and one UTP (10baseT) connector and a power supply. It would also be feasible if there is a card that can plug into a PAABX that can do this. Thanks in advance, Phil Lewis Please Email responses also. ------------------------------ From: 75260.710@CompuServe.COM Subject: CDPD Enabled ATM's Date: 16 May 1996 19:02:48 GMT Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) CDPD Enabled ATM at CelluComm 96 May 16, 1996 EAST LANSING, MI - Sayer Advanced Systems will be exhibiting their CDPD enabled Automatic Teller Machine technology at CelluComm 96. Developed by GUI-Tech, the new ATM technology simplifies the task of using an ATM in an area for a short duration of time. "Wireless technology makes it economical to use an ATM in area where it was not previously possible", says Jim Solomon, Vice President of Advanced Systems. "Installing land based telephone lines for ATM use at events like fairs or sporting events was just too cost prohibitive. Using CDPD eliminates this expense". Sayer will be display their 24 foot "Rolling Branch Office" on the CelluComm exhibit floor. Included in this display will be the new ATM technology. Sayer Advanced Systems also provides solutions for other vertical markets such as Public Safety. Wireless ATM's have been a primary target market for CDPD since it's inception but the technology to make this application real has not been available... until now! It's not too late to make the decision to attend CelluComm 96. Call to register today! CelluComm is the only industry conference dedicated exclusively to cellular data. It will be held in St. Louis, MO USA on May 20-22, 1996. For more information about exhibiting or attending, please contact Zsigo Wireless at 517-337-3995, or send electronic mail to zsigo@netcom.com. Fax information to 517-337-5012. Surface mail to 2875 Northwind Drive, Suite 232, East Lansing, MI 48823 USA. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:24:50 -0400 From: John Combs Subject: U.S. Wiretapping Laws My boss told me that he recently read an article that mentioned that current U.S. Federal wiretapping law requires that telcos and IXCs be able to tap up to 1% of their total circuits in-service, _and_ deliver the calls to wherever the FBI requires. Can anyone point me to where I can learn more about this, plus the wiretapping requirements that the digital PBX manufacturers have to meet? John Combs, Senior Project Engineer, Inchcape Testing Services Email: john@testmark.com URL: http://www.testmark.com ------------------------------ From: blair@instep.bc.ca Subject: Regulations in Utah? Reply-To: blair@instep.bc.ca Organization: InStep Mobile Communications Inc. Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 16:37:29 GMT Hi there, I am inquiring as to whether or not anyone know about any regulations in Utah regarding frequencies, wireless data transmission, etc. I recently talked to a company in Utah about a wireless dispatch system and I was told that it is regulated by the airport authority and the city. If you can provide me with details, it will be appreciated. Sincerely, Blair Shellenberg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 20:54:33 -0400 From: kentborg@borg.org (Kent Borg) Subject: One Western Union Telegraph Clock: Received! One Western Union Telegraph Clock w/Sweep Second Hand: Received! Cool! (It is big too.) I got the clock today. You can relax, I am no longer on any pestering list for you. The clock looks to be in good shape. Clearly it is not new, but all the essential parts seem to be there and Pat posted that nice piece on how to hook these things up, I should be able to get it working. (Even if one of the windings was toasted this is low enough tech I could rewind it. Low-tech has some real advantages.) Now I am all the more going to need to get my house on the internet so I can synch this to the Naval Observatory and make the legend true. Thanks, (The Kent who really likes that the internet is, in some ways, still a small town where he can mail off a check for $190 to a stranger three time-zones away and not be ripped off.) Kent Borg H: +1 617 776-6899 W: +1 617 374-2493 kentborg@borg.org [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'm glad you like it. Have fun with it. I don't think the coil should be burned out unless some fool who had it before you applied *far* too much voltage. Supposedly three volts is all it should have, but I have put six volts there with no trouble however I did have the little light bulb to absorb some of that. Try wiring the light so it illuminates when the clock winds. If you have the same version as me, that will be for one second at a time every five minutes. Don't waste a lot of money on those great big 'telephone cell' type batteries the clock originally used. Those are now several dollars each. Just go with regular little 'C' batteries and a holder for them, or else use a AC/DC transformer at 3 to 4.5 volts DC output. The little batteries will last nearly a year if you have the light bulb wired in; if not they will probably last two or three years. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Claes Gussing Subject: SDH/PDH Network Planning Tool Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 12:43:01 -0700 Organization: ABC-Klubben Hi, I've been crawling around the network in search of a tool for dimensioning SDH/PDH telecom networks regarding traffic, synchronization, datacom (ECC), etc; without any success. Is there any such tool? Claes cg@abc.se ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #243 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri May 17 14:21:45 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id OAA21662; Fri, 17 May 1996 14:21:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 14:21:45 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605171821.OAA21662@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #244 TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 May 96 14:21:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 244 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Competition and Marketing (was MCI True Lies) (turner7@pacsibm.org) Re: 10-Digit Dialing is Easy (Curtis R. Anderson) Re: What is "Feature Group A"? (Rob Robinson) Re: Cell Towers Don't Have to be Ugly! (Alan Dahl) Re: Cell Towers Don't Have to be Ugly! (Henry Baker) Re: Cell Towers Don't Have to be Ugly! (Scott Alexander) Re: Cell Towers Don't Have to be Ugly! (Zuhair Moin) Re: 800/888 and COCOTS (Mike Seebeck) Re: Bell Atlantic's "Ten Number Number" and Area Code Split (Tom Horsley) Re: Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX (David Devereaux-Weber) Re: Is There a Mexican FCC? (Emilio Osorio Garcia) Re: Is There a Mexican FCC? (intsup@phoenix.net) Re: Outrageous LD 0+ Calls via Oncor Communications Inc. (Ross Mitchell) Re: Outrageous LD 0+ Calls via Oncor Communications Inc. (David Adrian) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: turner7@pacsibm.org (TUrner-7) Subject: Competition and Marketing (was MCI True Lies) Date: 17 May 1996 00:56:34 GMT Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS One bad thing about competition in a previously regulated monopoly industry is that it brings in hard-ball marketing techniques. This digest has seen many complaints about hard-selling and mispresentation by long distance companies and equipment suppliers. In the old regulated days, the Bell System didn't really have much of an incentative to push customers into new services, and of course everyone was automatically a customer. Employees were encouraged to tell customers about optional equipment (ie color or Trimline phones instead of basic black 500), and services, and the phone company always advertised to encourage people to use the phone "Long Distance is the next best thing to being there." There were occassional abuses, but nothing like today. Since today companies are fighting for market share and the customer, they are aggressive. Instead of using trained service representatives in a strict environment, they use sales people on commission. The sales people might not even be company employees, but rather temps or a contractor. Those people do not care about the company, the company's reputation, or anything else, except to make a sale. Such people will tell you anything to get a sale -- if you later get mad and drop out, that's someone else's problem. Indeed, marketers expect some percentage of dropouts, but they figure they're still ahead using the hard sell. There are many people touting the advantages of competition in the local Bell market -- usually people who want to make a buck out of it. The public should understand there are drawbacks as well -- and a private POTS user may come out behind, not ahead. ------------------------------ From: cra@servtech.com (Curtis R. Anderson) Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 04:42:32 GMT Subject: Re: 10-Digit Dialing is Easy Organization: Gleepy's Henhouse In article , Mark J. Cuccia decided to enlighten us with: [If this is late, I'm still a bit behind in comp.dcom.telecom!] > Well, intra vs. inter LATA has always been confusing in many areas if > you are only looking at the area code. There are LATA's which contain > all or part of one or more area codes. Likewise, there are area codes > which contain all or part of one or more LATA. The Buffalo, NY LATA, primarily covered by NYNEX, consists of all of Erie, Niagara, Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, and Alleghany Counties, roughly half of Orleans and Genesee Counties, and much of Wyoming County, as well as three additional exchanges in Genesee, Millport, and Shinglehouse, Pennsylvania, whose NPA is 814. The rest of the LATA is part (not all) of NPA 716. The Rochester, NY LATA, primarily covered by Frontier, consists of all of Monroe, Ontario and Livingston Counties, and the remainder of Orleans, Genesee and Wyoming Counties that NYNEX or GTE doesn't cover. > As for Local vs. Toll, this is where the regulatory agencies (FCC/CRTC and > state/provincial) and consumer groups should get togather an NANP-wide > standard: > IMO, there *SHOULD ALWAYS* be a *MANDATORY* '1+' required before *ANY* > toll call. Well, in New York, all intra-NPA calls are dialed as seven digits. There were all sorts of complaints about having to do this. Folks would have prefered to dial "1+" 7 digits so they would understand that they were placing a toll call. Now, a slipped finger can result in a wrong number, which in this LATA, can mean wrong numbers whose toll has to be credited with the subscribers' IXCs when made, and they might not realize this. We, as readers of the Digest, understand the technical implications of these changes and the need to use the "dirty 160" N0X/N1X exchange prefices. But try to explain this to the less educated consumer who thinks of all of this as "change for the sake of change." They are just going to resist change! > But maybe I'm only dreaming ... try to get the regulatory agencies, > consumer groups and the *multiple* number of telcos to all agree on > any kind of a standard! Like trying to get up-to-date list of all the NXXs that are local and toll calls in your NPA. For this example, somebody calls you and gives you a number you don't recognize, being a cellular number, and you scramble to the phone book to look it up. You are on a limited income, with no 'Net access, and are eligible for Life Line service, the cheapest residential rate cut in half, including the FCC access charge. You watch your budget closely so you don't spend needless money on toll calls, but have that option open if necessary. The telco may state in the tariff that the subscriber is responsible for knowing which NPA-NXX combinations are local and which are toll, but how are you going to find that out? Are telcos really going to be that anxious to tell you about local NXXs are associated with switches they don't own (e.g. cellular switches)? Curtis R. Anderson, "Official Chicken Breeder of Hill 10", SP 2.5?, KoX URLs: http://www.servtech.com/public/cra/ mailto:cra@servtech.com ftp://ftp.servtech.com/pub/users/cra/ ------------------------------ From: rob_robinson_at_mu-telecom-fs1@muccmail.missouri.edu (Rob Robinson) Subject: Re: What is "Feature Group A"? Date: 16 May 1996 22:20:52 GMT Organization: University of Missouri-Columbia In article , jasonf@p3.net says: > My questions are these: > 1. What is the purpose of FGA? Feature Groups A, B, C, D are methods of connecting LECs to IXCs. FGA is a subscriber-type line (vs. trunk). IXC is billed at actual usage. Origination must be from a single exchange. FGB is FGA but origination can be anywhere intra-LATA. Has hardware answer supervision. FGC - Is it used? FGD is FDB with ANI. This is the method used for equal access carriers. My 1 1/2 cents worth. Rob Robinson Manager Network Services University of Missouri - Columbia ------------------------------ From: Alan Dahl Date: Thu, 16 May 96 12:54:48 -0700 Subject: Re: Cell Towers Don't Have to be Ugly! madnix.uucp!zaphod@nicmad.nicolet.com (Ron Bean) writes: > Recently I heard a report on the radio about towns that are trying > to use zoning to block big ugly cell towers from being built in their > backyards. It occurred to me that the companies that build these > towers should hire an artist to design some better looking towers. > There is no law of physics that says they have to be ugly. Look at > the big "infrastructure" projects of the 1930's -- they could have make > the Golden Gate Bridge ugly, but they chose not to. Maybe they should > have a contest to design a cell tower that doesn't "uglify" it's > surroundings. The city fathers of Medina, Washington have been arguing over the placement of cell towers in their community because it is located right next to the Hwy 520 Floating Bridge that links Bellevue with Seattle and the existing cell sites are not enough to cover the bridge. Sprint/PCS has suggested hiding the cell tower inside a 100' flagpole they have offered to build at the local fire station. City officials are considering the idea. Alan Dahl Axys Core Development Team alan.dahl@attws.com AT&T Wireless Services Phone: (206) 702-5231 P.O. Box 97060 Fax: (206) 702-5452 Kirkland, WA 98083-9760 http://www.eskimo.com/~adahl ------------------------------ From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) Subject: Re: Cell Towers Don't Have to be Ugly! Organization: nil organization Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 01:06:09 GMT In article , madnix.uucp!zaphod@nicmad.nicolet.com (Ron Bean) wrote: > Recently I heard a report on the radio about towns that are trying > to use zoning to block big ugly cell towers from being built in their > backyards. It occurred to me that the companies that build these > towers should hire an artist to design some better looking towers. > There is no law of physics that says they have to be ugly. Look at > the big "infrastructure" projects of the 1930's -- they could have make > the Golden Gate Bridge ugly, but they chose not to. Maybe they should > have a contest to design a cell tower that doesn't "uglify" it's > surroundings. There is one company advertising cell towers that look like palm trees and church towers. Someone else makes satellite antennas that look like backyard umbrellas. I understand that a good fraction of the surface area of some modern airplanes forms a phased array antenna. There's a wonderful article from the 1930's or 1940's about the proper design of a high performance antenna for the Chrysler building. I think it appear in the Proc. of the IEE (not a typo; IEEE came later). www/ftp directory: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html ------------------------------ From: salex@oilhead.cis.upenn.edu (Scott Alexander) Subject: Re: Cell Towers Don't Have to be Ugly! Date: 17 May 1996 13:51:45 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Ameritech has been having a fight for > sometime with the village of Winnetka, Illinois regards the placement > of a cellular tower. Telco wants to put the tower at the highest point > in the village they can obviously, and this apparently is on the roof > of a church there. The church is happy to have it (or rather, the rent > money they will collect for it) but the village trustees are in a > snit about it because they say it will be ugly. This argument between > Winnetka and Ameritech has been going on for a couple years. PAT] Near Philadelphia, in Montgomery County, one of the providers was running into these battles over an ugly tower. The resolution is that they have come up with a design that puts it *inside* the steeple of a church. (I know little or nothing about cellular frequency propagation and so don't know if the fact that it's a modern looking steeple where it would be possible to work with the material out of which the steeple is constructed matters.) Apparently the neighbors are happy because it isn't ugly, the church is happy because they can use the rent, and the cellular company is happy because they have a well-sited tower. Scott Alexander salex@dsl.cis.upenn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 96 08:41:38 PDT From: moinz@la.AirTouch.COM (Zuhair Moin) Subject: Re: Cell Towers Don't Have to be Ugly! We at AirTouch Los Angeles have employed various methods to make our cell sites or towers look pleasing to the eye or to just hide them completely. Some examples are fake palm trees, inside monuments built specifically for such purposes, steeple built on top of a church to hide the antennas (this could also work for Ameritech in case of Winnetka!) etc. The only problem is that the cost of such projects is almost double than usual monopole/tower cell sites and also you are not able to get too much height which of course is not that necessary in Los Angeles with so many existing cells already in the system. Zuhair Moin ------------------------------ From: seebeck@lace.colorado.edu (Mike Seebeck) Subject: Re: 800/888 and COCOTS Date: 17 May 1996 16:45:23 GMT Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder VANTEK COMMUNICATIONS (vantek@northcoast.com) wrote: > Mark J. Cuccia recently wrote: >> Recently there was a question in TELECOM Digest about their local >> telco (I think it was Sprint-Centel or Sprint-United in Florida) >> charging them on their bill for calling 800-555-1212. > The state of Texas (for one) recently passed legislation allowing > payphone operators to charge up to $.25 per call to ALL 800/888 > numbers. In addition, the new charge for all local payphone calls in > that state will also be raised (to $.50). This charge is NOT being > imposed by the AOS, but by the COCOTs themselves, INCLUDING GTE and SW (deleted) It is a poor solution to a payphone company wanting to collect revenue to require users of 800 calling cards to carry change with them in order to use their calling cards. I travel often and use real money as little as possible (it is soooo messy). I do not care to carry a role of quarters so I can use my calling card from airports. ------------------------------ From: tom@ssd.hcsc.com (Tom Horsley) Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic's "Ten Number Number" and Area Code Split Date: 17 May 1996 17:09:44 GMT Organization: Harris Computer Systems Corporation Reply-To: Tom.Horsley@mail.hcsc.com > What upset me is that Bell Atlantic is implementing mandatory > ten-digit dialing, even for local, same-area-code calls. I only wish that Bell South would do this instead of constantly splitting area codes. I've now had three different area codes (and come to think of it, my workplace has too -- not all the same ones either :-), and it is a pain changing everything that has your number on it, calling everyone who has your number and telling them to change it, etc. etc. I would *gladly* dial ten digits to avoid having my area code change again! The most ridiculous thing about splitting area codes rather than overlaying them is the claim that it is inconvenient to have to use ten digits for frequently dialed numbers, but with the geographic size of area codes getting to be about the size of postage stamps (at least in south Florida), you are incredibly likely to have to dial ten digits anyway (in fact, my frequently called number list contains exactly 0 seven digit numbers today, so it sure has been convenient for me to have my area code split :-). Tom.Horsley@mail.hcsc.com or Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net 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!) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 10:25:51 -0500 From: David Devereaux-Weber Subject: Re: Spurious 911 Calls From a PABX On Wed, 08 May 1996 22:38:53 -0400, Atri Indiresan related problems of false 911 calls. In one place you say "PABX" and in another "Centrex", but the technology is not clear. Is it Centrex, PABX or a PABX with Centrex trunks? Atri then responded to me: > I guess I used the terms loosely, since I do not fully understand them. > Basically, I am quite sure the exchange is a Centrex, with about 40,000 > numbers (647-, 763-, 764-, 936-, 998-). We have DID, and calling within > the university is 5 digits, calling out requires a 9- prefix. All this > is transparent to inbound calls. I understand now. You have Centrex, and since you are in Michigan, that means that Ameritech is probably your local carrier. The problem is that there are legitimate non-911 dialing sequences that start with the digits 911 -- for example, if a user wanted to make an AT&T long distance call, they could dial: 9-1-10288-areacode-number ^ to use AT&T network ^ for long distance ^ for "outside line" The "switch" needs to know whether to decide the call is a 911 emergency call or to wait for further digits. Now, the phone company could reduce the false 911 calls by increasing the "inter-digit time-out" value in their switch, but that would have the undesirable side effect of delaying the time for real emergencies to connect with 911. For example, if someone dialls 911 and hears silence for 30 or 40 seconds, it is likely that they will conclude that they didn't dial the correct digits or that the call didn't go through, and they are likely to hang up and attempt to dial again. We have had that problem. The result is that the caller hangs up just when 911 gets the call, and they get just the hang-up. Further, the phone company could send calls that time out to only the digits 9-1 to an intercept message, but, again, you have to be careful you don't send legitimate emergencies to an intercept message. Maybe, because of the urgency, the user didn't release the 1 key far enough to stop the tone before they pressed it again. I recommend that your university set up a meeting with the 911 system administrator and the telephone company to look at all the possibilities and decide if changes are necessary. Then they should document the process and decisions so that everybody is protected in case a politician or lawyer wants to make an issue out of it. That group should also explore the possibility of an information program to phone users to stay on the line if an unintended 911 call occurs to inform the 911 dispatcher that it was a dialing error and not an emergency. One solution might be for the the university and the telephone company to set up "least cost routing" on the Centrex switch, use only 8 for both local and long distance access, and let the least cost routing algorithm decide which way to route the call. David Devereaux-Weber, P.E. djdevere@facstaff.wisc.edu The University of Wisconsin - Madison http://clover.macc.wisc.edu Division of Information Technology (608)576-2599(cellular) Network Engineering (608)262-3584(voice) (608)265-5838(FAX) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I guess I do not understand what the problem is here. To call in an emergency, the user would dial 9-911. That is not the same as 9-1xxxx-whatever for a long distance call. Also you put the '1' (for long distance) *after* the LD carrier code. You would dial 9-10288-1/0-number. So it would seem to me the switch could tell the difference between 9-10-something and 9-911 and 9-1-X where X is the start of some area code. I think the solution would be to educate the users. PAT] ------------------------------ From: oemilio@nexusparc.acnet.net (Emilio Osorio Garcìa) Subject: Re: Is There a Mexican FCC? Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 19:04:55 GMT Organization: A Poorly Internet Site. There suppousedly exists something as the FCC in Mexico, its called Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes, but, as some other government agencies in Mexico, its something to have fear of. I have never managed to get anything officially from the SCT; the info gets buried in beurocracy ... sad ... but true. Greetings from Mexico, Emilio ------------------------------ From: intsup@phoenix.net Subject: Re: Is There a Mexican FCC? Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 18:30:58 GMT Organization: Phoenix Data Net (713) 486-8337 http://www.phoenix.net David Esan <103145.117@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > Is there an organization analogous to the US FCC in Mexico? I want to > be able to purchase TELMEX tariffs, and when competition comes, the > tariffs of their competitors. The SCT -- Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes. They're a mix of our FCC and FTC. International Suppliers Inc. Jos Y. Caedo - Vice President Foreign Gov't Sales Div., Domestic Sales Div., Building Materials Div. Houston, Texas U S A http://WWW.Phoenix.Net/~intsup ------------------------------ From: rem@world.std.com (Ross E Mitchell) Subject: Re: Outrageous LD 0+ Calls via Oncor Communications Inc. Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 14:59:51 GMT In article , Rupa Schomaker wrote: > I received my phone bill today and one page on the end is for a $9.03 > call that lasted two minutes from Beverly Hills CA to Sugar Land TX at > 12:05pm. Over $4.5/min is ridiculous so I called the 800 number on > the bill. How about over $16 for a three minutes call from New Hampshire to Massachusetts! That showed up on my bill last month. My wife, bless her heart, didn't realize that 0+ isn't what it used to be. I don't know if she could have dialed 10288 + 0 +, although, of course, she should be able to. Thanks to the previous writer, I'm going to call Oncor to see what I can get. I'll let the group know how I do. Ross Mitchell ------------------------------ From: adrian@mt-solutions.com (David Adrian) Subject: Re: Outrageous LD 0+ Calls via Oncor Communications Inc. Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 15:21:27 GMT rupa@rupa.com (Rupa Schomaker) wrote: > I received my phone bill today and one page on the end is for a $9.03 > call that lasted two minutes from Beverly Hills CA to Sugar Land TX at > 12:05pm. Over $4.5/min is ridiculous so I called the 800 number on > the bill. > I immediately got a service rep who explained to me that "because > Oncor leases their lines rather than owning them they have > significantly higher costs than AT&T and they just pass their calls > onto the subscribers." After talking some more, it turns out they > just do billing, ie: they are reselling service. I mentioned that > traditionally such resold service is *cheaper* than going through > AT&T. She says "well, we are just passing our costs on." Just passing our costs on? I doubt they pay ten cents per minute. Yeah, they got me too, once. I used my AT&T calling card from a pay phone in Champaign, IL to check my voice mail. They intercepted the call, so I had the operator dial it. When I started entering in my PIN for the voice mail, she picked up again and asked if I wanted to call another number. $4 for the operator "assistance." Total of around $12 for three minutes. Oncor, it turns out, is rather well known for this. The FCC has received thousands of complaints about them but hasn't done anything of use. Oh, the FCC talks a good game: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Notices/fcc95127.html But do you really think they're there to help you? http://www.usatoday.com/money/index/btr028.htm I don't think I'm overreacting when I say that every employee of Oncor should be rounded up and flogged in public. If you travel much, I recommend getting a cell phone. It's cheaper. adrian [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, except that now many of the cell carriers are now putting massive restrictions on roaming to fight fraud. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #244 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri May 24 01:36:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id BAA26270; Fri, 24 May 1996 01:36:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 01:36:25 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605240536.BAA26270@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #245 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 May 96 01:36:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 245 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Sorry About That! Another Heart Attack Got Me (TELECOM Digest Editor) Book Review: "The Internet Instant Reference" by Hoffman (Rob Slade) FTC Online Workshop on Privacy (Monty Solomon) Supreme Court Topples Last Obstacle to Caller ID (Tad Cook) Book Review: "Packet Communication" by Metcalfe (Rob Slade) Book Review: "The Java Programming Language" by Arnold/Gosling (Rob Slade) Bellcore to Charge For NANP Letters (Pierre Thomson) Fugitive Surrenders After Photo Seen on FBI Website (Tad Cook) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 00:10:19 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Subject: Sorry About That! Another Heart Attack Got Me Hello Folks, When we last chatted, last weekend in fact, I was feeling pretty good physically. Saturday night about midnight a friend suggested we go down to the Village Inn for 'a few' and that seemed like a good idea. I said I would meet him over there in maybe a half hour. After several days of temperatures in the *forties* all of a sudden Friday and Saturday brought us temperatures in the *nineties* with a great deal of humidity. Maybe that is what did it, I dunno ... Walking down the street, not even a block from my house, all of a sudden those *awful* pains in the upper chest. If you have had a heart attack before (and I have, late in 1994) then you know the kind of pain I mean. With it came the voluminous amounts of perspiration. It makes no difference -- it could be below zero in January -- a person having a heart attack is going to sweat profusely. I sat down there for a few minutes on a bench gathering my thoughts wondering if this time it was going to be the end since last time I got off sort of easy. A Skokie police car pulls up to the curb and the cop says, "Hey, Mr. Townson, you don't look like you feel well. Want me to have someone come and get you?" I am stubborn; I tell him I don't feel like having the wagon-man come to pick me up off the sidewalk and take me home. It is not 'that kind' of a problem. He suggests the medics could 'come over from Rush-Prez' but I told him no on that also. He drives away. I think to myself if I sit here a few minutes everything will be fine. I do NOT want to go to the hospital; I do NOT want -- or intend -- to have this get 'out of control' (i.e. me not in control of my own affairs) as it did the time before in the fall of 1994. With my trusty cellular phone at hand I call the person I was supposed meet on his cellular phone and told him where I was sitting and why. He arrives five or ten minutes later while I am still sitting there in pain worse than ever. Not the sort to listen to my BS, he and the person with him load me in their car and we set out for the hospital which is only four blocks away. We pull up in the emergency driveway and I am still detirmined to do my own thing, so I get out and walk inside. The first people I see when I get inside are two paramedics; the two guys who make the emergency runs here in Skokie at night. Amazingly, the one called me by name and actually remembered me from a year earlier. "You said he would be here in a few minutes," he said to someone I did not see at first, but then I saw it was the police officer who had seen me originally. He had been over by the vending machines. Then to me the paramedic said, "How come you did not take Officer Ass-Kick's advice when he found you laying on the sidewalk on Church Street and let him call 911?" The cop laughed at that and said something about how he was afraid I might have kicked his ___. "Well the dude has to deal with us now," said the one, and with that they literally each picked me up and carried me into one of the little exam/emergency treatment rooms. Before I could protest much -- and it would have been a half-hearted one if I had -- these two had me totally stripped laying on the table and they were variously doing an EKG, checking my blood pressure and otherwise prodding me. Overhead I hear the speaker in the ceiling saying "a code in ER, a code in ER; a walk in, paramedics are calling for assistance." About that point the two people who had driven me there had parked the car and come inside, and hospital staff members were starting to arrive. The computer was 'down' at the moment so they were unable to get my earlier chart from a year before which might have saved a little time but probably did not matter. The EMTs turned me over to the hospital staff at that point, and these are not the kind of guys that you die on; you just don't. With very contagious smiles and upbeat attitudes they let me know (and I don't think I am any exception) that they were in control. By about 5 AM the staff had moved me up to the intensive care unit where I saw a couple more people I recognized and who greeted me *by name* ('oh, we remember you from last year when you were here'). The routine was the same as before. All day Sunday I felt like hell, loaded with morphine, ISMO, and whatever else. Sunday night was the worst with periods of 'sleep' that ranged from five minutes at a time to as much as an hour at a time. In one sense sleep is good because it is nature's own anethestic. But with the sleep would come outlandish dreams and then suddenly I would wake up and in the seconds after wakening try to make sense of the outlandish dream as it would quickly slip away only to see the sides of the bed I was in and the walls around me and wake to the terrible realization of where I was at and was going on. Then in a few minutes, maybe, off to sleep again. Sunday night into Monday morning was a l----o-----n----g night. But each time I would awaken within seconds there would appear Daniel Del a Torres; he liked being called Danny and was a registered nurse. As full of optimism as any you would find. No angiogram this time, however they did have me do the stress test and the heart photos which are part of it. And of course with the blood thinning stuff they use (seriously, it makes your blood look sort of like strawberry soda) there had to be a lot of blood drawn and tested. If they draw blood three or four times daily, then of necess- ity once or twice will be in the middle of the night. That long Sunday night, about three o'clock Monday morning -- I can't remember if I was awake or sleep -- Danny comes over to my bed along with another fellow. This one is a tall (like 6'5") black guy with a sort of Michael Jordan kind of build. His name is Isaac, I am told, and I should plan on seeing him a couple times nightly for the next few nights since he is the overnight lab tech. He is wearing a cute little button which says "I want to suck your blood out". Whoever taught him how to draw blood taught him well ... I feel nothing on the several occassions we meet. A joke I heard a couple times while there was 'check the patient's social calendar (medical chart) and see if s/he has a date with Isaac later tonight' They let me out Thursday afternoon, with several new prescriptions to be filled. I hope to be around a few more years. The ObTelecom part to it all: same phone system as was in use before but with the change in area codes they have updated the 'local call' versus 'toll call' tables in the switch. When this was all 708, they had it arranged so that Evanston, Skokie, Wilmette and Winnekta were treated as local (that is, patients could dial 9 and the seven digit number at no charge; all other calls were dialed 8 + 0 + ten digits and billing instructions to the Bell operator). Now they have it arranged so that none of 708 is local. All of the above (now in 847) is local along with just a few exchanges in 312 on the far north side of Chicago. They have also upgraded the pagers they are using so they have a longer range, but I did not get a chance to look into that very much. Anyway, given now the Memorial Day holiday, give me a bit of rest and I will try to get this Digest back on a regular schedule the first of the week. Unfortunatly, approximatly 850 messages will be deleted from the queue unused. I will be unable to use any 'please look at my webpage' type messages, and I will be unable to print any commercial press releases until further notice. Also, I won't be able to use any further press releases from Sprint; please do not send them to me. I am not going to risk being called on the carpet for running fraudulent advertising. Also, while I was in the hospital, the people at MIT somehow managed to completely screw up the Telecom Archives, losing a few files and getting some other junk mixed in, etc. Whether or not reconstruction will be possible is not known at this point, and today I frankly don't care one way or the other. So until further notice the Archives is closed. If you wish, you can pick through the remains there. There have been enough users in recent months *totally rape* the archives by copying them in total without even bothering to say thanks, so possibly some of them can be prevailed on to send *me* the stuff MIT managed to lose if I can figure out what is what. Irritated and very bitter. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 12:17:56 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Internet Instant Reference" by Hoffman BKININRF.RVW 960511 "The Internet Instant Reference", Paul E. Hoffman, 1996, 0-7821-1891-7, U$14.99 %A Paul E. Hoffman %C 2021 Challenger Drive, Alameda, CA 94501 %D 1996 %G 0-7821-1891-7 %I Sybex Computer Books %O U$14.99 510-523-8233 800-227-2346 Fax: 510-523-2373 %P 324 %T "The Internet Instant Reference" Like "Internet in Plain English" (cf. BKINTIPE.RVW), this is a presentation of the net via glossary. It does start with a quick overview, and its small size makes it fairly "instant" and a reasonable reference. The definitions (and thus the material of the book) are generally OK, though not outstanding. Many entries have pointers to net resources for further information, and these are commonly well annotated. They are not always complete: the "List of (mailing) Lists" entry cites none of the three major lists (although "Mailing Lists" does include one of them). Given the limitations of space, it might not be surprising that there are no entries for such items as browser, PGP or rtfm, but that makes the inclusion of a set of instructions for the ee editor all the more surprising. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKININRF.RVW 960511. Distrobution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Research into Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/ User .fidonet.org Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 11:49:54 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: FTC Online Workshop on Privacy Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Forwarded to the Digest, FYI: Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 14:41:06 -0700 From: Adam Starchild Subject: FTC Workshop on Consumer Privacy in Cyberspace FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WORKSHOP ON CONSUMER PRIVACY IN CYBERSPACE TO BE HELD IN JUNE 1996 The Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Education will hold a public workshop on June 4 and 5 to focus on privacy issues in the online marketplace. The development of technologies such as the Internet and the World Wide Web has allowed online businesses to collect and use personal information about consumers, often without consumers’ knowledge or consent. The workshop will examine consumer privacy issues in this new marketplace, consumer and business education about the use of personal information online, and ways to enhance the growth of the online marketplace by fostering consumer confidence. Workshop topics will include the use of consumer information, the use of medical and financial information online, the collection and use of information about children, electronic approaches to protecting consumer privacy online, and the European Union's directive on the protection of personal data. The workshop will be open to the public and will be held on June 4, 1996 from 9:00AM to 5:00PM in Room 432 of the FTC headquarters building, 6th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., in Washington, D.C. On June 5, 1996 the workshop will be held from 9:00AM to 12:30PM in Room 332 of the FTC headquarters building. The Bureau invites representatives of consumer groups, industry, government agencies, and other groups to take part in the workshop. Any person wishing to be considered for participation in the public workshop must file a written request, on or before May 24, 1996, to Martha Landesberg, Division of Credit Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580. Posted by Adam Starchild Asset Protection & Becoming Judgement Proof at http://www.catalog.com/corner/taxhaven The privacy list is run automatically by the Majordomo list manager. Send a "help" command to majordomo@ftc.gov for assistance. ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Supreme Court Topples Last Obstacle to Caller ID Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 17:08:06 PDT Supreme Court Topples Last Obstacle to Caller ID Service By George Avalos, Contra Costa Times, Walnut Creek, Calif. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 21--Caller ID may be just around the corner: The U.S. Supreme Court Monday toppled the last legal hurdle to the start of the controversial telephone service, Pacific Bell intends to launch in June in California. The service enables a telephone customer to see the number from which a phone call was placed before he or she chooses to answer it. A phone must be equipped with a special display screen to show the phone number. But a side effect of the technology has stirred fears among those seeking to preserve their privacy. "People have a right to the privacy of their phone numbers, and every time they pick up that phone they should not have to share the number," said Nettie Hoge, executive director with Toward Utility Rate Normalization, which favored the more restrictive PUC rules. A person who is making a call -- even someone with an unlisted phone number -- could have that number displayed on telephone call screens at the other end. "People have a right to the privacy of their phone numbers, and every time they pick up that phone they should not have to share the number," said Nettie Hoge, executive director with Toward Utility Rate Normalization. To avoid the number being transmitted to phones with display screens, a customer must arrange to block their number from being displayed during every call, a process called per-line blocking. The Supreme Court rejected a state Public Utilities Commission request to block a customer's phone number on every call unless the person specifically asks to have the phone number displayed on selected calls. The PUC sought the restrictive regulations because of fears that people would unwittingly transmit their phone numbers. Instead, phone numbers will be automatically transmitted if people don't request per-line blocking. "This ruling makes it more important than ever that consumers fill out the forms sent to them in their telephone bills and to choose either selective (per-call) blocking or complete (per-line) blocking," said Diane Dienstein, a PUC spokeswoman. The new rules mean some customers might wind up getting all sorts of product and service pitches they didn't expect, TURN said. "Telemarketers will be able to gather data on people because they'll have your phone number," Hoge said. "People are doing everything they can to be left alone. A business that subscribes to Caller ID will have your phone number." All the blocking in the world, though, won't be enough to prevent your number from being transmitted and displayed if you call a phone number with an area code of 800, 888, or 900. "People aren't aware that these numbers are being passed, even with an unlisted number," Hoge said. About 40 percent of California residents have unlisted phone numbers. In the Bay area, the rate is 43 percent. In the East Bay, about 67 percent of residential numbers are unlisted. Pac Bell plans to charge residential customers $6.50 a month for Caller ID and business users $7.50 a month. About 500,000 to 1.5 million customers, or 5 to 15 percent of Pac Bell's customers, are expected to use Caller ID by mid-1998, according to Mark Pitchford, a Pac Bell executive. That means the service could generate about $38 million a year for the phone company two years from now. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Furthermore, I don't really need any more articles like this sent in either. I get so sick and tired of reading about how every privacy freak is so upset and paranoid about having their phone number -- the phone they use to make rude and careless wrong number calls with -- made available for someone else to see and yet those of us who get these calls apparently have no rights at all to hear the loonies tell it. Twice tonight the phone rings. I look at the box and see 'private'. I answer the phone and someone on the other end demands 'who is this?'. You ask who they are or who they want, and they just hang up without so much as an apology or anything. