Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04389; 20 May 92 2:15 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10143 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 20 May 1992 00:29:38 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14619 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 20 May 1992 00:29:30 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 00:29:30 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205200529.AA14619@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #401 TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 May 92 00:29:30 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 401 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (Steve Forrette) Modem Tax: Years of Crying Wolf (Kurt Cockrum) Pricey 800 Calls (John Gruber) Call Forwarding Billing (Phil Howard) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 19 May 92 09:46:55 pdt From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors In article telecom (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > This is a little story about an experience I had last week with > Illinois Bell, trying to get them to correct an error in their > handling of calls to an exchange near Green Bay, Wisconsin. [long story deleted] Well, Pat, welcome to the club! I had a very similar experience about a month ago, but the villian in my case was AT&T. Only with the help of my LEC (US West) was the problem solved. This is interestingly just the opposite of your experience. I guess I'll start from the beginning: I live in Seattle, and my home phone is served from US West's 206-527 exchange. I was trying to call a friend's cellular phone on 206-921, which is in Vancouver, WA, and in the Portland LATA, thus an inter-LATA call. When I called, I got a "Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please check the number and try your call again." recording. I did both, and got the same result. I have successfully dialed this number on at least a weekly basis for over 9 months, so I'm sure the number was correct, and I do know how to dial properly, so the problem was not at my end. From the voice, format, and lack of identifying code, I could tell that it was a US West recording, as opposed to a Cellular One or AT&T recording (the Cellular One recordings have a distinctive voice that nobody else uses, and the AT&T ones have a switch identifier at the end. US West uses a common voice, but with no switch identifier). Also, by the length of time before the recording started, it appeared that the recording was at the far end. So, I called the AT&T operator to ask for call completion assistance. I knew that even if it wasn't their problem, they would be able to get an inward operator in the Portland area which would be able to deal with the problem. At least that's what I thought. (As an aside, I had been a Sprint customer for over 6 years since I had a lot of calls that were billed out to a client and my personal calls got to take advantage of a substantial volume discount. Now I just have personal calls, and I thought that the superior operator service in times of need was enough of a reason alone to pay the small premium for AT&T service). The operator tried to place the call, and she got the same result. I explained to her how I was sure the number was correct, and how it had worked just a few days before. I persisted that I wanted her to look into it further. Since she was getting the same recording, this ruled out US West's part of the call on my end. It now had to be either in the AT&T network, or with US West on the terminating end. I asked her if she would contact an inward operator with US West in Portland to have her try it. The AT&T operator responded that *this was not possible*. She said that AT&T itself handled all inward operator functions in US West territory, and that it was not possible to contact a US West operator. Her demeanor and tone throughout the call indicated to me that she was honestly trying to help, and that she was not making this up. She did something which connected her to an AT&T operator in Portland, but he was of no help. I let it slip that this was to a cellular prefix, and this turned out to be a mistake. At this point, all blame was put on the cellular carrier and the cellular subscriber. Here are some of the possibilities offered: perhaps the subscriber's phone was off, perhaps they didn't pay their bill on time, perhaps they cancelled their account, etc. I kept pointing out that the recording was a US West recording, and thus the call was never getting to the Cellular One switch. Whatever problems the subscriber might be having (and they were having none) were irrelevant, since the call was never getting that far. This was a difficult point to try to get across to the operator, and I don't think she ever got this point. I eventually got passed to a supervisor, who tried the call again, with the same results. She refused to do anything to correct the problem, and would not offer any solutions other than to contact the cellular subscriber through some other means and ask him what the problem was with "his phone." At this point, I decided to do some more investigation on my part, as well as contact the cellular subscriber as suggested. He knew nothing of the problem, and his phone was working just fine for local calls. I next tried to use another long distance carrier. Using either 10222 or 10333 resulted in a call that completed normally. So this definately pointed the finger at AT&T, although it was still a mystery as to why a US West recording was being played. Also, since I had contact the cellular subscriber at his residence, there was apparently no general problem with calls to that area (I know this doesn't really prove anything). Armed with this irrefutable evidence that it was an AT&T-specific problem, I called the AT&T operator back, and naturally got a different one. We tried the call again, with the same result, and with no suggested solutions. I did get one expert piece of advice, however, from the AT&T operator: "I thought cellular phones went over radio lines, not AT&T lines!" It was clearly time for a supervisor. The supervisor basically said the same thing as the previous one; namely, that it just MUST be a problem in the cellular switch. I pointed out the evidence about the problem happening only when using AT&T, and that it was a US West, not Cellular One, recording. She said "Well, it's definately not an AT&T recording, because our network never gives recordings!" And this was the supervisor. :-( Then she tried to blame it on a billing problem, such as me not having paid my bill on time. I explained that this was definately not the case, and there was no billing mistake, as I was able to call any other long distance number using AT&T just fine. It was only this specific number that was having the problem. "Well then, maybe the party you are calling did not pay HIS AT&T bill on time!" Why would this have anything to do with it, as I was paying for the call! "Well then, maybe the other party as requested to not be able to receive AT&T calls on his cellular phone." First, this isn't even an option anywhere I know of, and second, the recording is coming from US West - the call isn't even getting to the cellular switch. Basically, every possible reason, and some impossible ones, were suggested as to why this wasn't an AT&T problem, even though the problem only happened when using AT&T! She finally admitted to the possibility of this being an AT&T and/or US West problem, and suggested that I call US West repair in Portland. She said that the non-supervisory operator, who was still on the line, could place the call for me to repair, but that they did not have the number handy, and that I would have to be billed for the call for the AT&T operator to call Portland Directory Assitance to get the number, and then left the call. Can you believe this? At this point, I became quite irate, and I think not unjustifiably so, and explained to the first operator (still on the line) that the whole reason I switched back to AT&T from Sprint was because of the supposedly superior operator service, and was very disappointed that their wanting ME to pay to report what was clearly THEIR problem, as evidenced by 10222 and 10333 completing the call normally. She said she understood, and placed the DA call without charging me. We put in a trouble ticket with US West in Portland, and they said someone would call me back within 24 hours. I was still unconvinced that it was impossible to reach an inward US West operator in the Portland area. I asked "Can't you just dial 503-121?" I ordinarily would not reveal my knowledge of such "proprietary" information, but I was getting desparate. The response? "That just gets me an AT&T operator in Portland." (She didn't seem the least bit surprised that a customer would ask this question). After this conversation, I decided to call AT&T Long Lines Repair to open a ticket with them. Note that despite almost ten minutes on the line with the AT&T operator supervisor (and a total of two regular operators and two supervisors), that no suggestion was ever made that AT&T even had a repair department, let alone giving me the number to call. If I had not known the number myself, I would have been out of luck. I put in the ticket, and decided to wait it out. Surprisingly, I got a call about an hour later from someone from US West. This really surprised me, as it was a Sunday afternoon, and I fully expected to have to wait until at least Monday to make any more progress. I carefully explained all of the details, and was pleased to find that she seemed to fully understand everything I was saying, as well as how all of the carriers handle the different parts of the call (four total in this case!) She said she would look into it. About two hours later, she called back, and said she thought the problem had been fixed, and would I try the call now? I tried on the other line, and it was indeed fixed. She literally screamed with excitement: "Yessssss!" Since she seemed genuinely interested in the problem, had been the only one I had spoken to all day that even understood the problem, and had been the one to come through to solve it, I decided to engage her in a few minutes of friendly conversation. As it turns out, she is in MARKETING of all places with US West. I asked why it is that a marketing person was in the office on a Sunday, and why she was handling customer trouble tickets. Apparently, she is the marketing rep with US West that interfaces with Cellular One in the Portland area. She's the one that Cellular One calls when it wants to order more trunks, etc. Since Cellular One is quite a big customer of US West, they apparently get a marketing person that's really sharp. She was in the office to deal with a sudden service outage that Cellular One was having earlier that Sunday, and was just about to leave, when she overheard someone else talking with US West repair about my trouble ticket. She said "I thought that as long as I was in the office, I might as well take care of this problem too, to make sure that it gets solved properly." She continued: "Sir, I apologize for all you've gone through. I tried to get through to someone at Repair that knew what was going on, and all I got was the run-around. I was never able to get a hold of anyone at US West (my own company) that seemed to know anything about this! I really feel sorry for you customers that have to deal with this all the time." What finally solved the problem for her was the "magic number" to get directly in touch with the techs at the AT&T office in Denver, CO. (The same office that help Pat with his problem). Apparently, this is where the Routing Administration is, at least for this part of the country. She referred to it as the place that administers the routing for AT&T, anyway. The problem turned out to be in AT&T's 4ESS in Seattle. It was mis-routing calls from this area that were bound for my particular called prefix in such a manner that they were handed off to US West, but such that US West couldn't complete the call. I commented on how it must be really nice to have all of the secret numbers to get a hold of the proper people directly. She said "Yea, I don't think I'm really supposed to call those people, but it does come in handy in cases like these." So once the right person was aware of the problem, it was solved immediately. But it took a lot of persistance, and some luck, to get through to them. Oh, by the way, someone from AT&T Long Lines Repair did call me two days later to inform me that they had checked my account, and that my bill had been paid on time, so I should not be having any problems. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrm 762-6417) Subject: Modem Tax: Years of Crying Wolf Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 00:00:00 GMT I must admit to falling for it, even though I knew that the hoax has been around for years. Does anybody care to argue that just because it has always proved to be a hoax in the past, that it will always be a hoax each time one hears about it in the future? Given the antics of the current administration, virtually anything seems possible. Repeated hoaxes may even be part of the strategy of defusing opposition to eventual imposition of a "modem tax". If I were charged with formulating telecom policy with a goal of consolidating governmental power (and were a True Believer in that goal, which I most emphatically am not) in an era of telecom revolution, where the greatest threat comes from the potential grass-roots empowerment implied by such revolution, I would give serious thought to such a strategy. Let's not forget that the same government gave us the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, Iran-gate, etc., etc., ad nauseam. The modem tax scheme (and the idea of repeated hoaxes) seems pretty plausible compared to such wild historical schemes. Additional plausibility is gained in light of FBI proposals for surveillance of the switched telephone network (with the delicious twist of getting the sheep to subsidize their surveillance *directly* via a billing surcharge! Sounds like somebody's been getting chutzpah lessons from the Israelis, and passed the course with flying colors). If this doesn't make anybody paranoid, I'd like to hear why. Fred Goldstein's chain letter tax posting was pretty funny, nonetheless! kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 92 14:46:27 -0400 From: John Gruber Subject: Pricey 800 Calls We ran into a billed 800 number in another way. We have all 900 numbers blocked on our PBX, of course. We ran into a charge for a call to a 800 number, billed through our LEC, GTE. Folks here (some students) called an 800 number. The IP claimed that they sought permission of the student to bill back. They put through a charge for a *collect* call to some regular number and put that charge through the regular channels to have GTE bill it. The collect call was billed at $4.98/minute to our main number and to some of our individual trunk numbers. (We have our student numbers listed for call screening so that the LEC and so that LD carriers shouldn't allow collect or third party billing to those phone numbers.) Although GTE was adamant about it for awhile, we refused to pay it and finally won. Our claim was -- the charge on the bill is for conveying a collect call to a particular number, and we can prove, using our SMDR data, that no such call was made, so the charge is false. We suggested that if someone provided information, for a price, to someone here on campus, that person might owe the IP some money, but that the information provider should take that up with whoever authorized the charge, not the University (the way they would for a traditional IP 800 call, perhaps billed through a credit card). Last we heard, the charges were credited, after a couple of arguments, and now the number is out of service. ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Call Forwarding Billing Date: Tue, 19 May 92 20:48:35 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Lines A, B, and C are all in different and distant cities (different states or in state should both be considered). Line A calls line B which forwards to line C. I would expect line A to be billed for the call to line B and line B to be billed for the call to line C. If A-B is local or B-C is local I can expect that call to be hidden in the local calls. But why would it be any different if line B is an 800 number and line C is a 900 number? But I'd still like to know where the PHONE NUMBER and the CHARGE come from for billings of 900 service. If the called 900 number equipment is asking the caller if they want to bill by number or not, then doesn't that equipment have to somehow give the information back to the phone company (either right then or later) for the billing to take place? I'm still convinced this mess is REALLY caused by an error in the way the billing scheme is set up. It should always bill to whatever line selected the 900 number to be called (line B in the above example). Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #401 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06397; 20 May 92 3:07 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03632 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 20 May 1992 01:14:09 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17416 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 20 May 1992 01:14:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 01:14:01 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205200614.AA17416@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #402 TELECOM Digest Wed, 20 May 92 01:13:45 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 402 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson IEEE Communications Society Workshop on Feature Interactions (N Griffeth) 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS (Ken Jongsma) Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Andy Jacobson) Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number (Len E. Elam) Re: Video Conference Information Wanted (Tony Harminc) Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number (Jack Winslade) Re: Integretel Past Due (Kath Mullholand) Re: AT&T Easyreach 700: In Service? (Ed Greenberg) Re: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky (Ed Greenberg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nancyg@banshee..bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) Subject: CFP: IEEE Communications Society Workshop on Feature Interactions Reply-To: banshee!nancyg@walter.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) Organization: Bellcore MRE Date: Tue, 19 May 92 17:46:38 GMT International Workshop on Feature Interactions in Telecommunications Software Systems St. Petersburg, Florida, USA, December 3-4, 1992 Sponsored by the IEEE Communications Society This workshop is planned to encourage researchers from a variety of computer science specialties (software engineering, protocol engineering, distributed artificial intelligence, formal techniques, and distributed systems, among others) to apply their techniques to the feature interaction problem that arises in building telecommun- ications software systems. The feature interaction problem refers to interference between two features of a telecommunications system. This interference hinders the development of new features; it can be thought of as a special case of the extensibility problem for software (see discussion at end for more details on the problem). We welcome papers on preventing, detecting, and/or resolving feature interactions using either analytical or structural approaches. Submissions are encouraged in (but are not limited to) the following topic areas: Classification of feature interactions. Modelling, reasoning, and testing techniques for detecting feature interactions. Software platforms and architectures for preventing or resolving feature interactions. Tools and methodologies for promoting software compatibility and extensibility. Environments and automated tools for related problems in other software systems. We hope to promote a dialogue among researchers in various related areas, as well as the designers and builders of telecommunications software. To this end, the workshop will have sessions for paper presentations, including relatively long discussion periods. Panel discussions and a short tutorial on issues in the feature interaction problem are being organized. Attendance: Workshop attendance will be limited to 75 people. Attendance will be by invitation only. Prospective attendees are asked to submit either a paper (maximum 5000 words) or a single page description of their interests and how they relate to the workshop. About 16--20 of the attendees will be asked to present talks. We will strive for an equal mix of theoretical results and practical experiences. A set of working notes will be provided at the workshop. Papers with the highest quality will be considered for publication in a special section of IEEE Computer Magazine or IEEE Communications Magazine. Submissions: Please send five copies of your full original paper or interest description to: Nancy Griffeth Bellcore, MRE 2L-237 445 South Street Morristown, NJ 07962-1910 USA E-mail: nancyg@thumper.bellcore.com Tel: (201) 829-4538 Fax: (201) 829-5889 Important dates are: 1 June 1992: Submission of contributions. 1 August 1992: Notification of acceptance. 15 September 1992: Submission of camera-ready versions. Workshop Co-chairpersons Nancy Griffeth (Bellcore, USA) Yow-Jian Lin (Bellcore, USA) Program Committee Chair: Hugo Velthuijsen (PTT, The Netherlands) E. Jane Cameron (Bellcore, USA) Steven Harris (BNR, Canada) Gerard J. Holzmann (AT&T Bell Laboratories, USA) Michael Huhns (MCC, USA) Luigi Logrippo (University of Ottawa, Canada) Harm Mulder (PTT, The Netherlands) Jan-Olof Nordenstam (ELLEMTEL, Sweden) David Notkin (University of Washington, USA) Akihiro Shimizu (NTT, Japan) Yasushi Wakahara (KDD R&D Laboratories, Japan) Pamela Zave (AT&T Bell Laboratories, USA) Discussion: The feature interaction problem has been a major obstacle to the rapid deployment of new telephone services. Telecommunications software is huge, real-time, and distributed; adding new features to a telecommunication system, like adding new functionalities to any large software system, can be very difficult. Each new feature may interact with many existing features, causing customer annoyance or total system breakdown. Traditionally, interactions were detected and resolved on a feature by feature basis by experts who are knowledgeable on all existing features. As the number of features grows to satisfy diverse needs of customers, managing feature interactions in a single administrative domain is approaching incomprehensible complexity. In a future marketplace where features deployed in the network may be developed by different operating companies and their associated vendors, the traditional approach is no longer feasible. How to detect, resolve, or even prevent the occurrence of feature interactions in an open network becomes an important research issue. The feature interaction problem is not unique to telecommunications software; similar problems are encountered in any long-lived software system that requires frequent changes and additions to its functionality. Techniques in many related areas appear to be applicable to the management of feature interactions. Software methodologies for extensibility and compatibility, for example, could be useful for providing a structured design that can prevent many feature interactions from occurring. Formal specification, verification, and testing techniques, being widely used in protocol engineering and software engineering, contribute a lot to the detection of interactions. Several causes of the problem, such as aliasing, timing, and the distribution of software components, are similar to issues in distributed systems. Cooperative problem solving, a promising approach for resolving interactions at run time, resembles distributed planning and resolution of conflicting subgoals among multiple agents in the area of distributed artificial intelligence. This workshop aims to provide an opportunity for participants to share ideas and experiences in their respective fields, and to apply their expertise to the feature interaction problem. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 92 20:56:00 EST From: "Ken Jongsma x7702" Subject: 950-1ATT and 950-DOMINOS Remember that funny AT&T number we were talking about a few months back? The one that looked like a Feature Group B Access number, but wasn't? Well, AT&T has a two page ad in {Communications Week} this week entitled: "AT&T InterSpan Information Access Service 950-1ATT" Service Highlights * Toll-free, nationwide 7-digit number access (800 access available) * Extra Security via SecurID "random" password generator card * International access to 112 networks in 105 countries * Billing rendered on a corporate, division or end-user basis * Detailed billing available via EDI * No extra cost for ubiquitous access at speeds up to 9600bps * No extra cost for DTE rates up to 19.2Kbps (MNP5 Protocol) * No hidden local dial access charges * No additional surcharges as in other X.25 networks * Helps eliminate separate modem banks * Supports multiple protocols (Async, SDLC, TCP/IP and X.25) In the same issue, there is an article on how Dominos Pizza is planning on using 950-1430 to connect callers anywhere in the country to the correct local Dominos. The article says that they should be fully operational (except for Alaska) within two years. The number will work as follows: "When a customer places a call by dialing the 950 number, the call is forwarded to a switching device called a Digital Link Splicer in an AT&T central office in that city. The caller's number is known to the splicer by means of Automatic Number Identification (ANI). The splicer queries a database of local phone numbers provided by Metro Mail Corp., Lincoln, Neb., which runs on a network of AT&T 6386 PCs. The call is then routed to the store that delivers pizza in that area, Gonos said. Unlisted numbers are directed to the most likely store based on caller's zip code and telephone exchange. "The time required to place the 950 call and reach the correct Domino's Pizza store is eleven seconds or less, compared to four to seven seconds for normal calls, Gonos said. "The 950 exchange has historically been reserved for long distance carriers. Through its agreement with AT&T, Domino's can "own" the same 950 telephone number throughout the United States. Alaska lacks the technical capability to support 950 service, Gonos said." Later in the article, they mention that one of the advantages to a single national number is that a potential customer won't have to open the phone book and see a competitor's advertisement. I suppose Bellcore or someone thinks that the need for preserve the identity of 950 numbers as FGB only has passed. Given that there are only 10,000 950 numbers and many of the 950-1/0XXX numbers were assigned to carriers, I wonder what they think the market for this type of number is? It seems like many national or franchised companies would be asking for this type of number, plus Comnpuserve and the others as well. I also found the fact that they are using a commercial mailing list/database for address lookups interesting. Ken ------------------------------ Date: 18 May 92 23:15:00 PST From: "Jacobson, Andy" Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number Pat, Refresh my memory on this one, but didn't the nxx-0000 numbers in Chicago actually serve as seven-digit translations for the 911 system? As I remember it, this was (is it still?) a method used by the police to direct emergency calls to regional dispatch centers throughout the city instead of to one big center for the whole area. A Jacobson [Moderator's Note: Some of them, such as 312-SUPerior-(787)-0000 are used in the way you suggest. I'm not sure why, but I know our 911 here is not the most modern. It has been in service since the mid-1970's. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 92 12:37:41 CDT From: lelam%kuwait@Sun.COM (Len E. Elam) Subject: Re: All Zeros in the Subscriber Number In TELECOM Digest, Volume 12, Issue 395, Message 2 of 11, clements@BBN. COM writes: > In Strowger step offices, large businesses typically had phone numbers > ending in xx11. Hunting on a standard Strowger works by adding dial > pulses until a non-busy line is found. The so-called "level-hunting" > Strowger switch (which had a LOT of extra relays in it) could hunt to > the next tens-level. E.g., from xx10 to xx21. Ordinary hunting > switches could only hunt on the same level, restricting the size of a > hunt group to ten lines. This brings back memories! When I was in the U.S. Air Force ('75-'79, Kessler AFB, Texas [tech school], Hahn Air Base, Germany and Kessler AFB, Mississippi), I was a telephone switching equipment repairman. I remember that a hunt group was set up by strapping specific terminals for the numbers that were to hunt on the terminal blocks where the numbers were jumpered to the outside cables. If the first number in the group was dialed and it was busy, that number being jumpered for hunting would cause a relay in the linefinder to pulse, stepping the switch to the next number in the hunt group. It's been a long time since I worked on any telephone switching equipment, and I'm recalling this from memory, so if I've gotten some of the details wrong, please forgive me. Who Am I?: Len E. Elam Email: central.sun.com!gdfwc3!lelam Disclamer: I speak only for myself. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 92 13:46:12 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Video Conference Information Wanted jpp@slxinc.specialix.com (John Pettitt) wrote: [request for information on dial-up transatlantic video conferencing] > The idea is that the company saves the 8K$ a month it costs to fly me > to london for one three hour meeting (not to mention the week of my > time spent travelling etc). > Any thoughts? My first thought is that if you are paying 8K$ to fly from California to the UK, you should choose a different airline. Even business class air fare is under $5000, which leaves quite a bit for a hotel stay and a couple of taxi rides. If you are willing to travel economy class and book ahead, even at peak season the fare will be under $1000 return. Tony H. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 92 14:14:16 CST From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number Reply-To: jack.winslade%drbbs@ivgate.