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 14:14:09 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Packet Communication" by Metcalfe BKPKTCOM.RVW 960424 "Packet Communication", Robert M. Metcalfe, 1996, 1-57398-033-1, U$39.95/C$55.95 %A Robert M. Metcalfe bob_metcalfe@infoworld.com %C P.O. Box 640218, San Jose, CA 95164-0218 %D 1996 %G 1-57398-033-1 %I Peer-to-Peer Communications, Inc. %O U$39.95/C$55.95 800-420-2677 408-435-2677 fax: 408-435-0895 %O info@peer-to-peer.com %P 224 %S Computer Classics Revisited %T "Packet Communication" Bob Metcalfe invented Ethernet. He contributed to the early development of the Internet. He founded 3Com Corporation. All of which makes him a significant contributor to modern technology, but why would anyone want to read his doctoral dissertation? The ideas in "Packet Communication" are fundamental to a great deal of network operation. The theories Metcalfe explored in his dissertation were later used in the development of Ethernet, but they have also affected network design and analysis right up to modern ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) systems. In fact, most books that try to explain Internet concepts make reference to Ethernet technologies. Metcalfe has also added a retrospective outlining the general work going on at the time his paper was originally published (1973) and following from it. This work is therefore of both technical and historic relevance. The book also contains a reprint of RFC (Request for Comments) 62 by Dave Walden (on interprocess communications) and RFC 89 by Metcalfe, discussing activities in the first year of development of what would become the Internet. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKPKTCOM.RVW 960424. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for rslade@vanisl.decus.ca Research into Rob.Slade@f733.n153.z1/ User .fidonet.org Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 19:41:50 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "The Java Programming Language" by Arnold/Gosling BKJAVAPL.RVW 960420 "The Java Programming Language", Ken Arnold/James Gosling, 1996, 0-201-63455-4, U$34.38 %A Ken Arnold %A James Gosling %C 1 Jacob Way, Reading, MA 01867-9984 %D 1996 %G 0-201-63455-4 %I Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. %O U$34.38 800-822-6339 617-944-3700 Fax: (617) 944-7273 bkexpress@aw.com %P 352 %S The Java Series ... from the Source %T "The Java Programming Language" The preface says that the book is intended for those "familiar with basic programming concepts". I suspect the definition of "basic" needs to be stretched to cover this material, but I can generally accept that. It also "is not an introduction to object-oriented programming". Fair enough. There is also an attempt to dissociate the work from the mere designing of applets. Again, fair enough: there are going to be a great many books about using Java for quick and dirty applet creation. What that does, though, is to remove the book from the purview of the majority of readers interested in it, who have been told that Java is a wonderful (and easy) new language for programming fancy stuff on Web pages. The target audience is therefore experienced object- oriented programmers who want to use Java for more sophisticated projects. These people will be delighted with the book, but they are a fairly select group. With the creator of Java as a co-author you might expect an "insider" book, and, from the joke on the dedication page on through, this is so. This work concentrates on the design and intentions of Java, rather than on specific programming or tutorials. There are examples enough throughout the book, but the emphasis is on how the concepts work rather than simply what particular keywords do. A running Java programming environment will also be very helpful to the reader. There are exercises, particularly in the early chapters, but they work better as practice and exploration than as teaching assignments. The first paragraph of this review might be taken as a negative comment about the book itself. That is not my intention. Java is probably one of the most significant developments in language design in many years. That it is currently being perceived as a tool for creating Web animation is a problem of public relations, not the system. Arnold and Gosling's book is an important and useful text for those who are serious about Java. It is not, however, for those who have yet to master the ALT tag in HTML. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKJAVAPL.RVW 960420. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters roberts@decus.ca slade@freenet.victoria.bc.ca Rob_Slade@mindlink.bc.ca Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: Pierre Thomson Subject: Bellcore to Charge For NANP Letters Date: 23 May 1996 15:36:21 GMT Organization: MHVNet, the Mid Hudson Valley's Internet connection Bellcore just mailed a letter (# PL-NANP-000) stating that after July 1, they will start charging $10 or more for each Planning Letter (formerly known as Bellcore Informational Letters) they send out. In addition, they now request that these letters be copied only for use within your company, and not outside. In the past, NANPA provided information on new area codes and dialing plan changes free of charge. While it may be true that their mailing list is getting out of hand (with all the changes, it's no surprise), ten dollars sure sounds overkill to cover the cost of mailing. (the postage paid on the letter I got was 32.4 cents). I'd be glad to pay the actual cost of mailing, but I can't afford to line their pockets. At the rate these letters have been coming out, the bill would come to around $1000 annually. And who's to say Bellcore won't publish more letters than neccessary, once they find how lucrative it is? If you receive the Bellcore letters, or are interested in numbering plan issues, please contact the Bellcore NANPA Director, Ron Conners, at the below addresses to express your opposition to this plan. Ron R. Conners, Director Bellcore NANPA 8 Corporate Place Piscataway, NJ 08854-4156 (908) 699-3700 rconners@notes.cc.bellcore.com Pierre Thomson Telecom Manager Rifton Enterprises ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Fugitive Surrenders After Photo Seen on FBI Website Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 15:21:18 PDT U.S. Fugitive Surrenders In Guatemala After Photo Is Seen On Internet WASHINGTON (AP) -- For the first time, the FBI has nabbed one of its most wanted fugitives thanks to the Internet. Leslie Isben Rogge, who had been on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list for six years, surrendered to U.S. authorities in Guatemala after his picture was seen on the Internet, the FBI said Sunday. The bureau said this was the first time that listing the most wanted fugitives on the Internet has led to a capture. His picture had been placed on the FBI's home page and was spotted by someone in Guatemala, who had seen Rogge and alerted the authorities. Guatemalan police launched a manhunt and Rogge, "feeling the intense pressure," turned himself in at the U.S. Embassy on Saturday, the FBI said. Rogge, 56, had escaped from federal custody in Idaho in 1985 following a conviction for armed robbery. He also was wanted for bank robbery, transporting stolen property across state lines and wire fraud, the FBI said in a written statement. He was placed on the most wanted list in 1990. Police want Rogge in connection with a 1986 robbery in North Carolina and a 1991 robbery in Missouri. He was flown to Miami, where he was being held awaiting a hearing scheduled for Monday before a U.S. magistrate, the FBI said. ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #245 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri May 24 03:44:48 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id DAA03080; Fri, 24 May 1996 03:44:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 03:44:48 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605240744.DAA03080@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #246 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 May 96 03:44:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 246 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Telcos and ISPs in Canada: Setting the Record Straight (Ian Angus) Caller-ID Delay in California (Lauren Weinstein) Caller-ID/ISP Abuse, Plus Unwanted, Unsolicited Sleaze E-Mail (F. Pizer) Yet Another Scam? (John B. Rose) 911 Calls From Cellphones and Location (Ted Lee) Collect Phone Sleaze (Perry Engle) Sprint Business Sense Screwup/Scam (Arvind Derhgawen) How to Build a Private U.S. Intranet (Mike Jones) AT&T 8130 Protocol Request (Tony Aiuto) Internet MCI and Bounced Messages (Barry Mishkind) Last Laugh! The Day the Rats All Drowned (Clifford D. McGlamry) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Angus Subject: Telcos and ISPs in Canada: Setting the Record Straight Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 10:21:54 -0700 Organization: Angus TeleManagement Group The May 1996 issue of {Boardwatch} magazine carries a wildly inaccurate article about relations between telephone companies and Internet Service Providers in Canada. I wrote and submitted a response. The editor of {Boardwatch}, Jack Rickard, replied that he would not be interested in publishing it, so I am submitting it to TELECOM Digest, in the belief that you are more interested in accurate reporting than Mr. Rickard. I should perhaps add that I was personally involved in the most of the events described here. In the fall of 1995 I was retained to mediate discussions between Bell Canada and the Responsible Internet Service Companies (RISC). I have both ISPs and telcos as clients. ============================ TELCOS AND ISPs IN CANADA: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT By Ian Angus Are Canada's telephone companies out to crush independent Internet Service Providers? Are they engaged in a campaign to take over the Internet and drive out all competitors? Frank X. Sowa thinks so. He recently devoted his Cyberworld Monitor column in {Boardwatch} magazine to the lurid story of the efforts of Canadian telcos, with government support, to "dominate the new Information Superhighway, and keep it out of the reach of actual and 'would-be' competitors." Unfortunately, Mr. Sowa's sources of information were extremely unreliable. Many of the events he writes about never happened at all; others are described inaccurately. As a whole, his column thoroughly misrepresents the situation in Canada. This article attempts to set the record straight by reviewing the story, one error at a time. The indented quotations are from the {Boardwatch} article. THE STENTOR ALLIANCE "The Canadian government allowed its largest telecom companies to 'collaborate' and form the Stentor Alliance, a 'trust' set up between Canada's largest telephone behemoths." Way back in 1931, Canada's major phone companies created the Trans Canada Telephone System, to coordinate service and run the long distance network. In the 1970s, the partnership changed its name to Telecom Canada. In March 1992, Telecom Canada reorganized, and changed its name to Stentor. So the Canadian government didn't allow the telcos to create Stentor. The government had nothing to do with it. Canadian telcos have been cooperating for over sixty years. "Once established, the Stentor Alliance worked quickly to shore up control of Canada's domestic telephone market and make it harder for foreign- owned companies like AT&T, Sprint and MCI to compete there." When Stentor was created, AT&T, Sprint, and MCI were not involved in Canadian telecom except as foreign carriers who connected to Canadian phone companies at the Canada-US border. Today, four years later: ** AT&T owns 33% of Unitel Communications, the largest alternative long distance carrier in Canada. ** Sprint owns 25% of Call-Net Enterprises, which, under the name Sprint Canada, is the second largest alternative long distance carrier. ** MCI is closely allied with Stentor. If Stentor really intended to keep AT&T, Sprint and MCI from competing in Canada, it seems to have failed miserably. THE NET "Bell Canada even tried to claim 'The Net' as its registered trademark. They prepared to sue Canadian ISPs who used 'The Net' in their advertising. But the trademark was challenged by small ISPs and Bell backed down. Instead, they called their service 'Sympatico.'" This statement comes right after a description of the events which supposedly took place in November 1995. Any reasonable reader would assume that Bell's trademark filing occurred at the same time. Not so. Bell Canada filed its trademark claim in 1992, before the term "The Net" was widely used as a synonym for the Internet. In the early 90s, Bell used "TheNet" (all one word) as a common name for its family of proprietary data communications services -- TheNet:Mail, TheNet:EDI, TheNet:FaxOnDemand, and so on. The 1992 trademark application describes various applications which the term will be used for -- it doesn't mention the Internet at all. Bell's trademark application worked its way through the government's bureaucratic apparatus for three years. In August 1995, the required announcement that the process was nearly complete appeared in Trademarks Journal. In response, the civil liberties organization Electronic Frontier Canada (not "small ISPs") launched a campaign to get the trademark application rejected. On September 18 Bell Canada withdrew its application. I know of no evidence whatsoever that Bell was preparing to sue ISPs who used "The Net" in their advertising. I have never heard any knowledgeable person in Canada make that charge. And so far as I am aware, there was never any plan to use The Net as a name for Bell's Internet access service. SYMPATICO "On November 1, 1995, Bell Canada made a major move ... launching its new 'Sympatico' Internet service.... Bell's low-cost entry package ... sent many small independent ISPs scrambling for survival." Sympatico was actually launched on November 30, not November 1, and the company which offers it is not Bell Canada itself, but an unregulated subsidiary, Bell Sygma. But let's get down to dollars and cents -- how does the price of this "low-cost entry package" really compare to similar services offered by other Canadian ISPs? Bell Sygma offers three plans for individual dial-up accounts (rates in Canadian dollars): ** $9.95/month for 5 hours ** $24.95/month for 25 hours ** $39.95/month for 50 hours These are not low prices. A quick surf through the Web found the following prices for individual dial-up accounts, offered by well-known independent ISPs in Ontario: ** Interlog: $25.00/month for 120 hours ** iStar: $29.95/month for 90 hours ** HookUp: $29.95/month for 100 hours ** Internet Direct: $26.90/month, unlimited use These are just examples -- each of these companies offers even lower rates for prepaid accounts, and other bargains. In every case, they are charging much less than Sympatico. So any ISP which was "sent scrambling" by Sympatico's rates was probably in pretty bad shape to begin with. But perhaps it wasn't Sympatico's rates which caused the scrambling. Perhaps it was the other prong of Bell Canada's "two pronged attack." Was it ... PER MINUTE ACCESS CHARGES? "On November 1, 1995, Bell Canada made a major move ... filing for the capability to charge ISPs by the minute for access." This baffles me. I work full time in Canadian telecommunications. I routinely track regulatory issues and tariff filings for clients. I receive copies of every telecom filing, every CRTC decision. And the simple fact is this: this filing didn't happen. Not on November 1, not ever. Period. But what about ... RATE INCREASES? "Bell's ... attempted price hikes for ISP connections, sent many small independent ISPs scrambling for survival..." "The Stentor companies ... were given permission to hike telephone line rates for independent Internet Service Providers. This extra burden accelerated the demise of many ISPs. Twenty of the remaining ISPs ... challenged Bell in a class action lawsuit calling the increases in conjunction with the new Internet service 'anti-competitive.' ... Initially, Bell backed down." This account flirts with accuracy, but quickly backs off before the flirtation gets serious. This is unfortunate, because the conflict between Bell Canada and the ISPs over local access rates is an important one. There isn't room here to tell the story in detail, but here are the key points. ** Most small and medium-sized ISPs in Bell Canada's territory use low-priced Centrex telephone lines for customer access. In November, Bell informed them that this use was contrary to regulations, and that they should be using higher priced Information System Access Lines. (ISALs) ** The ISPs protested. Several organizations of ISPs were formed, including RISC. They did not file a "class action lawsuit" -- they simply asked the CRTC to overrule Bell. ** After three weeks, before the CRTC ruled, Bell backed down. It offered to work with the ISPs to develop a new service which would be more appropriate for Internet access applications than either Centrex or ISAL. ** Bell also agreed to continue providing Centrex lines to ISPs, until the new service received regulatory approval. ** At this writing no new service has yet been announced or filed. ISPs in Bell territory are still using Centrex lines, and paying Centrex rates. In other words, Stentor was not "given permission to hike telephone line rates for independent Internet Service Providers." The "price hikes" which sent small ISPs "scrambling for survival" and "accelerated the demise of many ISPs," didn't happen. ISPs IN CRISIS? "Bell's low-cost entry package, along with attempted price hikes for ISP connections, sent many small independent ISPs scrambling for survival." "A few ISPs merged or were acquired. Rate changes and battles between independent ISPs began, shaking up the entire industry. Other ISPs and BBS operators providing Internet access went out of business without warning ... This extra burden accelerated the demise of many ISPs." Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? In just three months, from November to February, the Canadian telcos humbled the ISP industry, driving many companies out of business and leaving the rest in dire straits. Once again, this just didn't happen. If you know something about Canada, you might wonder how this account jibes with the fact that the Canadian ISP industry is apparently flourishing. Mr. Sowa himself reports that "American companies like Netcom and America Online ... have recently entered the Canadian marketplace." Why would such companies set up shop in Canada if the Stentor cartel was so effective in crushing all opposition? And how can we square this story of monopoly power and market dominance with the fact that the fearsome Sympatico service is still an also-ran in the fight for market leadership, with fewer customers than iSTN, HookUp, ID Internet Direct, CyberSurf, Internet Canada, and others? The Canadian industry has certainly had its share of business failures, as well as mergers and acquisitions, but there are still hundreds of independent ISPs in Canada. As Mark Twain might say, the reports of the ISP industry's death have been greatly exaggerated. IS STENTOR A CARTEL? "But, in early February, the federal Bureau of Competition Policy determined that Bell Canada and the Stentor Alliance is not a cartel practicing anti-competitive business." Mr. Sowa apparently believes that the BCP's investigation had something to do with Internet access, and with Stentor's conflicts with ISPs in the fall of 1995. In fact, the BCP announcement in February concluded an investigation which began three years ago, and which dealt almost exclusively with competition in long distance services. The Bureau of Competition Policy found, among other things, that since 1992 Stentor's long distance market share has fallen by 20%, long distance prices to businesses and consumers have declined steadily, and the CRTC has opened local telephone service to competition. Given those facts, it seems that if Stentor is a cartel, it isn't a very effective one. PER MINUTE ACCESS CHARGES AGAIN "Immediately following the favorable ruling, Bell and the other Stentor companies filed proposals with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to collect competitors' contribution payments for line-side access on a per-minute, rather than on the current per-circuit, basis. The change will mean a substantial increase in the cost for an ISP to operate in Canada." Once again, Mr. Sowa's sources have misinformed him. This filing had nothing to do with the BCP decision. What's more, this filing had nothing to do with Internet Service Providers! Stentor's February submission to the CRTC deals with the access fee paid by long distance companies. In Canada, as in the United States, ISPs are exempt from the charges which apply to access lines used for interexchange (long distance) voice services. Mr. Sowa is correct in his assertion that some telcos think the exemption for ISPs and other data carriers should be eliminated. But he is absolutely wrong when he says that Stentor has proposed that the change be made now. CONCLUSION Elsewhere in the May issue of {Boardwatch}, editor Jack Rickard writes, in reference to telcos entering the Internet business: "The ability to compete means the ability to compete. It does not assure victory. You have to do that part. Complaining about the advantages the competition has will win you nothing. You have to focus on the advantages YOU have or can develop if you want to win." That's an excellent answer to those who claim to favor competition, but quickly call for government protection whenever someone competes with them. I would add that independent ISPs will not win in the increasingly competitive market if they ignore what is really happening and base their business strategies on fables of the type offered up in the article Boardwatch published in May. The truth may set you free -- fiction definitely won't. --------------- copyright (c) 1996, Angus TeleManagement Group. Republication and distribution, with attribution permitted. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 96 17:34 PDT From: lauren@vortex.com (Lauren Weinstein) Subject: Caller-ID Delay in California Greetings. At the request of Pacific Bell, the California PUC has granted a one month delay in the implementation of CNID in California, from June 1 to July 1. The reason? The local telcos have been swamped with requests by subscribers for "complete" (per line) CNID blocking, and have fallen behind in processing the backlog of phoned and written-in requests. The test numbers established for subscribers to determine if blocking is set properly on their lines have also been yielding "all circuits busy" intercepts for long periods in many areas around the state. It should be fascinating to see what the stats end up looking like. --Lauren-- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I find it just incredible that you seem to have so many people in California on this kick. What is with all these people who seem to feel they have this right to hide themselves when they make calls no matter whose time they waste or whatever fool- ish calls they originate? I'll be glad to see 'blocked number blocking' (where recipients have the right to block calls from persons who hide their phone numbers) become universal. I am going to encourage everyone to sign up for it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bidscan@mail.saix.net Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 00:09:24 -0700 Subject: Caller-ID/ISP Abuse, Plus Unwanted, Wnsolicited Sleaze E-Mail Pat, I'm none too sure if you are the right one to turn to, but with the undertones of caller-id and ISP abuse, I feel that even if you can't help with my problem, you would at least be able to sound some sort of warning in the right places. After the "Are you a displaced AT&T etc" message of yesterday, of which I sent you a copy, and having sent back a polite "Kindly remove from your mailing list" reply to it, (which, btw, bounced as undeliverable, bounce message attached below), I have now today received something even LESS wanted, from the same source, also attached below). I have as a first resort, mailed to postmaster@interramp.com, asking for help, but for all I know, that is the sender of the sleaze. Is there anything you or your readers can suggest to halt what looks like becoming a stream of unwanted, unsolicited, crud. The sad part of it all is that they probably don't realise that I'm not in the USA, and am unable to reply via their 800 number which they insist on as the only means of making contact, thereby making the whole thing pointless in the first place ... Cheers, Frank R Pizer Bidscan@mail.saix.net <-----------------> Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.interramp.com ([38.8.45.2]) by igubu.saix.co.za (post.office MTA v1.9.3 ID# 0-11587) with SMTP id AAA2479 for ; Thu, 23 May 1996 21:14:18 +0200 Received: from [38.12.4.49] by smtp1.interramp.com (8.6.12/SMI-4.1.3-PSI-irsmtp) id OAA15931; Thu, 23 May 1996 14:34:37 -0400 X-Sender: exd78295@pop3.interramp.com (Unverified) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 2 (High) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 12:44:23 +0130 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: exd78295@interramp.com (LIGHTNING BOLT v2.0) Subject: NEW Lightning Bolt v2.0 * Now With Enhanced Features!! X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 NEW BULK EMAIL PROGRAM! <<<<<<<>>>>>>> MADE EASY FOR "ANYONE" TO LOAD & USE! Will Strip Email Addresses, Filter and Send!! Call 1-800-351-8085 For More Information NOW FOR PC OR MAC!! This is a very SIMPLE to use UNIX SHELL/C PROGRAM. The program is designed to run directly off your internet servers computer (shell account). This program is designed for simplicity of use for ANYONE to use. Once the programs are loaded on to the Shell Account, you can log off and let the ISP's computer complete the job! This is NOT a PPP connection like FLOODGATE or EUDORA or FREEDOM where your computer PPP connection is subject to TIME-OUTS and BUGS. There are NO TEDIOUS configuration requirements! Simply load these powerful programs and sign off ... go play golf or take a nap. These programs are designed to run on their own. PROGRAMS WRITTEN BY A CERTIFIED UNIX SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR. 1ST PROGRAM: - SEARCHES AND STRIPS EMAIL ADDRESSES FROM THE 'NET! - FILTERS OUT DUPLICATE ADDRESSES AND DOMAINS "YOU" CHOOSE. LIGHTNING BOLT v2.0 will run continuously 24 hours a day. Your provider will NOT know that it is operating on his computer. - LIGHTNING BOLT v2.0 ***AUTOMATICALLY sends ALL your email***. There is NO LIMIT on the capacity! ******************************************************************************* BIG BENEFIT: (You DO NOT have to stay Logged On!) Once you execute this program it runs AUTONOMOUSLY on your ISP's COMPUTER! NO TEDIOUS TIME OUTS, TIME CONSUMING SYSTEM CONFIGURATIONS OR COPYING AND PASTING! ******************************************************************************* The entire process is so simplified, that even a beginner can IMMEDIATELY use these programs. The cost of both programs cost $249.00 including a clearly written easy to follow instructions. FREE OFFER: ORDER NOW AND RECEIVE 150,000 "FRESH " EMAIL ADDRESSES TO START YOUR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN. All Free email addresses are .com, .net, .org. No gov.or edu., unless otherwise specified For Ordering Information Please Call: Eunuchs. Etc. 1-800-351-8085 Call the 800# ONLY ... we do not reply by email. We'll Be Happy to DIRECTLY Answer Any Questions! PLEASE ALLOW 7 DAYS FOR DELIVERY ... INDICATE PC OR MAC FORMAT Best Success, Eunuchs, Etc. 5901 J. Wyoming Blvd. NE Suite 284 Albuquerque, NM 87109 P.S. We have perfect ANI. Those who call to harrass will have their names, addresses and phone numbers posted in alt 2600, phrack,crack and hack for ALL to have fun. Have a nice day;) ----------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This of course is the old master creep himself, Jeff Slaton. Slaton has looted and ransacked many mailing lists. He has broken into computers to do it. A lot of system admins seem to be afraid of him because he thinks nothing of striking back at users and others who 'harass' him by starting vendettas the likes of which you thought only Usenetters were capable of when someone disagreed with their precious little opinion in some precious little newsgroup. For instance, in a university setting how about calls to the homes and *family members* of the people on the Boards of Trustees? Slaton has done it. He is wrong when he says admins will never know his program is running on their machine. An admin who takes a few minutes once in a while to do something like 'ps -uagx' will get information on every job running whether a user is on line or not. Of course those same admins are the ones who can never spend any time seeing what sort of very sick and vicious child porn they are holding on thier spools either, or they consider it a violation of their user's 'First Amendment' rights to say or do anything so for now the status quo is safe; Slaton, and others of that ilk are in fine hands. In one of the few things he has said at one time or anther that is not a lie, he *does* get ANI on calls to his 800 number, so I can only suggest that if you wish to call 800-351-8085 you do so from pay phones or large phone systems where you can *guarentee* for yourself in advance that the results will be useless to him. Loop arounds also work fine or what have you. But be forewarned, he is vicious, and anyone who would actually send him money thinking they were going to get a product delivered in return is a fool. By the way, that 8501 Wyoming address is just a maildrop; not a real address, but he is still probably in the Albuquerque area unless this is our lucky day and for whatever reason police somewhere arrested him and have him in a lockup. I do encourage you to discuss your feelings with Jeff on the phone but be careful when you do. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cables@ibm.net (John B. Rose) Subject: Yet Another Scam? Date: 23 May 1996 12:29:40 GMT Organization: Rose Business Systems Inc. Reply-To: cables@hamptons.com (John B. Rose) Dear Pat: This must be another scam, but how does it work? My NYC apartment phone (listed in my wife's name) rang at 6:30 this morning. The caller said she was Saundra Walker with the FCC in Washington. "Someone has been illegally charging phone calls to this number," and she could be reached at 1-800-879-6614. Suspicious, I asked for an office address. The caller replied with a long hit on one of the touch-tone buttons and a disconnect. (My Radio Shack call forwarding box disconnects the call when you press zero.) I wonder what the scam was -- and whether I'm going to get some bogus long distance charges on my next phone bill. I didn't call the 800 number. John Rose [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I tried the 800 number from here and got the three tones with an intercept that the number was not in service. I can tell you the FCC does not call people at 6:30 in the morning. Other than that, I don't know what to tell you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tmplee@MR.Net (Ted Lee) Subject: 911 Calls From Cellphones and Location Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 22:46:26 -0600 Organization: Minnesota Regional Network (MRNet) One of the local Mpls/St.Paul TV stations had a ratings-type story on how 911 cellular phone calls are swamping the system. (Four calls from the St. Paul Cathedral concerning an apparent heart attack, for instance.) Apparently all such calls get routed to the state patrol, since initially the assumption was they were all from highway accident problems, and for a while that was true. There were statistics on the volume; I didn't note them, but it seemed like at least a ten times increase in the last half-dozen years. The story closed with sort of a teaser about new technology being available, in some indefinite timeframe, to better locate the origin of such calls and route them to the nearest law enforcement agency. Does anyone know what that technology might be and how accurately (and by what means) it can locate a call? The impression given was that it was more accurate than just identifying the cell region you were in. Dr. Theodore M.P. Lee Consultant in Computer Security PO Box 1718 tmplee@MR.Net Minnetonka, MN 55345 612-934-4532 ------------------------------ Subject: Collect Phone Sleaze Date: Thu, 23 May 96 16:55:31 -0400 From: Perry Engle This just happened to a co-worker, and I happen to have the bill in my hands: They were expecting a collect call from a friend, and a computer called, and said to press 1 to receive a collect call. They did, and instead of their real friend, a make-believe friend started talking, giving a menu of other "friends" to talk to. Well, they quickly hung up, but not before getting a $15.47 phone charge for their next bill. Here are the specifics on the companies, who, after three phone calls, said that they would issue a credit, but may take the matter up "with a collection agency" if a "double-trace-back" showed that my friends "really made the phone call" ... In case anyone is interested: Telephone company: Telephone Billing Services - TBS Inc. Customer Service 1-800-748-4309 Phone "Services" company: Goldphone - Miami,FL [ Surprise ] phone number 1-305-548-3305 TBS will put a block on a line to anyone who calls the 1-800-748-4309 number. Be ready for a long wait, though. Perry Engle [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for providing the number on TBS. This is still one more number people need to call if you want to make sure fraudulent collect and third number billings do not reach you. Remember also to call Integratel direct to get on their list, but surprise! I just now called 800 directory and they have no listing for Integratel any longer. I wonder why? . Your local telco or AT&T can add you to the negative list where most other telcos are concerned. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Arvind Derhgawen Subject: Sprint Business Sense Screwup/Scam Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 01:42:34 GMT Organization: University of Illinois Please advise on how to hold the payment to Sprint till they resolve this screwup issue. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What you do very simply is refuse to send them any money. When they call and want to know why you are not paying, you tell them to make a formal demand in writing to which you will respond in writing. What you tell them in writing at that point is that due to contract irregularities and your inability to reach the person at Sprint who unlawfully voided the original contract (Robin Loyed) that you have directed your accounts payable department to put a complete freeze on payments to Sprint until the matter is resolved. That will only occur if/when you have contact with Robin Loyed. You further warn them in your letter that if the company attempts to retaliate by (a) disconnecting your long distance service or interfer- ing with your use of the phone in other ways or (b) making a degogatory report about you or your company to any credit reporting agency without noting there is an unresolved dispute that you will escalate the matter immediatly to the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. Depending on the amount they claim you owe them versus what damages you have experienced as a result of Robin Loyed's decision, you may want to offer to accept a credit of the entire amount claimed due as liquidated damages caused to you by Sprint's decision to no longer honor the contract. Then you do nothing more for the time being until/ unless they contact you again *in writing*. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mike@zb.com (Mike Jones) Subject: How to Build a Private U.S. Intranet Date: 23 May 1996 17:17:01 GMT Organization: Jones Inc Hi, I have a couple of questions on building private WAN Intranets. I basically would like to know how people are building private networks across the U.S. using ISDN technology for local connections? What network technology is used to get local ISDN traffic across the country? Long distance ISDN is to expensive is it not? Are there better options? What service providers provide solutions? Is ISDN for local bandwidth with frame relay technology used cross country the way to go? Here is our specific situation: We have about 600 locations which we need to get connected into a private Intranet. These locations need a minimal of 64kbps bandwidth. Majority of these locations around the U.S. have ISDN services so seems the most logical approach is to use ISDN for the local connections when available. When ISDN is not available we will use switched 56 or dedicated 56kbps connections. All 600 of these connections need to be connected with our home office in St. Louis. We plan on using multiple T1 leased lines for local loop from our office to our providers local POP. The question I have is what approach is best for getting the 600 local ISDN connections back to St. Louis. I assume it would be best to terminate the ISDN connections into a local number and then connect to a frame relay connection. What companies provide this type of service? I contacted MCI and they did not have local numbers to terminate ISDN. They either wanted me to pay long distance ISDN back to St. Louis for each of the connections or dial into an 800 number which then would allow me to connect to frame relay. The 800 number was like 20 cents a minute. Would it be better to lease some space and setup my own equipment where the ISDN connections could be terminated and then have a dedicated T1 from this leased space to my service providers frame relay POP and then use frame relay technology to get back to St. Louis? The equipment for move IP traffic from ISDN to frame relay was going to be a Cisco 4500 with both ISDN interfaces and 1 frame relay interface. Is there any better options to moving IP traffic from ISDN to Frame Relay? Does anyone know the approximate price of a frame relay circuit with a CIR of 128kbps from say Atlanta to St. Louis? The price excluding local loop charges? I was once told that MCI has a fixed price independent of distance. I believe the port charges were approximatly $300.00. Does this mean that if I had offices in Chicago, Atlanta and St. Louis that I would pay for three port charges into the frame relay cloud? Thanks for any help, Mike mike@zb.com ------------------------------ From: tony@ics.com (Tony Aiuto) Subject: AT&T 8130 Protocol Request Date: 23 May 1996 14:35:50 GMT Organization: Integrated Computer Solutions, Inc. Does anyone know the protocol spoken by the AT&T 8130 telephone? It has a little serial port out the back which passes caller id information out to a computer. It works fine with the provided Windows software, but I want to make it talk to my own applications. I have been trying to decipher it, but still can't make sense of their caller id info. It is NOT the standard ascii stream, but some binary protocol. For those of you who don't know the phone, it is a wonderful device. It is a nice two line speaker-phone, with display and caller id. You can be out all day, review who called you, and when you see a number you like, can press the autodial button to reply to the call. If you attach your Windows machine to it, you can keep the phone directory on-line and have the thing do a screen pop of your contact information from the caller-id. The only bad thing about it is that AT&T killed it after only five months of sales, so there are getting somewhat hard to find. Since it is discontinued they don't want to publish a technical manual. Any help would be appreciated. Please respond to tony@ics.com, as my news connection is flakey. Thanks, tony@ics.com Tony Aiuto voice: 516-829-3434 Integrated Computer Solutions email: tony@ics.com 5 Apple Tree Lane Great Neck, NY 11024-1925 ------------------------------ From: Barry Mishkind Subject: Internet MCI and Bounced Messages Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 01:08:11 GMT Organization: The Eclectic Engineer First, thanks to those who wrote to remind me the error messages I got from Internet MCI in response to mailing list output were VAX style messages, and that Internet MCI is using a soon-to-be-updated version of PMDF. There were two issues that occurred: 1. bounce messages that didn't tell whose mailbox was in trouble. This is slowly being fixed, and I am told the next edition of PMDF will have more "illuminative" messages. In the meantime, the bounced header now seems to have the actual address hidden in one of the "Received" lines. 2. Lack of response from InternetMCI. As far as I can tell, they never did answer anything to Postmaster. Neither did I ever get any response from repeated calls to the manager of the service. Finally, MCIMail sent me an 800 number to contact InternetMCI. A lengthy discussion with the first person who answered went nowhere, and although she spent a lot of time trying to disuade me from talking to a supervisor, I did finally get to a supervisor who took the time to call back, confirm the problem, give me the original party line, "it is a privacy issue to tell anyone whose email box corresponds to the bounced message." After several days, she eventually called to tell me whose mailbox caused the problem. The "story" was that a "database error" caused the box to be full and bounce... At least she made the effort to call. Barry Mishkind Tucson, AZ http://www.broadcast.net/~barry [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: They still seem to think the majority of internet users and the mailing list managers in particular are idiots don't they? Since they are 'slowly getting around to fixing the problem' I suggest you go ahead and pull all the internetMCI names off your list and once they start responding to your mail in some sort of timely and reasonable way tell them you will 'slowly' get around to adding the names back on your mailing list. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 23 May 96 17:28:43 EDT From: CLIFFORD D. MCGLAMRY <102073.1425@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Last Laugh! The Day the Rats All Drowned Thought y'all might appreciate this . . . ----- Forwarded Message ----- TO: CLIFFORD D. MCGLAMRY, 102073,1425 FROM: INTERNET:NBJimWeiss@aol.com, INTERNET:NBJimWeiss@aol.com DATE: 5/19/96, 2:08 PM Subject: Legally speaking... A tourist wanders into a back-alley antique shop in San Francisco's Chinatown. Picking through the objects on display he discovers a detailed, life-sized bronze sculpture of a rat. The sculpture is so interesting and unique that he picks it up and asks the shop owner what it costs. "Twelve dollars for the rat, sir," says the shop owner, "and a thousand dollars more for the story behind it." "You can keep the story, old man," he replies, "but I'll take the rat." The transaction complete, the tourist leaves the store with the bronze rat under his arm. As he crosses the street in front of the store, two live rats emerge from a sewer drain and fall into step behind him. Nervously looking over his shoulder, he begins to walk faster, but every time he passes another sewer drain, more rats come out and follow him. By the time he's walked two blocks, at least a hundred rats are at his heels, and people begin to point and shout. He walks even faster, and soon breaks into a trot as multitudes of rats swarm from sewers, basements, vacant lots, and abandoned cars. Rats by the thousands are at his heels, and as he sees the waterfront at the bottom of the hill, he panics and starts to run full tilt. No matter how fast he runs, the rats keep up, squealing hideously, now not just thousands but millions, so that by the time he comes rushing up to the water's edge a trail of rats twelve city blocks long is behind him. Making a mighty leap, he jumps up onto a light post, grasping it with one arm while he hurls the bronze rat into San Francisco Bay with the other, as far as he can heave it. Pulling his legs up and clinging to the light post, he watches in amazement as the seething tide of rats surges over the breakwater into the sea, where they drown. Shaken and mumbling, he makes his way back to the antique shop. "Ah, so you've come back for the rest of the story," says the owner. "No," says the tourist, "I was wondering if you have a bronze AT&T or MCI telemarketer." [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Or a bronze Jeff Slaton or Kevin Lipsitz perhaps so that others of their kind will climb out of the sewers and run to the water's edge and drown. This hospital stay the past few days has really left me bummed out. Maybe in a few days I will feel better. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #246 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Fri May 24 12:58:10 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id MAA05354; Fri, 24 May 1996 12:58:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 12:58:10 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605241658.MAA05354@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #247 TELECOM Digest Fri, 24 May 96 12:58:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 247 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Regulators, Telcos and Internet Services (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Heart Pacemakers and Digital Cellphones (Nigel Allen) Voicemail Signaling (K. Daniel) Interesting New Spam Twist (Ron Mackey) Assignment of Caller ID (Randall Gellens) Summer Courses at Oxford (course@garnet.berkeley.edu) The Bridging of Madison County (Mike Pollock) Seeking NEBS Standards (garin@clbull.frcl.bull.fr) Fax and Modem on Same Line as Telephone (Karl Pospisek) ANSI Spec for T1 Signaling Bits (Rich Dodge) 888 Toll Free Numbers (Randy Weiss) Network Outages (Jonathan Wells) How Long Ago Was This Made? (Dale Miller) MFS Intelenet Quality of Service (Mark Stone) Reminder: Area 888 is Overlay, Not Split (Carl Moore) Friends at laramar.com (Roy A. McCrory) Will Sprint Comply on June 1? (Stephen Magee) Telecom Company in Eritrea (Bengt Gorden) Please read the message at the very bottom of this issue. It is quite important. It is how I survive with your help. Thanks. PAT] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: rishab@nntp1.best.com (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Subject: Regulators, Telcos and Internet Services Date: 24 May 1996 10:34:53 GMT Organization: Best Internet Communications After the ACTA/ISP letter filed with the FCC there has been much debate on the role of regulatory authorities, and how telcos allegedly use them to bully smaller Internet companies. Most recently, the {Economist's} lead business story criticised telcos for complaining about flat-rate Internet charges and volume-independent local tariffs. Although I don't believe that telcos should be seeking regulatory sanction to face the "threat" of ISPs in a competitive market, the fact is that the markets are not competitive, in more ways than one - the telcos are not free to set tariffs at will, for example. Attached here is my response to the {Economist} article. Rishab ps. flamers note: I would love the flat-rate Internet pricing model to continue; I just wonder whether it can. The Editor The Economist 25 St James's Street London SW1A 1HG UK 12th May 1996 Sir, Mr Khanna's comment on telecom companies' seeking regulatory protection against Internet providers (May 11) is disingenuous; your own suggestion that they provide more data services themselves simply misses the point. What is at stake is the future of the Internet's flat-rate pricing model: can it survive? In the hypothetical situation of free competition, telecom companies would not have to "pray for regulators" to save their skins. They would then be free, as they now are not, to insist on volume-based prices for local calls or even bulk leased circuits. Competition may reduce what telecom companies could charge, but need not force them to adopt the Internet's pricing model. You seem to ignore that the Internet is not some mysterious, intangible entity, but simply a network of communications links usually leased from telecom companies. When Sun Microsystems abandons its "expensive global network" and links its offices worldwide through the Internet, in all likelihood its data will pass through the same (or similar) physical cables. Most of the Internet's physical infrastructure - the "backbone" - is built by telecom companies, and operated either by them or by networking companies that lease their lines. If telecom companies refused to unconditionally lease circuits at low, volume-independent rates, the Internet's flat-rate pricing could become unsustainable. It is quite irrelevant whether or not telecom companies "see the Internet as an opportunity." If they do, and offer data services, they could still charge based on volume; without regulatory interference, they could force Internet providers to charge based on volume as well. On the other hand, they could see an opportunity not in the Internet per se, but in volume-independent pricing. But such an opportunity in flat-rate pricing may not exist. Unlike replicating information on the Net, laying cables requires a lot of money. Today's flat-rate Internet pricing is a result of the excess capacity on telecom networks, developed with the networks' immense earnings from voice telephony. Earnings are necessarily lower with a flat-rate pricing model where revenues, like costs (of infrastructure, if not service) are fixed. The next decade will see tremendous growth in _voice_ telephony in Asia's huge, unsatisfied markets, providing much higher returns on infrastructure investment than fixed-rate Internet services. So, given the competing needs for investment - and despite the rapid growth in communications technology - it is likely that on the Internet, as elsewhere, price will become a factor of demand and supply. Sincerely, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh International Editor First Monday First Monday - The Peer-Reviewed Journal on the Internet http://www.firstmonday.dk/ Munksgaard International Publishers, Copenhagen International Editor - Rishab Aiyer Ghosh (ghosh@firstmonday.dk) H-34-C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA Tel +91 11 6853410; Fax +91 11 6856992 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 00:23:51 -0400 Subject: Heart Pacemakers and Digital Cellphones From: ndallen@io.org (Nigel Allen) Organization: Internex Online (shell.io.org), Toronto, Ontario, Canada Here is a press release from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. I found the press release on the Canada NewsWire web site at http://www.newswire.ca/ HEART AND STROKE FOUNDATION ADVISORY ON PACEMAKERS AND DIGITAL CELLULAR PHONES TORONTO, May 17 /CNW/ - Recent findings on the effects of digital cellular phone on pacemakers have raised concern among some Canadians. There is some experimental data suggesting that close contact between a digital cellular phone and a pacemaker can speed up or slow down the pacemaker. The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario advises that the risk to pacemaker recipients can be significantly reduced if simple precautions are taken. These include: . don't use your phone on the same side as your pacemaker unit; . don't carry your phone in your breast pocket or on your belt; . hold the cellular phone at least six inches away from your pacemaker unit; . if while using your cellular phone you begin to feel faint or dizzy, immediately turn off your phone; . if you suspect that your pacemaker has been affected by contact with a digital cellular phone, immediately contact your personal physician. To date, there is no evidence that analog cellular phones affect the functioning of pacemakers. Each year, approximately 10,000 pacemakers are inserted in Canada. It has been estimated that 100,000 Canadians are living with implanted pacemakers. Canadians who have questions concerning their pacemaker should speak to their personal physician. General medical and lifestyle information is available from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario's Healthline at 1-800-360-1557 or by contacting your local office of the Heart and Stroke Foundation. For further information: Corinne Hodgson, Manager Science Communications, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, (416) 489-7111, ext. 302. forwarded to the TELECOM Digest by Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario ndallen@io.org http://www.io.org/~ndallen/ CV available on request ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 19:30:24 PDT From: TELCO Planning, K. Daniel Subject: Voicemail Signaling paulc@sulis.com (Paul Chehowski) wrote: > Does anyone know how telco voice mail systems manage to signal a > subscriber's phone when they have voice mail waiting? The signaling > seems to be done without taking the phone off hook, and it seems to be > done on a regular basis to the phone (if you disconnected the phone > and plug it back in the light on the phone will come back eventually). > Could someone point me to a reference on this type of signaling? Kelly Replied: > The signaling from your local telephone company signaling a sinle-line > telephone set is different than that used by a PBX to signal a single line > telephone set. Assuming you are talking about a PBX in a business, hospital or hotel, the signaling is almost always proprietary and even if you are a technician trouble shooting the problem, the manufacture will not tell you. Generally, the scenario is the voicemail application hardware has an RS-232 connection to the CPU of the PBX. The voicemail application launches a signal to the PBX alerting the PBX to activate message waiting. The voicemail also launces a signal when meesages have been retrieved or save, to the PBX to de-activate the voicemail. The PBX delays the activation or de-activaion or continues the activation after the phone was used by a hierarchial responsability routine. That is, Process all calls, process all data changes by system admin port, process all Input/Output devices attached to PBX last. If you are using a Telco Switch (CENTREX, DID or POTS Line), the Voicemail Application hardware is connected to the Central Office Switch in the same manner. The Telco Switch waits for instructions just like the PBX does. The Central Office signaling is well documented and several references are avaialable. Either application does not allow for any Voicemail application signaling through a PBX or switch to control the phone set. The phone set receives it's signals from the PBX or Central Office moments after the PBX or Central office has been instructed by the Voicemail equipment. Cellular and PCS phones are changing that. Cellualr and PBX phones are being equipped to handle the voice storage and prompting in a limited manner, within Firmware and dynamic storage chips. This is documented in TR-TSY-000283. Finally, if you are an Enhanced Service Provider, hoping to alert the Central office or PBX from your voicemail platform please reference Alliance Fro Telephone Industry Solutions Committee Infromation Industry Liaison Committee Documents for Issues 030 Message Ringback after Busy Transfer or Issue 033 Visual Message Indicator. Please feel free to call our office for the appropriate reference, based on the application that you want. 800-555-1234 (real Number). We have very little PBX reference but good documentation on Switching systems. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 96 09:21:00 CDT From: rem@dsiinc.com (Ron Mackey) Subject: Interesting New Spam Twist Organization: Distributed Systems International, Inc. I've recently seen some interesting SPAM in my days, but this one caught my attention because of the threat at the end. > From: heinkel@xnet.com (Abram Rutman) > Subject: HAIR LOSS?....MINOXIDIL USERS? > Organization: XNet - A Full Service Internet Provider - (708) 983-6064 > Now available in the U.S. PENTADECAN AND FA-BAO 101D. > Japan and West Germany's leading treatment for thinning hair. > 2.5X more effective than minoxidil. Featured on CNN, NEWSWEEK, > NEW YORK TIMES. DOCTOR recommended. For FREE information, > please call 1-800-555-8655 > *PLEASE NOTE THAT ANY CALLS NOT PERTAINING TO INFORMATION REQUESTS > WILL BE AUTO-BILLED TO ORIGINATING NUMBER UTILIZING > LONG DISTANCE SURCHARGES. Okay, this guy thinks it's okay to spam 10,000 newgroups with his garbage, but doesn't want to be bothered with junk calls himself. What I really would like to know is the legality of threatening to bill for an 800 call. Does this guy really have any legal recourse to stop offending junk calls to his 800 number or are we all free to spam his 800-number the same way he's been spamming us? Best regards, Ron Mackey Distributed Systems International, Inc. rem@dsiinc.com 531 W. Roosevelt Road, Suite 2 708-665-4639 Wheaton, IL 60187-5057 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It probably is not legal and he may be able to do it somehow if he has a contract with some sleazy telco billing agency. I'd say handle calls to 800-555-8655 with the same discretion as calls to Slaton: see to it whatever ANI they pick up is essentially worthless. Everyone passes several payphones in a day's time or knows of some trusty looparound. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 00:37:46 -0700 From: Randall Gellens Subject: Assignment of Caller ID I'm trying to find out if the 5ESS or other switches have the ability to assign what is used for the caller ID string, and if any LECs do this for subscribers. For example, a physician might want the back office line to have the directory number of the front office line for CLID purposes. Someone with multiple home lines might want them all to have the main number as the CLID. A business with a hunt group or PBX might want all trunks to have the CLID of the primary line. This would not only be a real convenience for the subscriber (easier to route public incoming calls to a primary number), but would also provide more accurate caller ID information. Instead of the DN of a random trunk, all calls from a company could show the CLID of their published number, making it easy to recognize. Calls from a doctor's back line would show the main number, instead of being marked private, making it more likely that the call would be recognized and promptly answered. (Some people regard with suspicion incoming calls marked private.) I thought there was some mention of this a few years ago in TELECOM Digest or perhaps Telecom Priv or Telecom Tech, but since CLID was a long way off here in California, I didn't save the information. Now that it will be here in a few weeks, I'm trying to track it down. I've spent hours searching archives with no luck. (I did find a few items in TELECOM Digest around 1991 where people asked the same question (one even mentioned that he too thought he remembered an earlier article saying it could be done), but I was unable to find any helpful replies.) I contacted Pacific Bell, and the person I spoke with was very helpful, thought it was a good idea, and suggested Pac Bell would do it if I could find another LEC which also did it. Please send any replies to me, or at least CC me. I'm afraid I'm somewhat behind in this digest. Any replies I get which were not CCed to the Digest I will summarize for the Digest. Many thanks, Randy@Pensive.Org ------------------------------ From: course@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: Summer Courses at Oxford Date: 24 May 1996 00:16:25 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD SUMMER ENGINEERING PROGRAMME Short courses for professional engineers:- *Advanced Compression Techniques presented by Gordon Drury of DigiMedia Vision 4-5 July 1996: stlg575 *Communication Networks: Internet, SDH and ATM presented by Professor Pravin Varaiya and Professor Jean Walrand, of the University of California at Berkeley. 15-17 July 1996: stlg775 *Digital Microwave Measurements presented byTim Masson of Hewlett-Packard, Alan Jenkins, DPhil, and Andy Street DPhil, University of Oxford 24 June 1996 : stlg195 *Third Generation Personal Communication Networks presented by Mark Beach PhD, Peter Kenington PhD and Andy Nix PhD from the University of Bristol and John Kelliher from Orange Personal Communication Services 25-26 June 1996 : stlg575 GSM900/DCS1800 Digital Cellular System: Standards, Implementation and Deployment presented by a team from MOTOROLA European Cellular Infrastructure Division 8-12 July 1996: stlg995 Analogue Interfacing for Digital Systems presented by Jose Franca PhD from the Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa, co-author and editor of several books in the field. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My thanks to Harvey Stern for passing this along as he does regularly with courses at Berkeley. But for whatever reason, he failed to include information on how and where to register, etc. Hello, Harvey? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mike Pollock Subject: The Bridging of Madison County Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 22:02:31 -0400 I want to construct a bridge. I have my first Watson card running my voice mail now, I have two switches here, and I'm looking at getting them both attached to a computer that can route by either ANI and or account codes. What I can't get from anyone anywhere is information on bridging equipment. Has the bottom dropped out of this market or am I looking in the wrong places? Thanks, Mike ------------------------------ From: garin@clbull.frcl.bull.fr Subject: Seeking NEBS Standards Date: 24 May 1996 08:39:41 GMT Organization: Bull Can someone tell me where I can find the NEBS standards? Thanks, Jean-Marc Garin (please reply bu e-mail J.M.Garin@frcl.bull.fr) ------------------------------ From: Karl Pospisek Organization: Alcatel Altech Telecoms Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 13:41:53 GMT Subject: Fax and Modem on Same Line as Telephone > From: A. Padgett Peterson > Subject: Preventing Picking Up on Busy Line > Pat, I have a real telco hardware question: I have been told that > there is a simple (e.g. one diode) circuit that can be used to > prevent a phone from picking up on a busy line. With FAX, modem, or > other data traffic picking up a handset can disrupt it. The solution is very simple, add two back to back zeners (any values from 5.6V - 18V) in series with the voice-phones line. The reason why it works is that fax machines and modems often have a larger offhook resistance than voice-phones and the series zeners force the voice-phones offhook resistance to be greater than the fax/modem resistance thus preventing a line disturbance when the voice-phone is taken off-hook. Note that this solution won't work if your equipment is far from the central office or the central office has low power SLICs [ Who needs 48V in 1996 :-) ]. Warning : in some countries, the Telcos own the whole line from the central office to the subscriber equipment and alterations may not be happily accepted. Greetings - Karl/// PS The 48V standard is here to stay. ALCATEL ALTECH TELECOMS - ENGINEERING DIVISION SUNNY SOUTH AFRICA ------------------------------ From: rich@netcommcorp.com (Rich Dodge) Subject: ANSI Spec For T1 Signaling Bits Date: 24 May 1996 12:34:48 GMT Organization: Network Communications Corporation Does anybody know which ANSI specification, if any, details the T1 signaling bits as they relate to setting up a phone call? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Randy Weiss Subject: 888 Toll Free Numbers Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 14:52:27 -0700 Organization: Sol Tec, Inc. I am curious to know if anyone has the latest on the 888 Vanity Number Auction. Whether it will occur, when it will occur etc. Thanks in advance for any info. Randy Weiss rweiss@soltec.com ------------------------------ From: Jonathan Wells Subject: Network Outages Date: Fri, 24 May 96 03:26:42 EDT Please help: I am a student at the U of Penn, doing a graduate thesis. I am trying to compile information about telco network outages. I have searched all of the newsgroups hoping for a thread, but have not found much. Could anyone help me? If you have any information available about carrier network outages which effected your business, or you know where I might find such information, I would be very thankful.:) If I obtain anything interesting, I will post the results in this and other newsgroups for the benefit of others. Please post back to this group, or e-mail me directly. jonwel@mits.com ------------------------------ From: domiller@ualr.edu (Dale Miller) Subject: How Long Ago Was This Made? Date: 23 May 1996 23:30:01 GMT Organization: University of Arkansas at Little Rock While moving recently, I came across a very low-tech item I had all but forgotten about. It's a yardstick. This particular one is emblazoned with "Beard's Furniture Co. - Little Rock, Ark. - Phone No. 7484". I know some SWBT folks read this group regularly, and I was wondering if anyone might be able to shed some light on the age of this item. Since I'm sure Little Rock wasn't in the forefront of telephone installation, I can't imagine that they had four-digit numbers for very long before moving to named exchanges. Thanks, Dale O. Miller - domiller@ualr.edu |University of Arkansas at Little Rock Systems Programmer/Network Manager |2801 S. University Ave. +1 501 569 8714 |Little Rock, AR 72204-1099 USA http://www.ualr.edu/~domiller/ |KC5NXW ------------------------------ From: mstone@inx.net (Mark Stone) Subject: MFS Intelenet Quality of Service Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 12:53:34 GMT Organization: Internet Exchange I would appreciate hearing about anyone's experience with MFS as a provider of long distance and/or local service. They seem to have attractive rates compared to the combo of NYNEX and MCI which I now use for my business. However, I do not know of anyone who uses them and has experience with their customer servie and overall quality of service. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 May 96 14:51:54 GMT From: Carl Moore Subject: Reminder: Area 888 is Overlay, Not Split The Digest reported some people trying to call 1-888-xxx-xxxx for a Motorola cellphone promo, not being able to reach it, then trying the same seven digits in area code 800 and thus flooding Methodist Hospital's info line with calls which could prevent some doctors from reaching it. Area 888 is an OVERLAY, so if you see 888-abc prefix, it was NOT formed by taking 800-abc and replacing that 800 with 888. People who reached that hospital info line were thinking along lines of geographic split. (Of course, area 800 was not a specific geographic area to begin with.) ------------------------------ From: Roy A. McCrory Subject: Freinds at laramar.com Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 20:41:02 MDT Reply-To: mccrory@erebus.fc.dna.mil Here is an interesting traceroute! traceroute to laramar.com (206.206.160.111), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets ... 7 fix-west.dren.net (138.18.192.1) 340.446 ms 310.164 ms 445.688 ms 8 * t3-0.enss144.t3.nsf.net (192.203.230.253) 551.775 ms 536.895 ms 9 ft3.cnss8.San-Francisco.t3.ans.net (140.222.8.4) 486.909 ms 330.764 ms 350.951 ms 10 ft0.cnss19.Los-Angeles.t3.ans.net (140.222.19.1) 370.615 ms 425.330 ms 514.858 ms 11 ft1.cnss112.Albuquerque.t3.ans.net (140.222.112.2) 553.906 ms 530.975 ms 676.150 ms 12 f0-0.cnss116.Albuquerque.t3.ans.net (140.222.112.196) 539.082 ms 712.952 ms 545.662 ms 13 enss365.t3.ans.net (192.103.74.46) 544.140 ms 572.753 ms 554.561 ms 14 LAWR.NM.ORG (129.121.254.10) 660.612 ms 532.430 ms 250.550 ms 15 nmintrac-technet.nm.westnet.net (204.134.77.74) 303.239 ms 255.813 ms 280.602 ms 16 * laramar.com (206.206.160.111) 428.662 ms 437.794 ms ... Regards, Roy A. McCrory mccrory@thuntek.net "Alas poor dragon, I knew him well!" URL * [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Very interesting indeed. Thanks for passing that along. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Magee@cris.com (Stephen Magee) Subject: Will Sprint Comply on June 1? Date: 24 May 1996 14:13:02 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services I was wondering if Sprint will really comply this time to the FCC's requirement to pass caller ID data along with LD calls? I called their customer service and they said that it will happen, which is the same thing they said the last two times the dead line came up. June 1st is the date. Does anyone out there know? Steve Magee [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sprint customer service representatives are always quite well informed about the industry in general and their own company in particular, so if they told you it is true, I am sure you can accept what they say. They don't just make things up to placate some crank caller and get him off the line before he blows thier quota of calls handled every hour. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bengt.Gorden@abc.se (Bengt Gorden) Subject: Telecom company in Eritrea. Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 08:01:06 GMT Organization: KTHNOC, Sweden Reply-To: Bengt.Gorden@abc.se We are a couple of people that are about to go and work in Eritrea. This is in a very preliminary state. We need to get info about the telecom company in the country or in the neighbouring countries. Is there any kind person or persons out there that could be at assistance? It would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Bengt Gorden, Sweden ------------------------------ 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: 847-329-0571 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #247 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue May 28 13:11:37 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id NAA18355; Tue, 28 May 1996 13:11:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 13:11:37 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605281711.NAA18355@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #248 TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 May 96 13:10:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 248 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson LD Carriers and CID -- 5/96 Results (Stanley Cline) India's Biggest Cellular Network is Hiring (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Tower Failure Survey (James Cohen) Book Review: "Kidstuff on the Internet" by Armstrong (Rob Slade) Sprint Sends Caller ID Today! (James Bellaire) More Phone Gouging? (Stanley Cline) Nynex Call Manager Services (Keith Knipschild) MCI Cellular? (Michael Schuster) Orange County Area Code Comments (Tad Cook) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: LD Carriers and CID -- 5/96 Results Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 18:13:17 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services For the past several months, I've been periodically testing IXCs' delivery of CID, using 1+, 0+ (calling card), and 800/calling-card calling methods, as well as checking to see if the privacy flag (*67) is recognized. Here are results of testing completed today: LEC (BellSouth, in Chattanooga TN LATA): 1+ = CID delivered, *67 displays "private", even for "toll" calls (not surprising) COCOT coin calls are treated as normal 1+ AFAIK... LEC LD coin calls go through operator and are treated as 0+. 0+ = "Out of Area" AT&T: 1+ = CID delivered, *67 displays "private" 0+ = "Out of Area" 1-800-Call-ATT (calling card) = "Out of Area" MCI: 1+ = CID delivered, *67 displays "private" 0+ = "Out of Area" 800# calling card = Not tested 1-800-Collect = Not tested Sprint: 1+ = "Out of Area" (should change 6/1) 0+ = "Out of Area" 800# calling card = Not tested LCI International: 1+ = CID delivered, *67 displays "private" (no more passing "ANI" as CID...LCI and Wiltel did this before 1/1/96) 0+ = "Out of Area" (calls handled by ZPDI?) Home 800 (1-800-860-1x00) = CID delivered, *67 displays "private" 800# calling card = CID delivered, *67 displays "private" Frontier: 1+ = CID delivered if not blocked. If CID blocked, shows "Out of Area" NOT "private." <-- unusual! 0+ = CID delivered, *67 displays "private" <-- unusual! 800# calling card = Not tested LDDS WorldCom (Not WilTel): 1+ = CID delivered, *67 displays "Private" 0+ = "Out of Area" (LDDS seems to use several operator services, depending on PIC used.) 800# calling card = Not tested WilTel: 1+ = CID delivered, *67 displays "private" (no more passing "ANI" as CID...) 0+ = "Out of Area" (calls handled by Oncor under Wiltel name) Excel: Not tested, BUT... Excel should behave similar to Frontier, AT&T, or MCI depending on area you are in. (Dial 1-700-555-*4141* to determine underlying FBIXC*.) * FBIXC: Facilities Based IXC The bulk of resellers in this LATA use either Frontier, WilTel, or MCI as underlying carrier; therefore they should behave similar to those carriers. Exceptions include DeltaCom and BTI, who have their own networks in the Southeast. (They don't allow casual PIC dialing. However, DeltaCom may be tested soon ... I may be switching one of my lines to them.) Notes: AT&T and MCI seem to use slightly different SS7 handling than other carriers. With them, ringing/busy seems to occur on the "origin" CO, while with other carriers (Sprint, LCI, etc.) the ring/busy tones are generated by the DESTINATION CO (evidenced by LD carrier "hum" in background and slower call processing.) This had nothing to do with CID, however ... just call "appearances." Most people would never notice. The only carrier that displayed extremely strange behavior is Frontier. They are turning *67 into "Out of Area" ... possibly because of California? Testing was conducted using a originating line in 423-265, and a destination line in 706-861. These are in the same LATA, but were forced through to IXCs by PICing to the specified carrier. (BellSouth for some reason allows this between states/area codes, but not within the same NPA, or if both numbers are in the same CO.) 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 ------------------------------ Subject: India's Biggest Cellular Network is Hiring Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 08:41:30 PDT From: rishab@dxm.org (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh) Reply-To: rishab@dxm.org Forwarded to the Digest, FYI. Rishab ----------------- The Ad follows ---------------------- Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) is Indias largest private sector enterprise in terms of sales, profits, assets, net worth and market capitalisation. In 1995-96, the companys sales turnover was US$2.27 billion and net worth over US$2.45 billion. RIL together with NYNEX, a leading US telecom service provider, has promoted Reliance Telecom Pvt. Ltd. (RTL). RTL has firm licences to provide GSM cellular services in seven "Circles" located in central and eastern India. In addition, RTL has also received from the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) a Letter of Intent to build and operate basic telecommunication services in the Circle of Gujarat. RTL is currently in the process of establishing a comprehensive, state-of-the-art digital telecommunications transport, switching and access network for providing mobile (GSM) communication services in Assam, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, North East, Orissa and West Bengal. Together, these Circles cover an area of 1 million sq. km., serving a population of about 319 millions. This makes RTL the largest potential GSM service provider in India in terms of area and population served. RTL also intends to provide a state-of-the-art digital telecommunications transport, switching and access network for landline communications services in Gujarat. In addition RTL expects to invest in other telecom circles as and when appropriate opportunities arise in the secondary market. RTL seeks telecommunications professionals at various levels to join and lead its core team working in association with its international associates in each of the following functions. Positions are available at all levels upto top management including Chief Operating Officers/Vice Presidents/General Managers. Telecom Technologies Transmission (Fibre Optic/Microwave) Signalling GSM Cellular Systems (RF Engineering) Traffic and Facility Management Billing and Operations Systems Telecom Operations Network Planning and Design Network Operations and Management Customer Care and Management Business Development Business Planning, Modelling and Support Corporate Network Planning and Design Market and Competitive Analysis Marketing Strategies Major Account Management Project Management Procurement and Contract Negotiations Network Implementation Human Resource Management Training RTL offers a stimulating business environment, exposure to leading world technologies and excellent growth opportunities. Compensation will be comparable with the best in the industry. Prior experience in your area of expertise in an environment providing you rich exposure and involvement in Best Practices is the most important selection criteria. Please write in confidence clearly specifying your field of specialisation/area of interest to: Sr. Executive Vice President (HRD) Reliance Industries Limited Post Box No. 11717 Nariman Point Mumbai - 400 021 INDIA Fax: +91 22 285 6505 E-mail: sgw@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in ----------------The Ad ends -------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 27 May 96 14:02:20 GMT From: James Cohen Subject: Tower Failure Survey The Task Committee on Telecommunications Facilities of the Technical Administrative Committee on Special Design Issues within the Structural Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers is conducting a survey of telecommunications tower performance. We would like to distribute this form as widely as possible. The purpose of the committee and survey is given in the introductory text to the survey form, copied below: "INTRODUCTION TO QUESTIONNAIRE AIMS AND GOALS Committee on Telecommunications Facilities Statement of Purpose: To advance knowledge of, encourage research on and evaluate methods of analysis, design, erection and materials utilization for telecommunications and related facilities and their components, both new and existing, to report the results of studies on these topics, and to develop specific criteria or code proposals for their design, analysis, maintenance and construction based on these results. Committee Objectives: To provide a manual of guidance for the design, analysis, maintenance and construction of free-standing and guyed towers, earth satellite stations and their components, whether constructed for the purposes of microwave or long wave transmission/reception, radar facilities, or other uses. Purpose of Questionnaire: To determine any need by owners, users, designers and/or constructors of freestanding and guyed telecommunications towers for improvements in the design and construction methods and criteria through an approximate assessment of functional losses as perceived by the owners and users of these structures. Included in "functional loss" are collapses; loss of signal strength; transmission or reception failure; excessive, difficult or unreasonably costly maintenance; or other unsatisfactory performance of the structures, as perceived by the owner or user. Through this assessment to determine those areas requiring improvement in the design and construction of telecommunications towers, thereby permitting the preparation of written recommendations to enact those improvements." Suggestions with regard to interested organizations and companies as well as methods of distribution is also very appreciated. The survey is only two pages long plus a cover sheet (text given above) and an optional fourth sheet. This information is vital towards understanding the needs for furthering the safety and functionality of freestanding and guyed towers world wide. Thank you very much for your cooperation and reply. If you have any questions, please contact: James Cohen, Chair, Committee on Telecommunications c/o James Cohen Consulting, P.C. P.O. Box 130 Pennington, New Jersey 08534-0130 USA Tel: 609-730-0510, Fax: 609-730-0511, E-mail: JCCPC@MSN.COM. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:02:26 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Kidstuff on the Internet" by Armstrong BKKDSINT.RVW 960510 "Kidstuff on the Internet", Sara Armstrong, 1996, 0-7821-1803-8, U$12.99 %A Sara Armstrong, Ph. D. saarmst@telis.org saarmst@cello.gina.calstate.edu %C 2021 Challenger Drive, Alameda, CA 94501 %D 1996 %G 0-7821-1803-8 %I Sybex Computer Books %O U$12.99 510-523-8233 800-227-2346 Fax: 510-523-2373 %P 185 %S A Pocket Tour of %T "Kidstuff on the Internet" This small volume contains a very well chosen selection of top quality sites for kids. The organization leaves a bit to be desired, but each item is described thoroughly and accurately. The very short introduction to the net seems to be aimed more at parents than children, and is unlikely to be excessively helpful to either. The sites, though, and the small size make this an excellent choice for "I wonder what we can find" type of browsing. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKKDSINT.RVW 960510. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it - J. Gilmore Author "Robert Slade's Guide to Computer Viruses" 0-387-94663-2 (800-SPRINGER) ------------------------------ From: bellaire@iquest.net (James Bellaire) Subject: Sprint Sends Caller ID Today! Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 18:54:20 EST I just received a call from a relative who has been a long time Sprint Business customer (he has been paying their business rates for at least ten years, so I know he won't switch or 10xxx another service) ... Usually his phone comes up 'OUT OF AREA' on caller id, but now he shows up with a complete phone number and his business name. Looks like Sprint will be showing CID by June 1st after all. James ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: More Phone Gouging? Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 12:38:14 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services Just to warn everyone: There seem to be even more phone gouging and "scams" going on lately. Here are some examples: 1) SOME non-LEC payphones are STILL charging for ALL calls to *888* numbers. I encountered this today; I dialed an 888 number, and was asked to "Please insert $1." I called the customer service number listed on that phone; a rather rude woman said "We'll look into that." Other phones charge for 888-555 calls, and for some other "toll-free" numbers (950's primarily ... does anyone use them anymore?) 2) Other non-LEC payphones (typically those that charge for 888s!) will block access to the LEC operator for INTRALATA calls. I have seen *numerous* examples of this. In most cases, you can ask the "AOSlime" operator to "forward" you back to the LEC, sounding a loud tone in your ear 8/ ) . HOWEVER, some AOS services are not willing to do this when asked nicely; I had to warn one operator that I WOULD COMPLAIN TO THE FCC on them (the call in question was INTERSTATE but INTRALATA) and they "toned" me off. That phone did NOT complete the call, but returned an unrestricted dial tone (phreakers' opportunity.) Needless to say, I found another phone. This leaves one question: Would a AOSlime or payphone company who refused or failed to complete an emergency call, when 0 went to them and 911 was not available, be liable for "damages" caused by their behavior? ... In most areas PIC codes can be used to go directly to an IXC, or in some areas even to the *LEC* for "LD" intraLATA calls. (For example, there is a PIC listed in the FCC PIC list for the rural Ben Lomand telco in Tennessee, which really does work in their territory.) For LOCAL calls, however, such PIC-bypass does NOT usually work. (It does in the Lomand area, but not BellSouth's. Go figure.) And calls placed via an IXC (whether 800 access, prepaid card, or 0+) typically cost more than those billed via the LEC. 3) US Hell ... er ... Cellular has "begun" charging for 611 customer "dis"service calls for those roaming in their service areas, and for their customers roaming in non-USCC areas. I have roamed heavily, and not one carrier I've dealt with has EVER charged for 611 -- except USCC. In one city, I was charged the $3 daily fee, the per-minute rate, AND INFLATED LD CHARGES TO TULSA, OK (where one of their customer "dis"service offices is, the other is in Knoxville TN) ... all to hold the line forever, and get a rather incompetent customer service rep. On my bill, the call was not listed to "611" but to "Tulsa OK 918-639-xxxx." On another bill, I was charged to "Knoxville TN 615-640-xxxx" when the number in question was not even in NPA 615 -- it's in 423! I called their customer "dis"service line from a landline phone AT THEIR EXPENSE :) (800#), and they said it was their "practice" to charge for 611 calls. HOWEVER ... USCC did NOT charge for 611 before about March 1. Next thing I know, they will charge for dialing *18/*19, "your call cannot be completed" recordings, etc. (I called BellSouth in Nashville about this, and the rep began laughing when I said "US Cellular." She said they were SICK of dealing with them. They have stayed out of NACN until recently, and are still the largest B-side carrier not part of the MobiLink alliance ... no doubt because of all their prior sins toward other carriers, roamers, and probably their own customers.) I am preparing a web site (URL to be announced) dealing with US Cellular's brazen stupidity, arrogance, and greediness ... they have gone too far. Stanley Cline, d/b/a Catoosa Computing Serv., Chatta., TN mailto:scline@usit.net -- http://chattanooga.net/~scline/ CIS 74212,44 -- MSN WSCline1 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 10:22:37 -0400 From: Keith Knipschild Subject: Nynex Call Manager Services NYNEX is adversising a service called " Call Manager "; what is it? They say something about Caller ID with Name, Call Waiting Caller ID,Call Answering, and they say this: "Call Manager lets you have that and more -- Conference in the calling party; send a recorded "HOLD" or "Call Back" Message; or forward a call to NYNEX Call Answering, all by pressing a button." Does Call Waiting Caller ID need a special CID box or will my Northern Telecom 9516 work with it ? Thanks, Keith Keith@asb.com www.asb.com/usr/keith N2NJS@KC2FD.NY.USA.NA Ham Radio AX25 Packet Address Knipper@compuserve.com Knipper@Worldnet.att.net ------------------------------ From: schuster@panix.com (Michael Schuster) Subject: MCI Cellular Date: 27 May 1996 21:25:07 -0400 I just received a soliciation to join MCI's cellular service and receive a Nokia 100 phone for free (golly!!!). Here in NYC, we already have an "A" and "B" system provider. Where does MCI fit into this system? Can there be multiple "A" system providers in the same market? I thought not ... Mike Schuster schuster@panix.com | 70346.1745@CompuServe.COM schuster@shell.portal.com | schuster@mem.po.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There is just one A/B in each area. What MCI is doing is reselling either A or B, depending on whatever was the best deal they could cut for themselves with one of the two. Frontier is also a reseller of cellular; mostly the B side except they resell A in some communities. You can get pretty good deals on prices using the resellers I have found. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: Orange County Area Code Comments Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 12:21:50 PDT A chance for citizens to comment on Orange County's new area code: SAN DIEGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 24, 1996--A new area code is coming to Orange County and residents will have a chance to voice their opinions and provide input at a series of public meetings. California Area Code Relief Coordinator Bruce Bennett announced that the meetings are set for June 18, 7 pm, at city council chambers in Mission Viejo, 25909 Pala, June 19, 7 pm, at city council chambers in Fullerton, 303 Commonwealth Blvd. and June 20, 7 pm, at city council chambers in Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street. At the meetings, officials of several telecommunications companies will detail proposals for the introduction of a second Orange County area code. At this time, the telecommunications companies participa- ting in industry meetings have narrowed the field to three alternatives. At the public meetings, industry officials will detail the three alternatives, including two geographic split plans dividing Orange County into two area codes, and a third proposal which would overlay a new area code on top of the existing 714 region. Under one geographic split proposal, people living in Fullerton Buena Park, Brea, Yorba Linda, La Palma, Placentia, Anaheim and a majority of the people living in the cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Stanton and Cypress would remain in area code 714. People living in San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Laguna Niguel, El Toro, Irvine, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Costa Mesa, Tustin, Westminster, Fountain Valley, Laguna Beach, Corona Del Mar, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and the majority of people living in Santa Ana and Los Alamitos would be in a newly assigned area code. The second geographic split alternative is basically the same, except Huntington Beach, the majority of Westminster and half of Fountain Valley would remain in area code 714. In the overlay option proposed for 714, the new area code would be placed over the existing 714 area code. The two codes would have the same geographic boundaries. The new area code would be given to people requesting a new phone number. Existing 714 customers would keep their area code. If an overlay is chosen, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has determined that 1 + 10-digit dialing will be required. That means callers would have to dial 1, the area code and the seven-digit phone number for all calls within and between the new and old area codes. A second area code is needed because 714 is rapidly running out of phone numbers. More and more people are now using cellular phones, pagers, faxes and modems for connecting to the Internet and to other electronic services. The new area code could be introduced as early as December of 1997. The new area code will not affect the price of telephone calls. The cost of a call will be the same, even if you dial into the new area code. It's also important for customers to know that PBX s, auto-dialers and other telecommunications equipment will have to be reprogrammed to recognize the new area code. The industry expects to have full details of the area code relief proposals and the new area code number available at the public meetings on June 18, 19 and 20. People can call toll free 1/800-455-6914 to hear recorded information about public meeting dates, times and locations. People who wish to comment but cannot attend the public meetings can write to Bruce Bennett, California Area Code Relief Coordinator, 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 1S900V, San Ramon, Ca. 94583. CONTACT: Pacific Bell GTE John Britton Lou Banas 714/284-2140 800/483-8676 TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMED URL: http://www.pacbell.