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In a message dated 15-MAY-92, Albert Pang writes: > I have noticed today when I received a long distance call from Ottawa > that my caller ID display device shows the number (out of area code) > that called me including the area code. > I believe this is the first in North America (please correct me if I > am wrong). I think this only works for certain switches operated by > Bell Canada within Quebec and Ontario. Here in Omaha, we get out-of-state, out-of-areacode CLID data from the offices in Iowa (both east and west of the river ;-) that are local to the Omaha metropolitan calling area. This includes most* of the city of Council Bluffs and some of the outlying towns and rural areas. * One CO on the south side of Council Bluffs, 712-366, which was cut from a 'directorized' SxS to DMS about '86 or so still shows 'out of area' on the CLID display. I would assume that the office equipment can handle it, but that for some reason the interoffice stuff cannot. Two offices in small towns outside of CB that were cut from step to some kind of electronic system BEFORE 366 show up CLID data. I dunno why. Good day. JSW Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1 DRBBS, Omaha (1:285/666.0) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 11:13:23 -0400 (EDT) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand) Subject: Re: Integretel Past Due Message regarding VRS bills deleted. > [Moderator's Note: Are they still billing you for the calls? PAT] We received one bill for each set of disputed calls. No follow-up bills (or credits or *any* other commmunications whatever) was received. kath mullholand university of new hampshire durham nh ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: AT&T Easyreach 700: In Service? Date: Tue, 19 May 92 15:46:07 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) In article DREUBEN@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: > Also, I am not clear on one aspect of AT&T 700 billing: > Does the calling party (not me) pay $.25 day/$.15 night to reach me, > and that's it, or is there also a toll charge that I pay to deliver > the call from Easyreach to the PSTN number I want to call to route to? > Can the AT&T Easyreach number be forwarded to an 800 number? Even a > non-AT&T 800 number? I had a long conversation with an AT&T rep about this. She seemed to know her stuff (which is why I don't call her a salesdroid.) According to said rep: The call can be dialed with or without a PIN. If the caller uses a PIN, the EasyReach subscriber pays. If the caller does NOT use a pin, the caller pays the same rate that the subscriber would pay. It's not clear whether the caller can charge the cost of the call to a calling card. Ed Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com P. O. Box 28618 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95159 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky Date: Tue, 19 May 92 15:57:34 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) I called the Pac Bell number and asked what their group's charter was. I was told that they were there to serve ALL of the business office needs of people with complex residence service needs. This includes work-at-homes, residential centrex (Commstar II), modem users, BBS operators, and fax users. I asked about conversion to business rates. The rep quoted me the tariffs and the customer actions that would be required to result in an unrequested conversion. These mostly are answering in a business name, and requesting billing to a business. She swore up and down that they don't care whether we run BBS systems or not, as long as we are not in the business of online services. Surprisingly literate. Ed Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com P. O. Box 28618 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95159 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #402 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29361; 21 May 92 10:27 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08717 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 21 May 1992 00:31:18 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02617 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 21 May 1992 00:31:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 00:31:10 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205210531.AA02617@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #403 TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 May 92 00:31:02 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 403 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Basic Rate ISDN Included on Motherboard of SPARCSstation (Don Jackson) Re: ISDN Fantasy (Alan L. Varney) Re: ISDN Charging (Patton M. Turner) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Basic Rate ISDN Included on Motherboard of SPARCSstation Date: Tue, 19 May 92 11:31:37 PDT From: Don Jackson The complete text of the press release is attached to the end of this message, and I have extracted the ISDN relevent sections immediately below: The SPARCstation 10 is also the first workstation with built-in Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) capabilities, which give users a new way to use the telephone by merging computer and phone functions into a single system. The standard for global digital telephone and networking services, ISDN is expected to enable a wealth of new applications for integrated computing and telephony to provide global wide-area networking and multimedia solutions. The SPARCstation 10 gives users a clear path to the future, ensuring that they will be able to take advantage of new technologies as they evolve while preserving their current investment in hardware and software. For example, anticipating the integration of telephones and computers, the SPARCstation 10 is the first RISC workstation to provide an ISDN chip on the motherboard as a built-in feature at no additional cost. Already widely available in Europe and Japan, ISDN has the high bandwidth needed for sending multimedia information such as video, images, audio and data across digital phone lines. To facilitate this, SMCC is also providing CD-quality (16-bit) audio and a microphone as standard features on the new systems. In effect, ISDN allows users to extend their networks to include anyone who can be reached over a digital phone line, including telecommuters and employees working at remote sites. By building ISDN into the SPARCstation system -- the highest-volume RISC/UNIX(R) workstation on the market -- SMCC ensures that its customers will be able to take advantage of a new generation of ISDN applications from third-party vendors. With ISDN, users will soon be able to access all of the functions of today's phones -- including dialing, answering, transferring and possibly identifying calls as well as sending faxes and receiving voice mail messages -- from their workstations. As more technical information is publicly released about the ISDN capabilities of this product, I will forward. Don Jackson Sun Microsystems Inc. The following announcement was made today, May 19, 1992. SMCC UNVEILS NEXT-GENERATION WORKSTATION SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. -- May 19, 1992 -- Sun Microsystems Computer Corporation (SMCC) today introduced the world's fastest desktop workstation: the SPARCstation(TM) 10. With this new computer, SMCC has completely redesigned the SPARCstation architecture, taking an innovative new approach to the memory, bus, disk and networking subsystems that significantly boosts application performance. Built around the fast new superscalar SuperSPARC(TM) chip from Texas Instruments, the SPARCstation 10 achieves a multiprocessing performance rating of up to 218 (SPECthruput89) and more than 400 MIPS in its four-microprocessor configuration. It employs a modular design that makes possible the industry's easiest, most cost-effective upgrade path to higher-performance -- and multiple -- microprocessors. All SPARCstations are binary compatible, meaning that they can run the same software. The SPARCstation 10 sets the standard for the next generation of desktop computers by being the first RISC workstation from a major vendor to include multiprocessing capabilities, which greatly improve performance, upgrade-ability and scalability. The SPARCstation 10 is also the first workstation with built-in Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) capabilities, which give users a new way to use the telephone by merging computer and phone functions into a single system. The standard for global digital telephone and networking services, ISDN is expected to enable a wealth of new applications for integrated computing and telephony to provide global wide-area networking and multimedia solutions. Reinforcing its commitment to open systems, SMCC also announced today that it has licensed for resale the logic chips for the SPARCstation 10. The five SPARCstation 10 ASICs are all available immediately from LSI Logic. SPARCstation 10: Leading Application Performance The design of the SPARCstation 10 has been tuned to maximize application performance even when the system is running under the most demanding conditions. The new SuperSPARC CPU delivers two to four times the performance of previous SPARC(R) microprocessors. SMCC has quadrupled the speed at which data can be processed through the memory on the SPARCstation 10 and has more than doubled the rate at which the system can retrieve data from disks. Bus speed -- the rate at which the system can send and receive information from peripherals -- has been doubled over previous SPARCstation systems. The SPARCstation 10 is also the first RISC workstation with a 1-megabyte external memory cache, called SuperCache(TM), which gives an added boost to application performance. By offering multiple processors on its new systems, SMCC addresses users' desire for ever-greater performance on the desktop. Multiprocessing systems can achieve high performance because they use more than one processor to execute multiple applications -- or parts of single applications -- simultaneously. Multiprocessing also provides the power and throughput needed for multithreading, object-oriented software and multimedia applications. SMCC is aiming the new workstation at "power users": professionals in both commercial and technical markets who need fast application performance for such areas as computer-aided software engineering (CASE), financial modelling and simulation, electronic design automation (EDA) and mechanical computer-aided design (MCAD). It comes in four versions: Model 30 Model 41 Model 52 Model 54 No. of Processors 1 1 2 4 MHz 36 40 45 45 SPECint92* 44.2 52.6 - - SPECfp92* 52.9 64.7 - - SPECthruput89** (est.) - - 109 218 MIPS 86.1 96.2 200+ 400+ * SPEC 92 ratings are measured on a different scale than SPEC 89 ratings and thus are not comparable. ** SPECthruput ratings are a measurement of computing speed for multiprocessor systems. The new workstation rounds out the high end of the best-selling SPARCstation desktop product line, which already includes the entry-level SPARCstation ELC(TM), the low-cost color SPARCstation IPC (TM) and SPARCstation IPX(TM), and the SPARCstation 2. Ready for Future Innovation The SPARCstation 10 gives users a clear path to the future, ensuring that they will be able to take advantage of new technologies as they evolve while preserving their current investment in hardware and software. For example, anticipating the integration of telephones and computers, the SPARCstation 10 is the first RISC workstation to provide an ISDN chip on the motherboard as a built-in feature at no additional cost. Already widely available in Europe and Japan, ISDN has the high bandwidth needed for sending multimedia information such as video, images, audio and data across digital phone lines. To facilitate this, SMCC is also providing CD-quality (16-bit) audio and a microphone as standard features on the new systems. In effect, ISDN allows users to extend their networks to include anyone who can be reached over a digital phone line, including telecommuters and employees working at remote sites. By building ISDN into the SPARCstation system -- the highest-volume RISC/UNIX(R) workstation on the market -- SMCC ensures that its customers will be able to take advantage of a new generation of ISDN applications from third-party vendors. With ISDN, users will soon be able to access all of the functions of today's phones -- including dialing, answering, transferring and possibly identifying calls as well as sending faxes and receiving voice mail messages -- from their workstations. Optimum Expandability; Easy Upgrade Path The SPARCstation 10 features a modular design that helps minimize user costs and enables an easy upgrade to multiple CPUs and future microprocessor technologies. Users can simply pull out the SPARC module -- containing one or two processors -- that plugs into the motherboard via the MBus interconnect and replace it with one containing new, faster CPUs, including the 50-MHz SuperSPARC chip when it is available in volume later this year from Texas Instruments. This modular design also allows users to expand the system with up to 26 gigabytes of disk capacity, up to 512 megabytes of highly reliable ECC memory and other options such as more powerful graphics. Peripherals can be added through four SBus expansion slots, two serial ports and a parallel port. For current Sun customers, upgrading to the new SPARCstation 10 is easy. SPARCstation 1, 1+, 2 and IPX users can simply exchange the CPU system cabinet for a new one, retaining their existing investments in monitors, keyboards, SCSI disk drives and SBus boards. Upgrades from the SPARCstation IPX and SPARCstation 2 are "no penalty": in other words, customers pay no more to upgrade from these systems than if they had purchased a new SPARCstation 10. Owners of previous-generation (Sun-3(TM) and Sun386i(TM)) workstations can upgrade their entire computer to a SPARCstation 10 system. Once customers have upgraded, achieving even higher levels of performance will be as simple as swapping SPARC modules. Existing applications among the more than 4,000 SPARC hardware and software solutions will run on the new workstations without modification. The SPARCstation 10 runs SunSoft's Solaris(R) 1.1 operating environment (which includes the SunOS(TM) operating system, the OpenWindows(TM) graphical windowing environment, the ONC(TM) networking standard and DeskSet(TM) productivity applications) and is being submitted for SCD compliance. Later this year, the SPARCstation 10 will run Solaris 2.0, which provides support for symmetrical multiprocessing and which will feature a multithreaded kernel. The Solaris 2.0 environment is based on UNIX System V Release 4 (SVR4) and is source compatible with Solaris 1.1 so that applications that adhere to Sun's Solaris 2.0 migration guidelines will only need to be recompiled to run under Solaris 2.0. SPARCengine 10: Power for Embedded Applications Also unveiled today by SMCC was the SPARCengine(R) 10. Available in two models, the new board-level version of the SPARCstation 10 extends the company's lead as the world's largest vendor of RISC-based, single-board computers for embedded applications such as factory automation, medical instrumentation, telecommunications, laptop computers and ruggedized command and control systems for the military. Pricing, Availability The uniprocessor models of the SPARCstation 10 will be available with Solaris 1.1 in the third quarter of 1992. The SPARCstation 10/Model 30 is priced at $18,495 (U.S. list); the SPARCstation 10/Model 41 is priced at $24,995 (U.S. list). The SPARCstation 10/Model 52 is priced at $39,995 (U.S. list) and will be available in the fourth quarter of 1992. These workstations will be shipped with a future version of Solaris 2.0 in the fourth quarter of 1992. The SPARCstation 10/Model 54 is priced at $57,995 (U.S. list) and will be available in the first quarter of 1993. The SPARCengine 10/Model 30 and SPARCengine 10/Model 41 will be available with Solaris 1.1 in the third quarter of 1992. The SPARCengine 10/Model 30 is priced at $11,500 (U.S. list). The SPARCengine 10/Model 41 is priced at $18,000 (U.S. list). A server version of the SPARCstation 10, with prices beginning at $16,995 (U.S. list), is also available. (See separate press release.) The new products will be available through all Sun distribution channels worldwide. Sun Microsystems Computer Corporation, a subsidiary of Sun Microsystems, Inc., is the world's leading supplier of client-server computing solutions, which feature networked workstations and servers that store, process and distribute information. Sun Microsystems, Inc., founded in 1982 and headquartered in Mountain View, Calif., is a multibillion-dollar corporation doing business worldwide. ### Sun, Sun Microsystems, the Sun logo, SuperCache, Sun-3, Sun386i, SunSoft, Solaris, ELC, IPC, IPX, SunOS, OpenWindows, ONC and DeskSet are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. All SPARC trademarks, including the SCD Compliant logo, are trademarks or registered trademarks of SPARC International, Inc. SPARCstation, SPARCengine and SPARCserver are licensed exclusively to Sun Microsystems, Inc. SuperSPARC is licensed to Texas Instruments, Inc. Products bearing SPARC trademarks are based on an architecture developed by Sun Microsystems Inc. UNIX is a registered trademark of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. All other products or service names mentioned herein are trademarks of their respective owners. For reader inquiries, telephone 1-800-821-4643. PR contact: Sun Microsystems Computer Corp. Carol Sacks (415) 336-0521 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 92 08:12:37 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: ISDN Fantasy Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article Bob_Frankston@frankston.com writes: > Would it be nice if there were the electronic equivalent of leaving a > business card? In particular, a text (ASCII?) message that I could > leave in addition to or in place of voice mail. While one can > implement this without ISDN, ISDN provides the appropriate mechanism > for standardizing the necessary protocols. Our ISDN system (AT&T 7506 ISDN sets, plus Electronic Directory) has a mechanism for leaving and retrieving text messages. I believe only the "Message Center" can currently enter arbitrary text messages. However, all the sets here have a button labeled "Leave Word" that, when depressed, will leave a "prebuilt" text message with the current active called party -- even if the call has been answered or forwarded to Voice Mail. Leaving such a message will light the same "Message" lamp that Voice Mail uses. Pressing Leave Word when the line has a forwarding number (but hasn't yet forwarded) also flashes the "Call Forward" lamp briefly to indicate that forwarding will occur if you stay on the call. Retrieving messages uses the "Retrieve" button (and others to scan, display and delete). Leave Word prebuilt messages indicate the calling number (and associated name if available), the date and time of the message, and the text phrase "Please return my call." If you Leave Word multiple times, the date/time reflects the latest use and the text states "N Please return my calls.", where N is the number of uses. The "Auto Call" button can automatically call the party whose message is currently displayed. > Oh well, I'll have to setting for synthesizing voice so that the > receiving system can do speech to text following the precedent of > Text-> Fax-> OCR-> Text. As Miss Manners says, "Eeeeeewwwwww!" The voice version of a business card would surely be in "your" voice, no? And a voice- stored version of the "text" card would be a bit-mapped, compressed, file stored as 1200 baud FSK audio, right? Such things would be very much like a business card that was MAILED to you, or stuck in your door/mailbox. Very cold, compared to a personal message (or a handwritten note). Of course, if your intent is blanket message-leaving, rather than the personal touch, so be it ... Al Varney - these are my opinions, and not Official AT&T Opinions. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 92 23:49:27 CDT From: Patton M. Turner Subject: Re: ISDN Charging > One of the major drawbacks of residential ISDN service is the per > minute charging on the line. In the case of PacBell, and probably the > other RBOCs, ISDN has been tariffed as part of Centrex. If someone > wanted to use ISDN as a lower cost internet connection, couldn't they > set up a two line Centrex, one line in their house and the other at > the destination? I don't believe that RBOCs charge for calls between > extensions in a Centrex group. Well that may be an option but Centrex is usually only available for lines from the same CO. The prefixes must also be the same, but this wouldn't be a problem. Here in Alabama (SCB) (Mississippi too I think), Bellsouth does not have a tariff for their ESSEX (Centrex) service for less than 8 lines. I understand they have filed for a three line Centrex tarriff, but it has not been approved. If anyone is interested, bare bones 2B + D will run $35 more than a regular Centrex line Residential ISDN will have to wait until after January when they will file a tariff for it. Unfortunataly I won't be arround then. Personaly I like Fred Goldstein's suggestion, but I wonder if it's legal. I suspect it work for any call that wouldn't be subject to a u law/A law conversion, rather than just local ones. Pat Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #403 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01608; 21 May 92 11:03 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27114 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 21 May 1992 01:15:56 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30597 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 21 May 1992 01:15:47 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 01:15:47 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205210615.AA30597@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #404 TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 May 92 01:16:49 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 404 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Phil Howard) Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? (Ed Greenberg) Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (Tom Watson) Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors (Alan L. Varney) Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) (Rob Warnock) Re: *67 and Related Topics (Joe Konstan) Re: *67 and Related Topics (Lars Poulsen) Re: *67 and Related Topics (Phil Howard) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? Date: Wed, 20 May 92 21:24:27 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) writes: > zippy@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) writes: >> Has anyone tried using a LD carrier for local calls? Since you'd have >> to use the (800) number to dial locally (10xxx being blocked for this >> sort of thing), would you get calling card rates or LD rates if you >> made the call from your home phone? > Who says 10xxx is blocked for local calls? Last June, C&P's > Switching system for local calls went down in Washington, DC, and > seven digit calls would not go through. I merely prefixed my calls > with 10xxx + 1 + areacode and number. Worked every time. (MCI > charged me $.80 a call, so I wouldn't recommend doing this instead of > using C&P ...) In 217-384 IBT does block 10xxx for local and MSA calls. I suppose you could still use the 800 numbers for calling cards and just refer to a local number (I doubt if they try to distinguish the difference). K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand) writes: > I subscribe to Long Distance North for my home long distance sevice. > When I signed up they provided stickers that said: > "Dial 1 700 for savings > Remember, for instate long > distance calls dial 1-700 > plus the 7-digit number." > I thought this was pretty cool. Apparently when my call gets to their > switch, their switch strips the 700 and translates it to 603. > [Moderator's Note: I wonder how that will work out when the new 700 > service from AT&T gets started ... in fact I wonder how many of the > various special schemes going on in the 700 range will be forced into > prepending 10xxx to avoid conflict with the new bunch of numbers? PAT] Maybe LDN is doing that to get MSA calls. But clearly if 700 numbers have distinct spaces per LD carrier, then one needs to direct the call to that carrier, else the switch can't know which one applies (and would have to assume the default). Yes, someone having LDN as their LD carrier will have to dial 10288 in front of calls to AT&T's 700 numbers. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: LD Carrier as Local Phone Company? Date: Tue, 19 May 92 16:07:48 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) > [Moderator's Note: I wonder how that will work out when the new 700 > service from AT&T gets started ... in fact I wonder how many of the > various special schemes going on in the 700 range will be forced into > prepending 10xxx to avoid conflict with the new bunch of numbers? PAT] Probably all of them. The AT&T rep I spoke to agreed with me that instructions to callers should include 10288. One thing that's not clear is if 10288 + 0 + 700 is required in order to enter a PIN. We won't know until we're up, I guess. Ed Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com P. O. Box 28618 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95159 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 92 20:39:47 -0700 From: johana!tsw@apple.com (Tom Watson) Subject: Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors Organization: FBN/GRQ Ink. I had a very interesting experience with 'routing' errors (this was back in late 1987). I was 'corresponding' with a friend in a remote part of Washington state (509/826) and after a few calls (they were about twice a week) I got a recording '... your call cannot be completed as dialed ...' or some such. I begin to think, that's wierd she didn't move, or stop paying the bill, so I become 'possessed' with trying to complete the call. Attempt #1, call operator (AT&T), they get same results. Attempt #2, use another carrier (MCI, no same recording), Sprint, seems to work (that's weird!!). Next call (a few days pass), Attempt #1, dial direct (nope!), Attempt #2, call operator (AT&T again.) nope. Attempt #3, ask operator "please try that thru 509 inward" (by golly, it works!!). I think nothing of this until the next day, when I get a call at work from "Long Distance repair" (no, I didn't call them, they called me!!). I talk to the guy, seems that they called me (I wasn't at home), so they called my 'correspondent' and she told them where I worked. Then the explanation. Seems that a new #4 ESS was installed in Seattle (206 area which routes for 509) and they forgot to program in the routes for the prefix I was using (509/826, it was a small town), and my astute information (using 509 inward) helped them find the 'problem'. I asked what to do if I had similar problems, and they said to call them on their 800 number (which I have forgotten, but is probably available at 800 information) and they will take care of it. Interesting saga ... I am no longer 'corresponding' with this person (another story ... doesn't belong in this news group). Tom Watson johana!tsw@apple.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 92 12:20:01 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: On Getting Telco to Correct Routing Errors Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > Well, Pat, welcome to the club! I had a very similar experience about > a month ago, but the villian in my case was AT&T. Only with the help > of my LEC (US West) was the problem solved. This is interestingly > just the opposite of your experience. I guess I'll start from the > beginning: > I live in Seattle, and my home phone is served from US West's 206-527 > exchange. I was trying to call a friend's cellular phone on 206-921, > which is in Vancouver, WA, and in the Portland LATA, thus an > inter-LATA call. When I called, I got a "Your call cannot be > completed as dialed. Please check the number and try your call > again." recording. I did both, and got the same result. > The problem turned out to be in AT&T's 4ESS in Seattle. It was > mis-routing calls from this area that were bound for my particular > called prefix in such a manner that they were handed off to US West, > but such that US West couldn't complete the call. Let me formally apologize for the run-around you got with the AT&T Operators. They usually do far more than required, and are a good reason to "Choose AT&T". But out of the thousands of queries they get every day (including some really off-the-wall cellular ones), some are bound to go to the wrong place or get the wrong answer. (Of course, this isn't an OFFICIAL apology, 'cause I'm only giving you my opinion on this ...) > I commented on how it must be really nice to have all of the secret > numbers to get a hold of the proper people directly. She said "Yea, I > don't think I'm really supposed to call those people, but it does come > in handy in cases like these." For future reference, the official listed/advertised number for AT&T Long Distance Repair Service is: 1-800-222-3000. It's in almost any telephone book under: "AT&T COMPANY, Maintenance & Repair, Long Distance Services Repair". Note that some telephone books are not very consistent in listing AT&T in the front of the 'A' section, with the rest of the capitalized business listings -- sometimes its in the alphabetical order as if it were "At&t". > So once the right person was aware of the problem, it was solved > immediately. But it took a lot of persistance, and some luck, to get > through to them. Oh, by the way, someone from AT&T Long Lines Repair > did call me two days later to inform me that they had checked my > account, and that my bill had been paid on time, so I should not be > having any problems. Your description sounds like the Seattle 4 ESS(tm) switch was routing the cellular NXX to the wrong Point of Presence (POP), or to the wrong switch. When an incoming call arrives at the first switch in the terminating LATA, the called number is checked to determine if this switch is a "sub-tending switch" for that number. This prevents an IXC from delivering a call to one end of a LATA and forcing the LEC to tandem the call across the entire LATA. The LEC tells the IXCs which NXXs can be delivered to specific switches. In the case of direct trunks to an CO, only the NXXs defined in that CO should arrive there. A tandem in the LATA will usually serve as the first terminating switch for some group of COs (the "sub-tending COs" for the tandem). Cellular NXXs are usually arbitrarily allocated to tandems, since the call has to switch back out to the cellular switch. But this isn't always the tandem that gets other normal LEC calls; sometimes the LEC plays games by assigning portions of the NXX to different switches, or changes the "location" of the NXX. I don't know what the problem was in Seattle, but there are certainly occasional problems relating to cellular NXXs. That said, I must also say that the announcement you received, "Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please check the number and try your call again.", is not appropriate for the sub-tending screening failure I described, or for any other terminating-LATA failure I can imagine. I know that's what Bellcore recommends for the screening failure (No. 40 announcement), but (as you found out), it makes finding the problem a real PAIN for the LEC and the IXC! Bellcore required every switch vendor to provide for a special announcement for this failure, but then they just recommend the same old Vacant Code announcement! Since this announcement can also occur for any call to Vacant Codes, but usually goes to AIS ("The number your have reached, N N X ..."), one could ASSUME the announcement these days means you have hit a situation involving sub-tending screening. Note that it's also an announcement that is permitted for calls that require 10XXX dialing (non-presubscribed lines) and for calls to 800 numbers from an area not allowed to call that number (out-of-band). But those are probably low-probability situations. Successfully completing the call through another carrier doesn't assure the IXC is at fault, but does indicate there is a mis-match between the IXC and the LEC interface. Hope this clears up (rather than muddies) the issue. Al Varney - not an Official spokesperson or apologist for AT&T. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 May 92 23:54:25 -0700 From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Subject: Re: PacBell ISDN (was What Telcos REALLY Want) Reply-To: rpw3@sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > I think that one of the big issues right now is that ISDN is possibly > offered by Pacific Bell only from DMS-100's. Most of Pacific Bell's > switches are 1AESS or 5ESS at this point. So *that's* what shot me down ... Bummer. > ...there are some points of their ISDN offering that they are doing RIGHT: > 2. Offering 2B+D as the standard BRI. Isn't some RBOC back east > offering an ultra-lame 1B+D as their base offering? Well, 2B+D is "standard" only if you get PacBell's "Feature Package C" or "D". Here a short summary of the ISDN Feature Packages and their monthly prices: - Analog line on your ISDN Centrex (voice only, obv.): $15.65/mo. A. ISDN "Voice package" = 1B, voice use only: $17.50/mo. B. ISDN Voice on 1B + D-channel packet data: $26.00/mo. C. "Full ISDN", voice or data on 2B + D-channel packet: $29.50/mo. D. ISDN "Double voice package" = 2B, voice use only: $25.50/mo. Only Feature Package C is full 2B+D ISDN as we usually think of it. And even then PacBell requires that you specify at *service-order* time which B channels on which lines will be used for voice or data (pick one only). Other notes: 1. All of the "Feature Packages" include all of the usual "voice extras" for B channels used for voice: call-waiting, 3-way calling, call-forwarding, etc. 2. Feature Package D is about 18% cheaper than two analog lines. This is what PacBell is pushing to their large customers to get them to try ISDN. 3. By "D-channel packet" I mean that in addition to using the D channel for call setup of the B channels, you can use the D-channel to access a *PacBell*-provided "X.25"-like packet switch. *Much* more expensive per bit than sending data full speed down a B channel, but may be useful to some very light data users (e.g., credit-card verification, security alarms, etc.). There is a small extra charge if you want more than one open virtual circuit at a time on your D-channel packet ($1.00/mo/15_circuits/device). Plus you pay additional per-packet rates for out-of-Centrex packets. This is basically similar to Telenet or Tymnet packet service, and priced the same. 4. You can also get a B-channel permanent virtual circuit to a PacBell packet switch (like "D-channel packet", but 64 Kb/s), but the rates are outrageous: $350/mo (+$5/mo/15-vir-circuits over 15), *plus* per packet charges for out-of-Centrex packets. (Priced like a 56K line to Telenet/Tymnet, ne?) Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)390-1673 <-- New number! 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. "Please make a note of it..." Mountain View, CA 94043 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 May 92 12:52:22 PDT From: konstan@elmer-fudd.cs.berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics In TELECOM Digest V12 #396 our Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Indeed, where 'per-line' blocking is available, *67 > acts like a toggle for one call only, performing the *opposite* > function of the line's default status. Really, it seems like the best > possible scenario. Even the ID blockers occassionally want to make > their number known. Admittedly one has to know which way the toggle > will work before using it. PAT] Indeed, I can't think of many worse scenarios. The "best possible" given the current phone interface would be two codes (e.g., *67 and *68) each of which set a specific mode (block vs. send) regardless of the default for the line. I've been discussing "toggle" and other relative controls (in the domain of stereo/video equipment) in comp-human-factors, and it is pretty clear that even at their best these controls are terribly non-programmable. Imagine the confusion an autodialer would have if you could set your phone so that 1+ meant out-of-area code or 1+ meant within area code (with other calls being 7D or 10D without 1+). Also, imagine the error messages that our phone companies are likely to have: "The caller you have reached does not accept blocked calls, please call again without entering *67" "But operator, I didn't enter *67!" I heartily encourage Tony Harminc to pressure the CRTC to avoid such a poor interface. Joe Konstan konstan@cs.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: But the message would not be 'please call again without entering *67'; it would be 'please dial again without blocking your ID; if blocking is by default, then prepend *67 and dial your call again.' PAT] ------------------------------ From: lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA Date: Tue, 19 May 92 17:26:29 GMT There are many other features that are activated with *xx and #xx codes. I am not aware of any other features, where the same code is used for activating and deactivating the feature. While I agree that both commands are needed, they need different command codes. Ideally, all such features should use a common syntax, such as *xx for enable, and #xx for disable. Or *xx for enable and xx* for disable. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM CMC (Rockwell Digital Systems) Telephone: +1-805-968-4262 Santa Barbara, CA 93117-5503 TeleFAX: +1-805-968-8256 ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: *67 and Related Topics Date: Wed, 20 May 92 21:54:00 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) I do believe it would have been better to have a DIFFERENT prefix for block and for unblock. The only reasons I can see for a toggle is to save space in the prefix space. I don't see that need. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #404 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03030; 21 May 92 11:31 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02708 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 21 May 1992 02:09:36 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20358 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 21 May 1992 02:09:28 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 02:09:28 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205210709.AA20358@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #405 TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 May 92 02:09:29 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 405 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (Norm Nithman) Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (John R. Levine) Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes (Bud Couch) EasyReach 700 and International Calls (Nigel Roberts) Re: AT&T Easyreach 700: In Service? (Phil Howard) Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud (Kath Mullholand) Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud (Michael F. Eastman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman) Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes Organization: Systems Development Corporation Date: Tue, 19 May 1992 14:36:13 GMT > pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) writes: > From what I have been told (and I could easily have been told > incorrectly), the 700 number (555-4141) was created to take some of > the pressure off local phone companies when people called in asking > what their ld carrier was. To my knowledge, I have yet to see another > 1-700 number anywhere else (if anyone has some, i'd be interested in > seeing them). US Telecom had a 700 number that provided sports news and such for a fee but I don't know if it still exists since their absorption by MCI. They also had a "test drive" 700 number that was free for that service. Norm [Moderator's Note: They still offer the Voice News Network via a 700 number (prepend 10835) if Telecom*USA is not your default carrier) and the same service is available via *1 when using a Telecom Calling Card. In addition, they also allow local calls by dialing 1-700 plus the seven digit number. But I think 10835 is only by pre-subscription. You cannot be a casual user. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 19 May 92 17:25:20 EDT (Tue) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) > I don't have any trouble, from work or from home. (Although > 9-1-700-555-4141 reports AT&T and travelling service representatives > are issued Sprint cards.) If you're dialing from behind a PBX, there's no way to tell what actually gets passed to the CO when you dial. In particular, it's quite possible that since switching primary carriers costs $5/line, when your employer switched to Sprint they merely told the PBX to prepend 10333 to any toll call and saved the $5. But you can't dial 10XXX in front of 800, 900, and some other special numbers so when you dial a 700 number, it probably doesn't stuff the 10333. Or it might be even more complex -- at this point the only widely used 700 numbers I've seen other than 555-4141 are the numbers for AT&T's Alliance automated conference calling. Furthernore, 700 numbers on Brand X long distance carriers are totally unregulated and can be charged like 900 calls. Someone at the PBX might have set it up to stuff 10288 in front of any 700 number regardless of who the usual presubscribed carrier is. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: kentrox!bud@uunet.UU.NET (Bud Couch) Subject: Re: 700 Numbers, Calling Cards, and Carrier Access Codes Organization: ADC Kentrox, Portland OR Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 17:13:58 GMT In article pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) writes: > I've seen lots of 700 numbers, including at the TV station I used to > work for. As far as I know all these numbers were some sort of TWX or > Teletype network. I don't know if those 700 numbers are in the same > addressable space as the 700 numbers AT&T's service proposes. 710 *was* used for four-row TWX service( it's somebody's area code now). AT&T Switched 56 Accunet Service reserved the 700-560-xxxx and 700-561-xxxx series numbers to that service. Bud Couch If my employer only knew ... standard BS applies ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 92 05:29:05 PDT From: Nigel Roberts Subject: EasyReach 700 and International calls As I understand it, inward calls to the US from abroad may be carried over any one of a number of the US LD networks. So what happens if I want to call someone in the US who has a 700 number? Do I have to keep re-dialing until, by the luck of the draw, the call gets routed over AT&T? (Oh sorry, I forgot, the civilised world consists only of the USA -- and occasionally Canada, Hawaii and Alaska :^/ ) Nigel Roberts, European Engineer "G4IJF" +44 206 396610 / +49 6103 383489 FAX +44 206 393148 [Moderator's Note: No need to be sarcastic. What makes you think that when the European switch sees 700 it won't automatically default it to AT&T? For that matter, maybe 700 will be treated like 800 and not auto- matically extended. They may require going through USA Direct like 800 numbers do now. I know if I get a 700 number I don't want to have to pay for international calls. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: AT&T Easyreach 700: In Service? Date: Wed, 20 May 92 21:59:32 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) writes: > I had a long conversation with an AT&T rep about this. She seemed to > know her stuff (which is why I don't call her a salesdroid.) Who? What number did you call to reach her? > According to said rep: The call can be dialed with or without a PIN. > If the caller uses a PIN, the EasyReach subscriber pays. If the > caller does NOT use a pin, the caller pays the same rate that the > subscriber would pay. > It's not clear whether the caller can charge the cost of the call to a > calling card. This all comes across to me as a means for AT&T to get more business by hosting a number of subscribers that will give out numbers that have to be dialed through AT&T. I certainly very much doubt if one's Sprint or MCI cards will work. I would expect the AT&T card(s) to work. I'm not knocking AT&T for doing this ... I would certainly WANT them to if I were a stockholder. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com [Moderator's Note: Of course there is nothing preventing the other carriers from starting a similar deal is there? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 9:12:11 -0400 (EDT) From: K_MULLHOLAND@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Kath Mullholand, UNH Telecom, 862-1031) Subject: Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com writes: > By now, y'all know what happens when somebody hacks a DISA. They call > in to the company on the company's 800 number (which costs the > company), then they use the DISA to call Pakistan, or wherever, again, > on the company's phone bill. In just about every case, the company > proves that they didn't make these calls, and gets one or both items > taken off their bill; it costs them only the minor administrative ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > headache of dealing with an RBOC's billing department, which seems to > me to be a fair price for practically leaving money laying on the > doorstep. > So, what got stolen and whom did it get stolen from? According to what I have read and experienced, it is nearly impossible (if not totally impossible) to get DISA fraud taken off one's bill. A local TV station had DISA fraud against them to the tune of $10,000 or so (I didn't see the bills, so that is a rumored number and may be way out of line). They never collected from the RBOC or their LD carrier or their switch installer, who left the DISA ports open in the first place. A major corporation that constructs aircraft for the feds (as well as other things) has a huge case pending with AT&T for DISA fraud. I have not read that the case has been resolved, but what I have read to date makes me believe the corporation is out several hundred thousand dollars. This in DISA fraud that took place over a single weekend. So, what got stolen? Services, which are always difficult to define. If my mechanic adjusts things on my car without using any parts, and I don't pay him, what got stolen? If I buy pirated software or musical recordings, what got stolen? Literally, nothing, but the *impact* of the theft on *whoever* is left holding the bag is that the TV station (for instance) increases their advertising rates, which increases the cost of doing business for their advertisers, which increases the cost of the products you and I buy. The end result, and the real reason we support laws against victimless crimes, is that the answer to "from whom was it stolen?" is me and you and everyone else. kath mullholand university of new hampshire durham, nh [Moderator's Note: I only disagree with you on one point: There is no such thing as 'victimless crimes'. All crimes have victims. It is just that sometimes it is easier to discern the victim(s) than other times, and that the process of victimization can be very slow, with little immediate notice. When it is decided there are no longer any victims -- or never were any -- then the activity which was formerly a crime is redefined and decriminalized or decodified. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 92 12:26:31 EDT From: mfe@ihlpm.att.com (Michael F Eastman) Subject: Re: Toll Fraud vs Credit Card Fraud Organization: AT&T In article , mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@ mhs.attmail.com writes: > I hope that most people had enough common sense to know that stealing > a haircut at gunpoint differs from phreaking in several important > ways. First of all, there is the obvious threat of violence. More > relevant, though, is the fact that a haircut requires actual dedicated > resources and the full-time attention of at least one employee. If > every phone call required the full-time supervision of one or more > phone company employees, this would be a valid metaphor. It has a > been a LONG time since this was true. So if I steal the diamond bracelet mentioned later in your explanation, that's OK as long as I don't tie up the resources of any employee to do it (like at night after store hours)? C'mon, theft is theft. > By now, y'all know what happens when somebody hacks a DISA. They call > in to the company on the company's 800 number (which costs the > company), then they use the DISA to call Pakistan, or wherever, again, > on the company's phone bill. In just about every case, the company > proves that they didn't make these calls, and gets one or both items > taken off their bill; ... Is that so. How does the company PROVE this? How do you know the charges are removed? In fact, AT&T went to court with a customer over this very issue. ONE or BOTH items! Try thousands of these items! > So, what got stolen and whom did it get stolen from? Well, there were > trunk lines and so forth in use, both here and in Pakistan (or > wherever). But since the exchanges are pretty well all non-blocking > and the capacity sufficient to handle peak loads, nobody was denied > use of it. Ah, but how did the network get to be nonblocking and able to handle PEAK loads? By estimating the number of PEAK calls, building the network to meet the capacity and then determining the charges to recover costs. So if we add X more calls to network for phreaking and the network size grows, who pays for this? > The company's LD carrier got stuck paying the foreign-PTT > interchange charge. I certainly =hope= that there's a charge-back > procedure for errors in billing; I should think that it could be used > in these circumstances. (If not, then what, is the Dutch PTT eating > the costs? If so, then they obviously figure they can afford it; it's > probably less than the cost of enforcement.) The money they would > have otherwise paid for a call to Pakistan? Ah, those foreign PTTs must be printing their own money to cover these costs. A PTT is a business, albeit, a regulated one. They provide a service and charge to recover costs plus some profit. > Do you really think that most phreakers could afford that call? Do you really think that I can afford that diamond bracelet you mention later? Why can't I just have it? If I take it, do I get treated like someone else who litters? Are you trying to justify stealing? > So nobody's actually missing any money or service, just some > administrative time cleaning up the billing and not much of that. Oh, how naive we are!!! What happens when NO ONE pays for their phone service? Well, I, for one, am out of a job along with about 300,000 other people. It is estimated that phone fraud costs at least one billion dollars a year and is growing. How do you think the (collective) phone companies recover this money? They don't print their own money, so they have to get it from someone. They get it from higher rates from all of the HONEST customers. I would rather see tougher enforcement and treating it like the crime it is. > Cardholder says he or she never made that purchase, and calls his or > her bank, and the bank initiates a chargeback. The merchant's bank > charges back the mail order house, who admits they didn't do address > validation or whatever. Where is the analogy to the phone system? No one answers the phone at the PBX to validate the phone "transaction" to place the call to Pakistan. > Sometimes it goes into dispute (and that's where MasterCard, the > corporation, gets involved, as a "court" for such disputes between > member banks), but it's a near certainty that the cardholder isn't the > one left holding the bag. So either the mail order vendor is out one > diamond bracelet unpaid-for, or one of the banks is out of the cash > that should have paid for that diamond bracelet. In either case, > either real money or real property is missing. Oh my, now we change our standards don't we? A service (like phone service) is not merchandise because we can't hold it in our hands? Only "real" money pays for the real property, but not for the service? Well, believe you me, I work for a telecommunications company and I get paid in "real" money or I walk!!! > In both cases, the person whose service (DISA, MasterCard) was used is > out nothing but the hassle of initiating a chargeback. But in one > case, the service "stolen" was a tiny slice of bandwidth that impacted > nobody, and imposed no costs on anybody, and in the other, real > merchandise was stolen. NOW do you see the difference? Nice try, but no! Why don't you turn the argument around. It was only one bracelet out of hundreds of thousands produced every month. So who cares? The people that make and sell bracelets care. They aren't in business if no one pays for the service/merchandise -- NOW do you see? > Hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of merchandise is being stolen > with stolen credit card numbers and forged cards. Obviously, this > merits investigation and prosecution. Tiny slices of network > bandwidth are being stolen by phone phreaks. Does this cost-justify > the same level of effort? Phone fraud is of the same proportions, so you've now just justified what you are arguing against. > And don't forget those social costs! Retired phone phreaks > practically invented the personal computer industry. Oh really! I bet they never stole phone services! > If they had been caught early and prosecuted and blacklisted, which > some of you seem to be calling for, America would be out one more > industry. What, if anything, of value have credit-card thieves > contributed to society? How to put holograms on credit cards for one! > By the way, I believe that the vast majority of what MasterCard spends > on credit card fraud DOES go into prevention and education; I know > that the part of member services that gives fraud-reduction seminars > and the part of the security department that helps merchants and banks > protect their transactions are much, much larger than the part of the > security department that investigates fraud after the fact. That's because, as YOU stated earlier, they generally are not out any money, it's the merchant or the issuing bank. The merchants and the banks rely on the police to CATCH the card thieves, and the courts and the lawyers to get CRIMINAL charges. Then you forget insurance costs and the write off of bad debt on tax returns which we all pay for! > They were warned, so nobody feels any sympathy. The theft was still > a crime, and if the crook who was using the stolen card gets caught, > he'll be prosecuted -- but nobody should waste tears on the victim. I am sorry, but I do have sympathy for the victim. Not everyone believes that thieves only victimize those that deserve it! If NO ONE feels sympathy for the victim, then why do we bother to try to catch the "crook" at all. What would happen to YOUR job if no one ever paid for their transactions done by credit card and we had to go back to cash on the spot? Maybe we should go to a system of PAYPHONES only for all calls? Think about what you are saying. Mike Eastman att!ihlpm!mfe (708) 979-6569 AT&T Bell Laboratories Rm. 4F-328 Naperville, IL 60566 [Moderator's Note: Mike, you will never convince phreaks and hackers (using the perjorative meaning of the latter word) and their Socially Responsible defenders that they are nothing more than your common garden-variety thief. To them, its always a matter of persecution by the evil government, and a chilling of their intellectual curiosity, free speech, et al, ad nauseum. So quit trying already. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #405 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17689; 22 May 92 3:49 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00974 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 22 May 1992 01:53:46 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31774 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 22 May 1992 01:53:37 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 01:53:37 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205220653.AA31774@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #406 TELECOM Digest Fri, 22 May 92 01:53:35 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 406 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Telephone Line Monitor (Plans) Wanted (Sean Petty) DECnews/Digital, RAM, and Bellsouth Agree (Monty Solomon) Some Things Work Out (Ronald Elliott) Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded? (Carl M. Kadie) Ordering Voice Service (Tim Gorman) Best Voice-Fax Switch? (Sandy Kyrish) Introductory Reference Wanted (S. Jonathan Silverman) CALLER-ID Arrives July 1 in Area Code 516 (Dave Niebuhr) Electronic Show Open to Public This Year! (TELECOM Moderator) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: seanp@undr.org (Sean Petty) Subject: Telephone Line Monitor (Plans) Wanted Date: 21 May 92 21:07:13 GMT Reply-To: Sean Petty Organization: The Underground - Pennsylvania Presently, a local ambulance organization of which I am a member is looking into getting some type of telephone line monitor. Our setup is as follows: The main emergency line people call runs through our PBX system, and rings on all the phones in the building, however, we don't answer it, we just let it ring, and our main dispatch center answers it. The way it works now, the phone rings, our dispatch center answers it, and takes the call. Unfortunately, we can't hear what's going on when the dispatcher answers the phone. What we would like to be able to do, is listen to the conversation via a speaker as the dispatcher talks, so we know exactly what we're going out for. However, the unit should be totally automatic. It should kick the speaker on when the call is answered, and disconnect the speaker when the call is disconnected. The unit cannot interrupt or alter the normal use/audio of the line. I have a good electronics backround, and can assemble just about anything from a good schematic. What I am looking for is just that, a schematic for this device. Or, possible alternatives include commercial units, pointers to schematics, suggestions, etc. Any help is greatly appreciated. Sean Petty undr!seanp@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM ICBMnet: 39'58'12"N 75'84'26"W seanp@undr.org ------------------------------ From: Monty Solomon Subject: DECnews/Digital, RAM, and Bellsouth Agree Date: 19 May 92 15:36:21 GMT Reply-To: price@mrktng.enet.dec.com Organization: DEC Palo Alto Digital Equipment Corporation Maynard, Massachusetts 01754-2571 Editorial contact: See End of Release DIGITAL, RAM, AND BELLSOUTH AGREE TO DEVELOP MOBILE DATA SOLUTIONS WORLDWIDE ATLANTA -- May 18, 1992 -- Digital Equipment Corporation, RAM Mobile Data, and BellSouth Enterprises, Inc. today announced a worldwide agreement to provide mobile data solutions based on the Mobitex mobile packet radio network. Under the agreement, Digital will offer two-way wireless electronic mail to its more than three million existing ALL-IN-1 integrated office system customers. Digital is developing a version of its Mobilizer for ALL-IN-1 software that will enable users of portable MS-DOS PCs to access ALL-IN-1 electronic mail applications without a connection to a telephone outlet. Digital plans to provide the same services on the Mobitex mobile network in the United Kingdom. In addition, wireless electronic mail services will be offered to customers in several other countries where RAM and BellSouth plan to operate Mobitex networks. Digital's wireless electronic mail offering will be available in the first quarter of calendar year 1993. Digital also announced the DECmobile program, under which the company will deliver fully integrated, end-to-end mobile data communications solutions that extend enterprise computing networks to mobile users. The announcements were made at the ICA telecommunications industry conference held here May 18-21. "With these announcements, Digital is moving aggressively into the fast-growing mobile data market," said Ernst E. Wellhoener, vice president of Digital's Telecommunications Business Group. "We are supporting our commitment with substantial investments of time, money, and resources to build the kinds of mobile data solutions our customers require." Digital Becomes RAM Mobile Data Systems Integrator Under the DECmobile program, Digital will offer customers complete mobile data solutions, acting as systems integrator for RAM Mobile Data and other service providers. Digital will provide a single point of contact for customers seeking to benefit from new mobile data communications services. Digital is entering into business relationships with leading suppliers of radio modems, handheld PCs, and cellular devices. The company currently has relationships with Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, Fujitsu Personal Systems (formerly Poqet Computer Corporation), and Husky Computers, Inc. "The move into mobile data represents a natural progression for Digital, a leader in providing networked computer systems and one of the computer industry's foremost systems integrators," Wellhoener said. "Our ability to provide 'one-stop shopping' for mobile data solutions helps simplify what might otherwise be a difficult process for our customers, enabling them to get up-to-speed faster and more cost-effectively." Wellhoener said Digital chose Mobitex networks because they are feature-rich, sophisticated, and highly efficient. "And perhaps most important, the worldwide scope of Mobitex