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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #248 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Tue May 28 22:32:21 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA08361; Tue, 28 May 1996 22:32:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 22:32:21 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605290232.WAA08361@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #249 TELECOM Digest Tue, 28 May 96 22:32:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 249 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "How to Get Your Dream Job Using the Internet" (Rob Slade) BellSouth "Complete Choice" Plan (A. Padgett Peterson) University of Arizona Student Guards His Domain Names (Tad Cook) Around and Around With Jeff Boy (TELECOM Digest Editor) Banned by Motorola - They Don't Like my Homepage! (StarTACt) Yet Another Interesting Twist to the Ongoing Spam Saga (Ron Mackey) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 13:28:09 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "How to Get Your Dream Job Using the Internet" BKHGDJUI.RVW 960515 "How to Get Your Dream Job Using the Internet", Shannon Bounds/Arthur Karl, 1996, 1-883577-68-3, U$29.99/C$41.99 %A Shannon Bounds sbounds@coriolis.com %A Arthur Karl %C 7339 East Acoma Drive, #7, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 %D 1996 %G 1-883577-68-3 %I Coriolis %O U$29.99/C$41.99 800-410-0192 +1-602-483-0192 fax: +1-602-483-0193 %P 366 %T "How to Get Your Dream Job Using the Internet" I realize that marketroids have to design book covers to stand out from the mass, but jackets that overhype the contents still annoy me. Finding a "dream job" on the Internet is fraught with the same problems as the same search in the non-online world. This isn't "The *ONLY* Book" to cover employment explorations on the net. And putting up a resume Web page, by itself, is not going to attract much traffic. The promotional overkill is the more annoying when it serves to divert attention from a genuinely excellent guide which is well worth the attention of *any* job seeker, currently connected or not. Bounds and Karl understand job searching, but, more importantly, they also understand the net. From the Internet Crash Course to Schmoozing Online to Making ASCII Look Good they provide detailed and helpful information that reflects the reality of life and culture online. The advice is solid, the technical details are accurate, and the analysis of online society is insightful. Much of the advice is relevant not only to the unemployed, but also to businesses seeking an Internet presence. CD-ROMs and disks included with books all too often contain a junk pile of random and mostly useless junk. The materials gathered for this CD are varied, so not all items will be of interest to all readers. There will, however, likely be something for everyone, from the more commonly used Internet access tools to resume writing and life goal programs. Long time Internauts will probably find that they know most of the general advice already, but may discover new and helpful resources and sites. Newbies looking for a job, or a better job, are well advised to stop here first. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKHGDJUI.RVW 960515. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. DECUS Canada Communications, Desktop, Education and Security group newsletters Editor and/or reviewer ROBERTS@decus.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca BCVAXLUG Envoy http://www.decus.ca/www/lugs/bcvaxlug.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 12:51:00 EDT From: A. Padgett Peterson Subject: BellSouth "Complete Choice" Plan Received a mailing from BellSouth over the weekend pitching the "Complete Choice" (sm) plan but it took two phone calls to find the gotcha. At first glance it looked like they were offering many (C)LASS features at a great rate -- Caller-ID, Threeway calling, call forwarding, etc. -- but finally found the "gotcha" -- and it was a big one. The following two lines were bulletized: o You currently pay $26.90 per month for your local phone service and current calling features. o With the *Complete Choice* plan, for just $26 per month (cross) you get local phone service with the features you now enjoy -- and all the calling features you want at no additional cost! o Rates given do not include enhanced 911 surcharges, access charges, directory assistance, inside wire, relay charges, certain optional services, and long distance charges. The first part is true: $10.45 per month base for each of our two lines plus $6.00 for "features") is $26.90, however when I asked for verification of the $26 part for two lines the lady at 800.463.5463 ext 566 got somewhat confused and told me that I needed to call my local billing office. As it turned out, what seems too good to be true (reduced phone charges for more options) was. The charge in the second bullet is $26 *per line* or $52 for my two lines. (Nowhere that I have found does it say that the $26 is per line). I told the local person that the advertisement seemed misleading to me and requested that a complaint be made. Warmly, Padgett ------------------------------ From: Tad Cook Subject: University of Arizona Student Guards His Internet Domain Names Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 23:44:43 PDT University of Arizona Student Guards His Internet Domain Names By James Romenesko, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Minn. Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News May 28--Matthew Grossman collects Internet domain names as trophies. The 21-year-old University of Arizona student has registered dozens of trademark names, including 7up.com., dirtdevil.com and universalstudios. com, only to give them up for token gifts. Grossman asked for and received a case of Seven-Up and a T-shirt for giving up the name to the soft-drink maker. He got ten amusement-park passes when he turned over knotsberryfarm.com. Some of his other transactions: a vacuum cleaner for dirtdevil.com, a case of ice cream for breyers.com, and surfwear for billabong.com. "I always ask for something that really doesn't cost the company," says Grossman, who says he registered about 100 names before Internic -- the firm that handles domain name registrations -- began charging a $100 fee last September. A domain name is the core of your Internet address, whether for e-mail (jdoedomain.com) or on the Web (www.domain.com). On the Internet frontier, domain names have been pretty much doled out to whoever claims them first. While Grossman ended his pursuit for trophies when claims started to cost, others have continued to grab. David Graves, business manager for Internic, says 364,000 domain names have already been registered, and 10,000 are being processed weekly. But some predict the rush will end soon. "Most of the good ones are taken," says David Milligan, who founded a Vancouver, Canada, firm called VanityMail Services, which provides e-mail addresses and Internet domain names for customers. To that, Internic's Graves says yes -- and no. "Among the single simple words, there might not be many left," he notes. "But that doesn't consider the combinations of single, simple words." A domain name can be as long as 27 letters, he says. While the so-called good names are being grabbed, businesses and individuals are still finding suitable alternatives and quickly registering them. InterNet Info, a firm that anaylzes commercial domain name registration, reports that the number of commercial domain names (ending in .com) increased more than 60 percent in the first quarter of 1996. In the same period, the number of organization (.org) names increased 48.8 percent, while education (.edu) names climbed just 8.2 percent. The Bay-area 415 area code zone leads the country with 13,915 registered commercial names, while Manhattan's 212 area is second with 10,822. The Twin Cities 612 zone is 16th with 4,431 names at last count. Corporations take domain names seriously, scarfing up whatever they see as having possible future commercial use. Procter and Gamble has registered not only its many product names, but also diarrhea.com, underarm.com, badbreath.com and a host of other names that involve unpleasant body functions. But no business has been busier than Kraft Foods in registering names; it has 147, says Internet Info. The Gap, a clothing retailer, has covered its bases, too, by securing dozens of names, including gapscents.com, gapcafe.com and gapshoes.com. Robert Metcalfe, president of the Minneapolis-based Internet Broadcasting Corp., offers this simple advice to his clients: "Register your name regardless if you use it now. Protect it." He's scooped up several generic names for himself and customers, including advertise.com, phone.com and commodity.com. His most valuable property, though, is probably theinternet.com, which was a second-choice selection he got in 1994. "I wanted to get ibc.com (for Internet Broadcasting Corporation), but that was taken and I had to get creative. I'm glad because I think theinternet is a much better name." Metcalfe, whose firm offers strategic marketing and Web site development, says he, like many others, is finding that most generic names are taken. "It used to be that a client would get locked out of their name maybe 10 percent of the time," he says. "Now they're getting locked out 70 to 90 percent of the time." Both heaven.com and hell.com have been grabbed, while mafia.org belongs to the Center for The Study of Organized Crime. VanityMail's Milligan is one reason the names are going fast: He's taken nearly every name he can think of, from messiah.com to muslim.com to kissa--.com. "I have control of over 500 special and unique domain names," he says. "It occurred to me early in 1995 that domain names were starting to move and there was some importance to them." With most generic names already claimed, Milligan has taken a new approach in securing names: "In recent weeks I took a new twist and got into phonetics." One of his last acquisitions, he says, was 2die4.com. He's proud of the catch, but says he has no idea what he's going to do with it. Sorry, These Domain Names Are Taken minneapolis.com : The name is registered to a self-described entrepreneur who has never lived in the Twin Cities. "It's basically planned for a business rollout relating to Minneapolis," says registrant Bernard Hicks of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. murder.com : This site is registered to C&C Catering of Alameda, Calif. -- a side business of a husband-and-wife team who both work at Sun Microsystems. "We both have a fondness for murder mysteries and we hope have some mystery parties," says Cathe Ray. "The idea of food and murder goes together quite well sometimes." billgates.com : Dale Ghent, the Middletown, Md., man who registered this name, couldn't be reached. billclinton.com : A Huntington Beach, Calif., man registered the president's name. seinfeld.com : Castle Rock Entertainment, producers of the Seinfeld show, took the name last May. "We're not going to do anything with it until we have a Castle Rock Web site later this year," says Webmaster Jean Wells. peta.com : Two groups are battling for ownership of this name -- People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals and a small group called People Eating Tasty Animals. deadbeat.com : The name is registered to Deadbeat Magazine in Newton, Mass. Appropriately, the publication's phone is disconnected. madonna.com : Minneapolis artist Scott Seekins grabbed this name in January 1995 and uses his Web site (http://www.madonna.com) to display his vast collection of Madonna art, which features both the religious and musician Madonnas. biteme.com : Jim Williams of Richfield says he registered the name during the height of the Communications Decency Act debate, as a protest against Net censorship. lsd.com : Sorry, Timothy Leary, a San Francisco firm called Level Seven Design grabbed this name first. saints.com : "We registered it for a client that produces ceramic religious things," says Tom Moran, CEO of Moran Communications Group of Amherst, N.Y. "'Angels' wasn't available so we took 'saints."' psycho.org : Registered by a German outfit that's simply listed as Psycho. luddite.com : The name is registered to a Boston-area firm called WebMaster Inc., whose phone is disconnected. unabomber.com : Another Boston outfit, Freedom Club, took this name on April 12. klingon.com : Domain owner Patrick Kane says he prefers not to discuss his motivation for securing this name. ----- ON THE INTERNET: Visit PioneerPlanet, the World Wide Web site of the Saint Paul (Minn.) Pioneer Press. Point your browser to http://www.pioneerplanet.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 14:20:36 -0500 From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: Around and Around With Jeff Boy If you are aware of the sites/account names he's using at present, I'd appreciate the info. Sites he's using are likely not to be very secure and I have a curious friend who can likely find out what Jeff's presence on them is. And a naughty phreak could probably pull the info on his LCI account -- though that would be so illegal and immoral ... Last week I printed a message from someone discussing one of Jeff's latest endeavors: > Eunuchs. Etc. > 1800 351 8085 > Call the 800# ONLY ... we do not reply by email. > We'll Be Happy to DIRECTLY Answer Any Questions! > PLEASE ALLOW 7 DAYS FOR DELIVERY ... INDICATE PC OR MAC FORMAT > Best Success, > Eunuchs, Etc. > 5901 J. Wyoming Blvd. NE Suite 284 > Albuquerque, NM 87109 > P.S. We have perfect ANI. Those who call to harrass will have their > names, addresses and phone numbers posted in alt 2600, phrack,crack and > hack for ALL to have fun. Have a nice day;) I then noted in response: > In one of the few things he has said at one time or anther that is > not a lie, he *does* get ANI on calls to his 800 number, so I can only > suggest that if you wish to call 800 351 8085 you do so from pay phones > or large phone systems where you can *guarentee* for yourself in advance > that the results will be useless to him. Loop arounds also work fine > or what have you. But be forewarned, he is vicious, and anyone who > would actually send him money thinking they were going to get a > product delivered in return is a fool. By the way, that 8501 Wyoming > address is just a maildrop; not a real address, but he is still > probably in the Albuquerque area unless this is our lucky day and for > whatever reason police somewhere arrested him and have him in a lockup. > I do encourage you to discuss your feelings with Jeff on the phone > but be careful when you do. PAT] He appears to no longer be working for LariMar communications. Perhaps it has something to do with all of the phone calls that were received with "perfect ANI" of npa/000-5555 to his number. Or perhaps it has something to do with the fact that their main business 800 number was rerouted to a hispanic sex line. Maybe it has to do with the fact that Larry Host's home number was obtained. Larry Host not being Jeff Slaton it seemed inappropriate to harass him and his wife, but I'm kind of sorry that didn't happen -- he might have been fired earlier. alt.2600 does not consist of many people who know how to do anything, and those who do know how to harass will do so only when personally provoked: not at the behest of Jeff Slaton. Because he is making such arrogant threats, however, it seems as though some people who *really* know what they are doing need to find out a bit more. It might be possible through his 800 account. We'll see if it's still with LCI. PAT ------------------------------ From: StarTACt Subject: Banned by Motorola - They Don't Like my Homepage! Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 17:23:15 -0700 Organization: NJC Motorola cellular does not like my homepage. They sent me a nasty letter. Check it out on my homepage ... http://www.trilli.com/users/jyee ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 96 13:52:00 CDT From: rem@dsiinc.com (Ron Mackey) Subject: Yet Another Interesting Twist to the Ongoing Spam Saga Okay, here's a good one for you. 1. Someone spams. 2. I sent email about it to TELECOM Digest. 3. You forward the email with a response to comp.dcom.telecom. 4. An automatic spam canceller sees it there, attempts to cancel it, and blames me for the original spam, and sends me a pretty nasty message. 5. Maybe I should send this to comp.risks now and start the whole thing over. By the way, I never did see your article (other than from the following email that I got). I thought comp.dcom.telecom was immune from spurious cancel messages. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note, added May 28: I am not 'immune' to cancels. I am relatively immune to spam because of the way my traffic is validated at various locations. I do get nearly immediate notice of cancels however and am thus able to re-instate cancelled messages on short notice. All those numbering gaps in c.d.t. last week were cancels issued which I then attempted to re-instate on, only to have those cancelled as well. PAT] Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 13:13:46 -0400 From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca To: rem@dsiinc.com Cc: postmaster@dsiinc.com Subject: A posting of yours was cancelled (THINNINGHAIR). > Hi, > This is an automated message (notification number 1). > The posting shown below was automatically cancelled because: > One in a continuing series of thousands of copies of the thinning > hair/minoxydil spam, which has been swatted off several servers so far. > Postmaster: if this posting did not come from your system (which is > often trivially easy to see from the Message-Id), please forward > it on to the postmaster at that site. Thank you. >> Date: Fri, 24 May 96 09:21:00 CDT >> From: rem@dsiinc.com (Ron Mackey) >> Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom >> Subject: Interesting New Spam Twist >> Message-ID: >> Organization: Distributed Systems International, Inc. >> Approved: [comp.dcom.telecom/f3725850b5d51b10815b6cbac3347771] >> X-Submissions-To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu >> X-Administrivia-To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu >> X-Ref: Telecom-Digest: Volume 16, Issue 247, Message 4 of 18 >> I've recently seen some interesting SPAM in my days, but this one >> caught my attention because of the threat at the end. >|> From: heinkel@xnet.com (Abram Rutman) >|> Subject: HAIR LOSS?....MINOXIDIL USERS? >|> Organization: XNet - A Full Service Internet Provider - (708) 983-6064 >| >|> Now available in the U.S. PENTADECAN AND FA-BAO 101D. >|> Japan and West Germany's leading treatment for thinning hair. >|> 2.5X more effective than minoxidil. Featured on CNN, NEWSWEEK, >|> NEW YORK TIMES. DOCTOR recommended. For FREE information, >|> please call (1-800) 555 8655 >|> *PLEASE NOTE THAT ANY CALLS NOT PERTAINING TO INFORMATION REQUESTS >|> WILL BE AUTO-BILLED TO ORIGINATING NUMBER UTILIZING >|> LONG DISTANCE SURCHARGES. >|Okay, this guy thinks it's okay to spam 10,000 newgroups with his >|garbage, but doesn't want to be bothered with junk calls himself. >|What I really would like to know is the legality of threatening to >|bill for an 800 call. Does this guy really have any legal recourse >|to stop offending junk calls to his 800 number or are we all free >|to spam his 800-number the same way he's been spamming us? >|[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It probably is not legal and he may be >|able to do it somehow if he has a contract with some sleazy telco >|billing agency. I'd say handle calls to (800) 555 8655 with the same >|discretion as calls to Slaton: see to it whatever ANI they pick up >|is essentially worthless. Everyone passes several payphones in a day's >|time or knows of some trusty looparound. PAT] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note as of May 28: The part quoted above with brackets and margin symbols originally appeared here Friday and went out to Usenet at the same time. As the writer notes, it got killed on the Usenet side and treated as spam. I've made a few changes in the text above per instructions from Chris Lewis which will probably get it through this time. As the writer also notes, apparently 'spam' can be defined as a discussion of spam itself. Its too bad Usenet has come to this point; that discussions on spam are even needed. The main point of the message appearing here Friday (bracketed part above) was to say that we seem to have the spammers in a bit of a quandry: They do not make any attempt at all to answer email for obvious reasons. They have no real account or place to call 'home' where they can conduct business. As soon as they get on one account or another and issue spam, they quickly get cancelled by that ISP. They know full well they will get buried in worthless email in all cases so that is why their latest thing is 'we do not respond by email.' But yet ... if they cannot have contact with customers and make sales and make some profit in their 'business', then what is the purpose of it all? There has to be some ability -- some gateway -- for customers to reach them, thus now the use of 800 numbers, and it would appear the spammers' toll-free numbers are now getting as badly polluted as their email accounts used to get. Now that their 800 numbers are getting polluted badly, the spammers are wondering what to use next as a way for people to reach them. Email is out; the toll free lines are jammed with harassing calls. Thus the latest technique: a threat that if 'you harass us, we will arrange for the call to be charged to your phone bill' or 'we will see to it that every bus station restroom between Pawtucket and Palos Altos has your phone number written in it 'so all can have fun.' I am not willing to say the threat to post phone numbers and names in undesirable places won't happen. It may. I am not willing to say that having the call charged back to you via some sleazy billing operation won't occur either, but I really doubt it. It is possible the spammers will 'file complaints' with authorities about people who 'harass' them using the phone. Spam will go away when spam becomes unprofitable. There will always be some just as there are still page after page of 'make money fast' advertisements in the tabloid papers each week. I think most new spammers are quickly learning things are not nearly as ripe for picking on the net as they were led to beleive when they ordered their 'how to do it' software from Slaton and others. So gang, we have them in a bit of a bind now: they have to have *some way* for their customers to contact them; they'll probably continue to use 800 numbers with threats made to those who try to drive them out of business with hellish, humongous phone bills month after month which resulted in 'no sale'. So whether it is eight hundred five five five eight six five five, or eight hundred three five one eight oh eight five, remember to use discretion when calling. Sure it makes it harder when you cannot sit at home and have an automatic dialer do it for you, and no doubt the spammers *will* see some relief in their phone bills from now on, but you can still do your part to help bring an end to spam sometime this century. If tomorrow is a nice day, go sit outside in the park on a bench next to a payphone ... when they no longer have