networks will enable us to meet the needs of today's multinational enterprises," Wellhoener added. Mike Harrell, president of BellSouth Mobile Data, Inc., said the alliance would enable mobile data network subscribers to take advantage of Digital's worldwide systems integration capabilities. "Aligning ourselves with an experienced systems integrator ensures our network subscribers have the most effective solutions," Harrell said. "We can now expand the market for Mobitex into a broad range of networked computer applications." Carl Robert Aron, chairman and CEO of RAM, said, "ALL-IN-1 is the world's leading host-based application that includes electronic mail. RAM's Mobitex network is the only mobile data network in operation which automatically delivers E-mail messages to mobile professionals wherever they are within the network service area. The marriage of Mobitex and Mobilizer for ALL-IN-1 was inevitable." Digital Develops Mobile Data Products and Programming Tools In addition to developing a wireless interface for its Mobilizer for ALL-IN-1 product, Digital is developing an open software architecture and a single set of application programming interfaces that will be available to software developers. The architecture and application programming interfaces, or APIs, facilitate the integration of new and existing mobile applications for RAM's and other service providers' networks. APIs make it easy for developers to write mobile data applications. BellSouth Mobile Data is a subsidiary of BellSouth Enterprises, Inc., the holding company that manages a group of companies for BellSouth Corporation that provide wireless telecommunications, advertising and publishing, and information-based services throughout the world. RAM Mobile Data operates a wireless data communications service in major metropolitan areas across the nation. Using RAM's service, companies exchange two-way messages and data with field personnel equipped with mobile, portable, or handheld terminals. RAM Mobile Data Ltd. operates a similar, compatible system in the United Kingdom. RAM's radio-based data communications network architecture is Mobitex, an international, open standard supplied by Ericsson. RAM has exclusive use of the Mobitex technology in the United States. Mobitex was developed by Ericsson Mobile Communications AB and Swedish Telecom. Digital and Ericsson last year signed a cooperation agreement under which the two companies will develop software tools for the integration of Digital's products with the Mobitex network. Digital Equipment Corporation, headquartered in Maynard, Massachusetts, is the leading worldwide supplier of networked computer systems, software and services. Digital pioneered and leads the industry in interactive, distributed and multivendor computing. Digital and its partners deliver the power to use the best integrated solutions - from desktop to data center - in open information environments. #### Note to Editors: ALL-IN-1, DECmobile, the Digital logo, and Mobilizer for ALL-IN-1 are trademarks of Digital Equipment Corporation. Mobitex is a registered trademark of Swedish Telecom. MS-DOS is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation. RAM Mobile Data's legal name is RAM Mobile Data USA Limited Partnership Editorial Contacts: Digital: Bob Keener Hill and Knowlton (617) 642-5971 RAM: Donna Hayes (212) 373-1930 ICA Booth #1434 BellSouth: Tim Klein (404) 249-4135 DECnews is sent as a courtesy to members of the press. For subscription information please contact: David Price, USS Press Relations, Digital Equipment Corporation Voice:603-884-3467 FAX:603-884-3467 Internet:price@decvax.dec.com ------------------------------ From: caron!ronell@apple.com (Ronald Elliott) Subject: Some Things Work Out Date: 19 May 92 08:22:41 GMT Organization: Science and Technology Center, Apple Valley Ca. Briefly, I've got two lines and had requested U.S. Sprint carry the long distance on the data line (it was a promotion and I already had their Phon card). The letter came today saying they'd switched the wrong one of course (the order was entered but had not yet gone through). Called their 800 number and they said I'd have to talk to the local teleco. Well hold on I said and flashed a conference call. Less than five minutes of conversation and I hung up and tried the "guess your carrier" number that had returned ATT just minutes earlier. Bingo, its now Sprint! Unfortunately I don't recall the Contel (GTE) representatives name so I'l just say to both companies, Thanks, some things do work out. Ronald Elliott Science and Technology Center caron!ronell@mojave.ati.com P.O. Box 2968 Apple Valley, Ca 92307 ------------------------------ From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie) Subject: Are the Deaf Telephone (TDD) Calls Secretly Recorded? Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 13:38:39 GMT The Silent Talk Conference on Fidonet has been discussing the (secret?) recording of telephone calls by TDD users. Here are two short excerpts: Hugues Blanchet writes: > We have the right to complete and total privacy in our > communications and we will not accept a surveillance > system that will affect even one iota of our confidentiality!!! Jack O'Keeffe writes: > This is not only a Canadian concern, Hugues. In an article in the > current ACM "Communications", Karen Kukich, a BellCore researcher > in Morristown, NJ, reports that, "One deaf relay service center was > helpful enough to provide a 40,000-word corpus of TDD transcripts > for study". Can any comp.dcom.telecom readers give the inside scoop on TDD privacy policy? Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me. kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 92 11:31:29 EDT From: tim gorman <71336.1270@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Ordering Voice Service David Clapp writes in TELECOM Digest V12 #400: > Basically, we'd like a T1 cicuit that carries 12 DID lines and 12 > outgoing lines. To get the supervision we need and to simplify the > interface to our equipment we'd like to use E&M emulation with > wink-start. This does not seem unreasonable. We provide this all the time in Kansas SWBT. The three kinds of trunks we see all the time are: Bellcore Service Code Use --------------------- --------------------------------- DI DID (from the ntwk to the PBX DO DOD (from the PBX to the NTWK) TK 2way PBX outdials The TK service is typically line side terminated in the CO using loop or ground start service. The DI and DO service is typically trunk side terminated in the CO and using E&M supervision with wink start address signaling is not only possible but, in my opinion, is the preferred method at least where T1 facilities are used. I would be remiss if I didn't point out that negotiating service arrangements like this is one of the biggest problems we have. I have spent the last ten years trying to train our marketing people in the right questions to ask in order to fully define the service. I have seen some small progress. But sometimes I despair of ever being able to get fully out of the loop. I assume PacBell tariffs are such that they offer trunk side connections for calls from the PBX to the network. If not, you don't have a prayer. If they do, you just need to get to a technical type that knows the tariffs and understands what you want. I would ask your account rep to get hold of a design support person (if they have them in their heirarchy-we do) or a provisioning/translation person that can explain the situation. If this doesn't do, keep escalating it up the lines of organization. Tim Gorman - SWBT *opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 92 15:34 GMT From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Best Voice-Fax Switch? My father has purchased a fax machine and uses it on the second line in his house. Now that the college kids are home for the summer, they use the line too. Please advise on the BEST vioce-fax switch. My father does not trust electronic gadgets such as these and as a result I don't want to buy him one until I'm sure it will be 99% foolproof. Kindly reply to my e-mailbox at 320-9613@mcimail.com. Thanks! Sandy Kyrish ------------------------------ From: sjs6@midway.uchicago.edu (s jonathan silverman) Subject: Introductory Reference Wanted Reply-To: sjs6@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 16:57:29 GMT I've enjoyed "lurking" in this newsgroup for the past few weeks, but periodically encounter a variety of acronyms that I don't understand. More generally, I would like to learn more about the way telephone systems work. Is there a decent introduction to the technology of telecommunica- tions, especially telephone networks? If so, I would appreciate a reference, either posted here or by email if that is more appropriate. Thanks, Jonathan Silverman sjs6@quads.uchicago.edu [Moderator's Note: The references you are seeking will be found in the Telecom Archives files, which are accessible using anonymous ftp from my account at MIT (ftp lcs.mit.edu). Login anonymous, and give your name@site as password. Then 'cd telecom-archives'. Look at the files which contain acronym references, the 'frequent.asked.questions' file and the others. Everyone is welcome to use it. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 92 13:19:03 EDT From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Caller-ID Arrives July 1 in Area Code 516 According to a legal notice in yesterday's {Newsday} and a follow-up talk with a representative of New York Telephone, CLASS services will be made available to certain exchanges in the 516 AC on July 1st. Included are CALLER-ID at $6.00, Call Return at $3.00, Call Trap/Trace at $1.50 per pop and both per-call and per-line blocking. There are other services being added also such as Speed-Calling (8 and 30). My home phone, 516-281-XXXX is one of the affected exchanges as well as 395/399/874/878. I would guess that the larger ones will be activated at this time also. The public announcement to the ratepayers will be made in the June "Hello" blurb that NYTel puts in each bill. In addition to the above, the rep said that I could have my name put on a "pre-release" list and that I would get a call from them for the installation of these services. As of right now, Call Trap/Trace and Last Call Return are available in some exchanges even though the announcement hasn't been made (other than the tariff filing notice). I inquired about boxes and was referred to a company in Connecticut that will ship but just to Connecticut and New York. They have two boxes: 14 number memory for $39 + $5 shipping and handling and another one that has 70 number memory for $79 + $10. The local AT&T Phone Center has an 85 number job for $89 plus tax. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 01:27:33 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Electronic Show Open to Public This Year! The Electronic Show at McCormick Place in Chicago is open to the public this year for the first (and possibly last?) time ever. I have wanted to attend this show for many years and never could get in ... so this year I am definitly going. It is open to the public all day Saturday, May 30 and Sunday, May 31. Admission tickets are about eight dollars each. Anyone from the area plan on attending a week from Saturday? Even out of towners -- if you don't have to travel *too* far, might enjoy coming in for the weekend. I just found out about this today. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #406 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20047; 22 May 92 4:39 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29314 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 22 May 1992 02:38:20 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28459 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 22 May 1992 02:38:09 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 May 1992 02:38:09 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205220738.AA28459@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #407 TELECOM Digest Fri, 22 May 92 02:38:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 407 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Stopping Unwanted Incoming FAX Traffic (Jack Decker) Headset Recomendation Wanted (Jeff Crilly) Facility Data Link (FDL) (Doug Walker) Cellular One/Boston Update (Monty Solomon) MCI Mail Billing (Randy Gellens) Peter Wright: Spycatcher's Encyclopedia (Heinemann Australia) (N. Roberts) Calling France from Interop (Thomas K. Hinders) Pacific Telesis Studies Telco Divestiture (Richard T. Wurth) Australian Telecom Busts (tmarshall01@cc.curtin.edu.au) Meridian Manuals Wanted (Tom Link) 800 Number With "Routing Error" (Warren Burstein) One More Number (Doug Faunt) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 20 May 92 17:08:18 CST From: Jack Decker Subject: Stopping Unwanted Incoming FAX Traffic I thought readers of the TELECOM Digest might like to see (and maybe comment) upon the following message, which is my reply to a message that originally appeared in the Fidonet FCC echo. As I wrote this, I was thinking about the guy who bills telemarketers for the time he spends talking to them on the phone (I don't recall his name, but he was the subject of a previous thread here in the Digest): * From : Jack Decker, 1:154/8 (19 May 92 12:19) * To : Tom Jorgenson * Subj : Re: Pet Peeve On 17 May 92, Tom Jorgenson wrote to All: > I was wondering if anyone else out there had the same pet peeve > as I do - and if anyone had come up with a way to deal with it. > Our company receives 50-60 faxes a week, not from customers who > the fax machine is operated for, but from other companies who barrage us > with price lists and pitches who got our number from a directory of fax > numbers which somebody is selling out there. Typically we end up with a > pile of paper on the floor from these guys. To tell any one company to > -stop- we have to make a long distance telephone call - and many of them > still won't stop, and keep sending their price lists over and over > again. Note that I'm not talking about companies that we've ever contacted, > but companies who simply got our telephone number off a list that somebody > sold them. Unlike regular phone calls, every time they send us one of these > faxes, it costs us money - the paper plus the lost time to customers of the > fax availabilty. Very few companies actually do this, but since the > listings are sold for the entire county and broadcast faxes are easy to set > up, it's beginning to become a major problem. You'd think that these > companies would realize that they were aggravating and stop (my own company > would never consider sending faxes that weren't requested), but some of > them will barrage you with them even when you've contacted them repeatedly. > In one case I filed a complaint with the local telephone company, and this > only caused them to stop for 2 months - then it started all over again (12 > pages per fax, 1 fax per day). > I'm seriously considering taking the issue to the FCC, since the phone > companies say that there is little that they can do. > Any suggestions? Sorry for the long quote, but you need to have read the whole post to understand my remarks which follow: I'd definitely write a letter of complaint to the FCC, and also to my congressman and senators. But I have another, slightly more perverse suggestion: Set up a division of your company that does advertising/price list analysis (that's YOU!). When