email and they no longer have 800 service, *then* where the spammers turn to find a way for their customers -- the people who make all this necessary -- to reach them? PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #249 ****************************** From ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 29 11:40:29 1996 Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id LAA01391; Wed, 29 May 1996 11:40:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 11:40:29 -0400 (EDT) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (Patrick A. Townson) Message-Id: <199605291540.LAA01391@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #250 TELECOM Digest Wed, 29 May 96 11:40:00 EDT Volume 16 : Issue 250 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Call For Papers: ACSW'97 (Mehmet Orgun) United States Cellular's Stupidity (Stanley Cline) More CID Frolics! (Stan Schwartz) Optimising a Hybrid Circuit (Guenther Hoelzl) JAVA Seminar - June 13 - Univ of Minn HHH Center (Kelly Breit) Unbundling Local Loop Access (Andrew Taylor) Satellite Telecommunications References Wanted (Bernard Mora) Brazilian Telecom Standards - Source Wanted (Steve Tucker) Line Monitor/Protocol Analyzer (Steven Kell) PCS Network Planners/Builders Sought For Interview (Bob Jacobson) Cellular Caller ID (David Brod) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 14:04:02 +1000 From: Mehmet ORGUN Subject: Call For Papers: ACSW'97 Reply-To: Mehmet ORGUN CALL FOR PAPERS AUSTRALASIAN COMPUTER SCIENCE WEEK 3-7 February 1997, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ACSC'97, CATS'97, and ACAC'97 Organising Chair: Jan Hext, Macquarie Organising Committee: John Debenham, UTS Len Hamey, Macquarie Michael Johnson, Macquarie Mehmet Orgun, Macquarie Malti Patel, Macquarie Kang Zhang, Macquarie Sponsors: Joint Research Centre for Advanced Systems Engineering Macquarie University Microsoft Research Institute University of Technology, Sydney The Australasian Computer Science Week has emerged as a regular event on the academic calendar. It is held under the auspices of the Computer Science Association and this year it encompasses three main conferences 5-7 February: The 20th Australasian Computer Science Conference (ACSC'97) 3-4 February: Computing: The Australasian Theory Symposium (CATS'97) 3-4 February: The Australasian Computer Architecture Conference (ACAC'97) and also a variety of allied events. All conferences will be hosted by the Department of Computing at Macquarie University. We invite submissions for the three conferences, as set out below. All conferences share a common set of important dates: Submission Deadline: 15 August 1996 Notification: 1 November 1996 Camera-ready copy: 24 November 1996 Full submission details and further information about the week can be obtained at http://www.mq.edu.au/acsw97 or acsw97@mpce.mq.edu.au. ACSC'97 - Twentieth Australasian Computer Science Conference 5-7 February 1997 ACSC'97 is the major Australasian computer science conference and is now in its twentieth year. The conference has a high reputation for the quality of the research presented, ranging from theory and experiment to practice and application. Submissions are now invited for ACSC'97. We welcome papers describing original contributions in all fields of Computer Science research and education. Each paper will be judged on its originality, significance, correctness, and clarity. Its contribution should be clearly explained in both general and technical terms, and authors should make every effort to ensure that its technical content is understandable by a broad audience. Submission of a paper should be regarded as an undertaking that, should the paper be accepted, at least one of the authors will attend the conference to present the work. Submitted papers should be no longer than 6,000 words. To be considered, four printed copies must reach the address below by the submission date, which is a hard deadline. ACSC'97 Department of Computer Science The University of Melbourne Parkville, VIC 3052 Australia Program Chair: Rao Kotagiri, Melbourne Justin Zobel, RMIT Program Committee: David Abramson, Griffith Paul Bailes, Queensland Richard Brent, ANU Geoff Dromey, Griffith Peter Eades, Newcastle Jenny Edwards, UTS Norman Foo, UNSW Rhys Francis, CSIRO Cristian Calude, Auckland Andrzej Goscinski, Deakin John Gough, QUT Stephen Hood, DSTO Ray Jarvis, Monash Chris Johnson, ANU Jyrki Katajainen, Copenhagen Chris McDonald, UWA Kim Merriott, Monash Alistair Moffatt, Melbourne Ron Morrison, St. Andrews John O'Callaghan, CSIRO Mehmet Orgun, Macquarie Michael Oudshoorn, Adelaide Anand Rao, AAII John Roddick, South Australia John Rosenberg, Sydney Ron Sacks-Davis, Melbourne Arun Sharma, UNSW John Staples, Queensland Ling Tok Wang, NU of Singapore Ian Witten, Waikato Enquiries about the program should be directed to: acsc97@cs.mu.oz.au. CATS'97 - Computing: The Australasian Theory Symposium 3-4 February 1997 CATS aims at bringing together computing theorists from the Australasian region. Papers are solicited on all aspects of the theory of computer science, including, but not limited to: Category Theory, Complexity, Concurrency, Formal Semantics, Logic, Specification and Verification, and all aspects of the theory of Algorithms (including combinatorial algorithms, distributed algorithms, geometric algorithms, and parallel algorithms). CATS'97 follows on from CATS'94 which was held in Sydney in December 1994, and CATS'96 which was held in Melbourne in February 1996. It is hoped that the meeting will have an `active workshop' atmosphere, with ample time for discussions. Contributions describing work in progress are welcome. Submissions should be sent in Postscript format to cats97@cs.rmit.edu.au by the submission deadline. For final submissions, LaTEX style files and MS Word style sheets will be provided via the URL http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/cats97. Authors unable to access or use these style files will be asked to prepare papers of at most ten pages in 10-point, two-column format. Papers will be judged on originality, significance, correctness, and clarity. The contribution of the paper should be clearly explained in both general and technical terms, and authors should make every effort to ensure that the technical content of their papers is understandable by a broad audience. Submission of a paper should be regarded as an undertaking that, should the paper be accepted, at least one of the authors will attend the conference to present the work. General Chair: Barry Jay, UTS Program Chair: James Harland, RMIT Local Chair: Michael Johnson, Macquarie Program Committee: Cristina Calude, Auckland Hossam ElGindy, Newcastle Jeremy Gibbons, Auckland Kurt Mehlhorn, Max Planck Ins. Dale Miller, Pennsylvania Eugenio Moggi, Genoa Tadao Takaota, Ibaraki Arun Sharma, UNSW Harald So/ndergaard, Melbourne Antonius Symvonis, Sydney Phil Wadler, Glasgow ACAC'97 - Australasian Computer Architecture Conference 3-4 February 1997 ACAC is the principal annual Australasian conference on computer architecture. ACAC'97 follows on from previous computer architecture workshops held in Hobart, Brisbane and Adelaide, and its highly successful emergence as a fully refereed 2-day research conference in Melbourne in 1996. ACAC'97 will contain sessions for research group reports as well as for formal research papers. This forum will allow those involved in the field to see what new research is happening in the region and to encourage cooperative research and sharing of resources. ACAC'97 invites the following two categories of papers: Original research papers: Original papers in all areas of computer architecture research are invited. Papers describing implemented systems and novel applications are particularly welcomed. All papers will be refereed and accepted papers will be published in the conference proceedings. LaTEX style files will be made available on acceptance. Australasian research group reports: Reports on Australasian computer architecture research projects are also invited. They should be in the same format and will be included in a section of the proceedings but will not go through the full rigorous reviewing process. Papers should be submitted in uuencoded Postscript form to acac97@ee.newcastle.edu.au. If electronic submission is not possible, four paper copies should be sent to: ACAC'97 c/- Andrew Spray Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308 Australia General Chair: John Morris, UWA Program Chair: Andrew Spray, Newcastle Publication Chair: Ronald Pose, Monash Program Committee: David Abramson, Griffith Greg Egan, Monash Michael Groves, Flinders Mohan Kumar, Curtin David Powers, Flinders Clemens Szyperski, QUT ------------------------------ From: scline@usit.net (Stanley Cline) Subject: United States Cellular's Stupidity Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 02:52:36 GMT Organization: Catoosa Computing Services As some (many?) of you know, I have had repeated problems with **United States Cellular** with respect to roaming (that is, roaming from my home carrier -- BellSouth -- *into* USCC areas.) After repeated contacts (by both me and BellSouth's management) with USCC, I have come to the conclusion that while cellular service in general continues to improve, that USCC is going downhill -- fast. USCC has done all of the following things in the past *five months*: * Charged roamers for *611 calls, unanswered calls, and other calls that should be free. (One day I was charged $11 for a single *611 call!) * Refused to cover non-covered areas licensed to them, even with the Olympics coming to one area! (The other carrier in the area has decided to gouge most B-side roamers, btw.) * Gouges roamers, charging some of the highest roaming rates of all carriers (only CommNet generally charges more) ... carriers cannot negotiate *any* lower rates with USCC, even when competition dictates that rates should be substantially lower. * Blocked 911 calls from those whose home cellular carriers are blocked due to fraud, or those whose phones aren't registered with any carrier. (This was reported in the Digest awhile ago.) * Actually told customers things such as: "We don't like , and don't have to fix problems with them"; "We don't have a roaming agreement with " when in fact they do; "Call your home carrier" when a problem is certainly USCC's, NOT the home carrier's, etc. CSR's are generally rude and incompetent, despite USCC's "corporate statement" that they try to have the best people in the industry. WHAT A JOKE! * Lied to everyone from roamers to carriers to the Atlanta Olympic committee (about the Olympic venue cellular issue, rates, etc.) * Given wildly inconsistent answers to callers, with one rep saying "A" and another saying "B". * Failed to maintain automatic call delivery in some markets, forcing roamers back to Follow-Me Roaming, NationLink, or roamer access numbers (when these are not necessary!) * Seemingly deliberately attempting to cover areas not licensed to them -- they've claimed to cover portions of Tennessee that are in fact licensed to OTHER CARRIERS (Advantage Cellular, BellSouth, etc.) They bounce into and out of the Chattanooga local calling area; it is NOT because of "weather", etc -- it seems deliberate. These are *not* isolated incidents, mind you -- several carriers, including BellSouth (several markets), AirTouch in Atlanta, GTE Mobilnet (several markets), and a few small carriers, have *all* reported severe problems with USCC -- excessive and extreme complaints from customers, inability to negotiate with USCC, etc. Despite all these complaints, USCC refuses to do anything. In utter frustration, I *called* USCC's corporate office in Chicago this afternoon. I called and asked for "Customer Relations", hoping that I could reach an individual at the corporate level. I was first transferred to *Stockholder* Relations (getting a voice mail requesting name and address to which to send financial statements), then pressed zero for the operator again. I again asked for "Customer Relations" and reached USCC's *INTERNAL COMPUTER HELP DESK!* The guy who answered ("Dave", not his real name) said he'd try to find someone who could help; he consulted with someone, who referred me back to the Knoxville, TN regional office... I have already dealt with nearly EVERYONE in the Knoxville office; I didn't want to talk to them again! I landed up talking to a roamer support person ("Ted", not his real name), who told me that "We may have coverage in the Ocoee Olympic venue" (LIE -- They will NOT.), that *weather* affected their SS7 IS-41 links for auto call delivery (LIE -- I have had trouble with call delivery on perfectly clear days), and that I really needed to consult with BellSouth on all these gripes (despite the fact that *they* cannot even deal with them!) I landed up hanging up ... LIVID. I have written two letters to USCC addressing my concerns; neither one was ever answered. I sent a third out today; I also put up a page on my web site discussing "Roamer Hell" -- that is, USCC. I am preparing to obtain an account with the A-side cellular carrier -- in an attempt to avoid USCC AT ALL COSTS. When a company cannot serve customers with courtesy and reason; when a company lies to callers/suppliers/customers or provides inconsistent answers; when a company bucks industry trends in a negative manner (in USCC's case, failing to implement auto call delivery, etc.); when a company balks at entering new markets; when a company attempts gouging and near-fraud; when a company introduces safety hazards (blocking 911 calls, for example); when a company's PBX operators cannot route calls properly -- there is usually a SEVERE PROBLEM with the company, its management, or its cash flow. I have NEVER seen a company as inept and arrogant (blaming other carriers for USCC's own problems.) as USCC. They are absolutely ridiculous. (I used to think McDonald's and Sears were bad, but USCC -- also based in the Chicago area -- is MUCH worse.) Has anyone else experienced these problems? Has anyone else had POSITIVE experiences with USCC (like there are any?) As for me: I will NEVER roam in a USCC market again. They have fallen flat on their face this time. I have given up dealing with them. ** IMNSHO: United States Cellular = STUPID, ARROGANT, GREEDY. ** PS: Has anyone noticed that USCC's and 360 Communications' HQ are in the same city, zip code, and even PHONE PREFIX (312-399)? These are the very carriers that BellSouth and other carriers HATE (one much more than the other, of course.) Weird coincidence ... 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: Stan Schwartz Subject: More CID Frolics! Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 00:05:46 -0400 Last week, we heard about the calls I'm receiving where my CID displays show the first 10 digits of my account number with a regional bank. Today, I received another "interesting" call. There was no message on the machine, but all of my CID devices have the name "WASHINGTON" (for the state, I assume), and a number 206-959-0525. This number is not only not dialable, but 959 does not exist in either the 206, 360, or 509 NPA's. Can anyone help me with TODAY'S mystery??? Stan ------------------------------ From: Guenther Hoelzl Subject: Optimising a Hybrid Circuit Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 15:59:52 +0000 Reply-To: g-hoelzl@apanet.at We are looking for a circuit for optimising the return loss of a hybrid circuit for leased line applications over a bandwith of 0-7kHz. Does somebody know a solution without DSP? Guenther Hoelzl Commend Communication Systems Hoelzlstrasse 563 A-5071 Salzburg - Wals Tel.: ++ 43-662-85 62 25 Fax.: ++ 43-662-85 62 25 25 E-Mail : g-hoelzl@apanet.at ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 14:48:43 -0500 From: kelly.breit@netalliance.net (Kelly Breit) Subject: JAVA Seminar - June 13 - at Univ of Minn HHH Center Forwarded FYI to the Digest: From: "Les Wanninger" Subject: JAVA Seminar - June 13 Reply-to: lwanning@epx.cis.umn.edu Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 11:31:58 The Information Industry Initiative Presents: "JAVA, NEO, AND JOE: DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING INTEGRATING DESKTOP, INTRANET, AND INTERNET" Randy Zarecki, Sun Microsystems Thursday, June 13, 8:30 - 10:30 am Cowles Auditorium, Humphrey Center University of Minnesota The title topics are some of the "hottest" in the information industry today, and Sun Microsystems is at the forefront! Most of the major computer hardware and software companies are rushing to get into the act, which includes the "$500 Internet computer" on the billing. NEO and Joe are less familiar than Java, but all are important components. Randy Zarecki will present and demonstrate these technologies and the kinds of applcations they are good for. He will discuss the enabling features and functionality, how to deliver applications on the Internet and World Wide Web, and the different architectural approaches involved. The seminar will be at a business, strategy, applications, demonstration, and "what does it take to develop and deliver applications" level - not at a computer science level. Call (612) 624-3534, fax 626-1316, or e-mail hradford@csom.umn.edu with your reservation by June 11. There is no charge for the seminar for members of the Information Industry Initiative, participants in the Information Industry Workshop Series, or Minnesota Software Associateion Members. Parking is available in the 19th Ave. & 3rd St. parking ramp. Presented by the Information Industry Initiative Information & Decision Sciences Department Carlson School of Management University Of Minnesota Les Wanninger Information & Decision Sciences Carlson School of Management University of Minnesota 271 19 the Ave. S, 395 Humphrey Center Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone: 612-624-1874 Fax: 612-626-1316 Internet: lwanning@epx.cis.umn.edu ------------------------------ From: Andrew Taylor Subject: Unbundling Local Loop Access Organization: Analysys Ltd Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 15:02:46 GMT A colleague has asked me to post the following question: Does anybody know of the practical experience of unbundling of access to the local loop (ie interconnecting at the line side of the central office)? It strikes me that this type of arrangement requires a great deal of cooperaion between phone companies and involves reassigning copper pairs from one company's central office to another -- presumably without disrupting service. How is this achieved in practice? All help gratefully received. Stefan Stanislawski ------------------------------ From: Bernard Mora Subject: Satellite Telecommunications References Wanted Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 16:33:54 GMT Organization: cete I'm looking for documents (technicals and commercials) which deal with satellites telecommunications systems as ARGOS,EUTELTRACS, INMARSAT. I hope someone will agree to help me in this difficult search and I thank you for that. REGIS LABORDE ------------------------------ From: tuckers@stanilite.com.au (Steve Tucker) Subject: Brazilian Telecom Standards - Source Wanted Date: 29 May 1996 01:32:37 GMT Organization: Stanilite Electronics Pty. Ltd. Sydney, Australia Can anyone please tell me where I can obtain Brazilian Telecom Standards? They seem to be pre-fixed SDT. The particular numbers are: SDT 201-110-704 SDT 245-100-702 SDT 201-320-701 SDT 240-600-703 Please reply direct by email to steve.tucker@stanilite.com.au Thanks in anticipation. ------------------------------ From: stevek@binc.net (Steven Kell) Subject: Line Monitor/Protocol Analyzer Date: 29 May 1996 07:08:51 GMT Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation Does anyone use or know of a line monitor/protocol analyzer that can handle async speeds up to 115.2 kbps?? We are implementing a BBS-based product and need the capability to monitor the traffic. Please reply via e-mail or cc: me on any replies. Thanks in advance! Steven ------------------------------ From: Bob Subject: PCS Network Planners/Builders Sought For Interview re Methods Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 19:53:07 -0700 Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C. Worldesign Inc. is developing tools for the rapid planning and location of PCS cell sites and transceivers (esp. basestations). To ensure that our products are well focused and will enable you to do your important work better, we are conducting _brief_ online interviews with planners, site location specialists, and builders of networks. If you are available for a few quick questions, we'd certainly appreciate your help. Additionally, you may qualify as a beta site for our product when it is ready. Email me to set up a dialogue. And thanks for your help! Bob Jacobson, President Worldesign Inc. Seattle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 May 1996 00:38:24 -0500 From: doc_dave@bga.com (David Brod) Subject: Cellular Caller ID On June 15, in Austin, Tx, AT&T Wireless Communications will begin passing cellular subscriber numbers through to the caller ID system. I am not a paranoid regarding caller ID, but I am rather upset about this. Since cellular users must pay for incoming calls, this seems a valid reason to not have to pass around my cellular number via caller ID. Additionally, since cellular phones do not offer caller ID, we do not have the option not to answer the phone either. I am wondering, to whoever knows, if it would not be reasonable to demand that the cellular companies be required to pass the actual out-dial phone number, and not the cellular number. After all, the cellular number is not the phone number that is calling out ... cellular subscribers must pay an 'interconnect' charge that links the cellular system with the central office, and the calling number is really a phone number from that central office ... seems appropriate that cellular companies be required to transmit THAT number to caller ID users. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except that the number you are referring to would be essentially worthless to the recipient of the Caller-ID information, and lend itself to confusion if they tried to dial it back. For example, that number you are referring to *is* in fact available and given to customers who get ANI. Invariably on trying to dial in to it the response is the number is for outgoing calls only or it may not be dialable at all, etc. My cellular phone is 847-727-xxxx and yet the ANI it shows when I dial an 800 number is 708-870-something; a totally different thing. I personally would say send nothing at all unless it can be a two-way thing with cellular customers able to get the same information in return subject to the technical requirements of their phone, etc. Will *67 (number blocking) be available on your outgoing cellular calls? That might be one way to partly solve your problem. PAT] ------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V16 #250 ******************************