you get a "junk fax", send them a letter that says something like "Thank you for sending us your advertising and promotional material for analysis. As you may be aware, our fees for this service are $500 for account setup, and $25 per page we analyze. For each page you send or FAX us, we will offer our professional opinion of your advertising material and/or product pricing. Please note that our FAX number is for the use of clients only, and therefore, if you continue to send advertising material to this number, we will open an account for you and perform our analysis and bill you accordingly. If you do not wish to avail yourselves of our service, please do not FAX any more material to us. Since we have not done business with your firm in the past, we will hold this initial batch of FAXed material for up to ten days until we receive further instructions from you. If we do not hear from you within that time, your material will be destroyed, unread. Ethical and legal considerations prohibit us from examining materials sent by non-clients. However, we must emphasize that should your firm continue to send materials to our FAX machine, we will consider this acceptance of our offer of service, and we will bill you accordingly." Make it sound as much like a legitimate business as possible, and if you manage to collect from even a small percentage of the offenders, it will pay for an awful lot of fax paper. In any case, I'll bet a lot of the faxes will stop when the first bill from you arrives in the mail! I'll let the attornies comment on what a court might do if you actually tried to collect in court for this service, but I'll bet that if you could show that a company contined to send you advertising even after you started billing them for your service, that would constitute acceptance of your offer and they'd be on the hook. Of course, the law is always a bit of a crap shoot in matters like this, but I'll bet sooner or later you'd find a sympathetic judge and win one! My fee for this idea is only 10% of whatever you take in ... ;-) ;-) Jack Decker jack@myamiga.mixcom.com FidoNet 1:154/8 ------------------------------ From: markets!jeff@uunet.UU.NET (Jeff Crilly N6ZFX) Subject: Headset Recomendation Wanted Organization: AMIX Corp., Palo Alto, CA Date: Wed, 20 May 92 16:56:21 GMT We're thinking about getting a few headsets here and I'm wondering if anyone would care to make a recomendation. I know about Plantronics, but don't have any current literature. I also have a catalog from a mail-order place called Hello Direct. They seem to sell they own stuff, but it may just be relabled OEM products. I also have literature for headsets from a company called ACS. These units have amplifiers with noise removing ciruits (like an AGC, I guess) which prevents the operator from get blasted by modems and other annoying loud signals. They also have noise cancelling microphone, clickless mute, variable volume, etc. These headsets are supposedly OSHA approved (They keep the noise to the ear below 85dB). Cost is important, but we don't want to spend money on something that has problems, or won't last. Thanks, Jeff Crilly (N6ZFX) AMIX Corporation 2345 Yale Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 jeff@markets.amix.com, {uunet,sun}!markets!jeff, N6ZFX@N6IIU.#NOCAL.CA.USA ------------------------------ From: walkerd@pegasus.Mitel.COM Subject: Facility Data Link (FDL) Date: Wed, 20 May 1992 16:00:22 -0400 Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. I have heard a rumor that AT&T plans to apply a surcharge to T1 lines which do not support the Facility Data Link (FDL). Can anyone back this rumor up? Any more details? Respond by mail if possible and thanks in advance. Doug Walker walkerd@semi.mitel.com MITEL Corporation Semiconductor Division Witty disclaimer t.b.a. Kanata, Ontario ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 01:45:04 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cellular One/Boston Update Cellular One/Boston has added a new service: *FAX (329) will connect you to FaxLink which will transcribe and send a fax to any domestic destination for $3.95 and any international destination for $9.95. Additional destinations for the same fax are $1.00 each. Airtime charges apply as well. You can send them graphics (letterhead, signature, form letters, etc) ahead of time which they will store on disk for you for no additional charge. The service is available from 9am thru 11pm M-F. Cellular One/Boston has also announced that they will be installing fully digital-ready equipment at all of their cell sites and switching locations in the third quarter. They are going to be using AT&T equipment and will begin selling dual analog and digital phone sets. They claim they were the first in the country to install a fully digital-ready system (Washington/Baltimore 2/92) and that they are now converting Chicago and Dallas. They have also installed microcells and fiber optics in the Sumner and Callahan tunnels to provide continuous service in the tunnels. These two tunnels connect downtown Boston to Logan Airport. # Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01701-0405 # monty%roscom@think.com ------------------------------ From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com Date: 20 MAY 92 20:18 Subject: MCI Mail Billing In Telecom 12.382, winter@Apple.COM (Patty Winter) writes: > Last fall, MCI Mail offered its subscribers a free 30-minute trial of > WIRES, one of the Dow Jones News/Retrieval databases. > I tried out the trial offer, and was promptly rewarded with a $43 > charge on my next MCI Mail bill. When I called them, they said they > were aware that there had been some billing errors, and that I would > be credited on my next bill. Which I was. ... > Anyway, I recently received a past-due notice from them for the $43! > There was absolutely no indication that I'd received a credit for any > of the amount. When I first signed up, I overpaid my bills to (I thought) save time. Rather then send a check for $2.35 or whatever, I'd just send $20 and use up the credit. Hah! I was assuming that a big company like MCI had a decent billing system. Turns out their billing system can't handle credits. Credits, overpayments, and such never show up. I finally gave up on their 800-number, and started sending mail to MCIHELP. They claim it is a free mailbox. I hope so. Randy Gellens randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com If mail bounces, forward to postmaster@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com< Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 92 00:19:12 PDT From: Nigel Roberts 21-May-1992 0850 Subject: Peter Wright: Spycatcher's Encyclopedia (Heinemann Australia) A couple of months ago, while on my travels, I bought a copy of 'The Spycatcher's Encyclopedia' at a European airport. This is a sort of sequel to the notorious 'Spycatcher', but is in my view, perhaps more of a essay into the technical background of the goings-in described in 'Spycatcher'. I believe that in any event this book would probably be of interest to a number of Digest reader's anyway, but in addition there are a number of things described in the book which deal directly with telephony. The telephone technology mentioned is, of course, 25 years out of date, but it's highly interesting stuff nonetheless. [I reached a _very_ interesting hypothesis about the British phone system -- run by the Post Office at the time -- from reading this book, but I don't intend to elaborate, just in case my guess turns out to be correct! Read the book for yourself]. I would guess that the book is freely available in the U.S.A., but somehow I don't expect it to be distributed in the U.K. Like the original `Spycatcher', this book is probably only available to residents of the United Kingdom by ordering it by post from a bookshop in another EC state, such as the Netherlands or the Republic of Ireland. Nigel Roberts, European Engineer "G4IJF" +44 206 396610 / +49 6103 383489 FAX +44 206 393148 ------------------------------ Date: 20 May 92 09:43:11+0400 From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com Subject: Calling France from Interop I'm at Interop in DC this week and encountered a telephone issue that someone on the net might be able to help with. I ran into a French woman who was trying to place an International call with her bank card. It looked similar to my AT&T Universal Visa card (it had Visa on it). But she could not use it to place a call charged to it. My first suggestion was to place a collect ... but she indicated that France does not have collect calls. Then I got on the line with the International Operator (AT&T, I think) and tried to discover who her provider from the US would be. Any ideas? Thanks in advance ... BTW Mitch Kapor is the keynote speaker. He proposes that the country get on the ISDN bandwagon now! Thomas K Hinders Martin Marietta Computing Standards 4795 Meadow Wood Lane Chantilly, VA 22021 703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5027 (f) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 May 92 21:51:14 EDT From: rtw@mtuxj.att.com (Richard T Wurth) Subject: Pacific Telesis Studies Telco Divestiture Organization: AT&T Bell Labs/Lincroft, NJ In the 1Q92 quarterly report, in the letter to shareowners, signed by its Chairman and CEO, Sam Ginn, Pacific Telesis Group has announced: [...] our Board has decided to undertake an in-depth analysis of whether a new structure for Pacific Telesis is a better vehicle with which to pursue future success. This analysis will focus on a proposal to separate the Bell Operating Companies (Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell and Pacific Bell Directory) from the other operations of Pacific Telesis. We will examine whether a spin-off of the Bell Companies to Pacific Telesis' shareowners would better serve the interests of our shareowners, customers, and employees, and would better position the resulting companies to pursue future opportunities. This story has been kicked about in the press (I have seen it in the NY Times and the WSJ) for about a month or more, but I haven't seen any mention here. I thought some might be interested, especially since this is finally something from an official source. Rich Wurth / LZ 1H-303 / AT&T-Bell Labs / 307 Middletown-Lincroft Rd. Lincroft, NJ 07738-1526 / 908 576 6332 att!mtuxj!rtw or rtw@mtuxj.ATT.COM (Mail to cbnewsj!rtw may get lost.) ------------------------------ From: tmarshall01@cc.curtin.edu.au Subject: Australian Telecom Busts Organization: Curtin University of Technology Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 06:01:54 On 5th March earlier this year, the house of Simon Williamson (Sysop of Liberty WHQ/ Ripmax) had his house raided by the Australian Federal Police. Meanwhile two users of the BBS, Raul Soban and Marcus Pinder, had there houses raided. The arresting officers being Det Serg. Glen Birman and Det. Peter Middlehouse. Computer equipment, TV's and Amplifiers, Osc. Scopes were confiscated for evidence. The first hearing on the 7th saw the case remanded to 21st May and bail was renewed. The following hearing (21st May) saw the bail bonds renewed for all three parties, with the case remanded again, this time to Friday 10th July. The federal police claiming they needed more time to go through the evidense and also to work out what property would be forfeited. The Iron Eagle ------------------------------ From: tml+@pitt.edu (Tom Link) Subject: Meridian Manuals Wanted Date: 21 May 92 18:29:46 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh I have a telephone system to play with and I'd like to have the manuals for it. The system is made by Northern Telecom and is call "Meridian" or maybe "norstar" (both name are on the equipment) Does anyone have spare manuals or the address/phone/fax number of Northern Telecom? Thanks, Tom Link -- N3JNN Internet: tml+@pitt.edu University of Pittsburgh Bitnet: tml@pittvms WPIC Drug and Alcohol Epidemiology Phone: +1 412 681 3482 ------------------------------ From: warren@worlds.COM (Warren Burstein) Subject: 800 Number With "Routing Error" Date: 19 May 92 07:47:55 GMT Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org Organization: WorldWide Software I'm in Israel. I needed to call a company, Solution Systems, for help. So I dialed USA Direct, the number in their manual, (800) 821-2492 and my card/PIN. A recording told me I had reached the sales line, if I wanted technical help I should dial 1-800-999-9663. So I redialed USA Direct, the number (w/o the 1) and card/PIN and got several rings, followed by an intercept and a "number cannot be completed as dialed" message. The company's address is is Boston, and they also have a Mass. phone number (which gets to the same place as the first 800 number). So I called the sales number to check that the support number was correct. I stayed on the line to talk to a human who verified that the number on the recording was correct. I tried three more times, each time I did not dial the number myself but let the ATT operator do it for me. I explained to them what was wrong, the first two just put my call through. I told the third one that there was no point doing this again and to please stay on the line. So she did, heard the recording, and said "it's a routing problem, nothing we can do". I called the sales number again and convinced them to transfer me to support. This worked, and I got a voice mail system. I suppose I had better try reading the manual again ... warren@nysernet.org is worried. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 May 92 09:31:46 -0700 From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 Subject: One More Number Satz line is 688-7808. That can be changed, also. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #407 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04492; 23 May 92 11:51 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25370 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 23 May 1992 10:03:36 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29341 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 23 May 1992 10:03:28 -0500 Date: Sat, 23 May 1992 10:03:28 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199205231503.AA29341@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #408 TELECOM Digest Sat, 23 May 92 10:03:27 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 408 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record (David Lesher) Re: Video Conference Information Wanted (Sandy Kyrish) Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension? (J. Winslade) Re: AT&T VideoPhone Delayed (Darren Alex Griffiths) Re: 310/213 Permissive Dialing Ended Saturday, 5/16 (Joe Talbot) Re: CLID Displays Out of Area Number (Jim W. Lai) Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Jim W. Lai) Re: Pacific Bell to Discontinue Data Access Lines (Roy M. Silvernail) Re: Cellular and ANI (Tim Gorman) Re: 911 for Seagoing Cellular Users? (Willie Smith) Re: Pac$Bell Gets Tricky (Henry Mensch) Re: Totally Portable Cellular Issues/Advice? (John Gilbert) Re: 950 Sprint Access (John R. Levine) Re: A Musical Telecom Reference (Peter Z. Simpson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lesher Subject: Re: AT&T Ship Sets Trans-Oceanic Cable Installation Record Date: Fri, 22 May 92 18:46:01 EDT Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Lakeside Terrace > Friend of mine once worked as an (engine room) engineer on the > "Long Lines." He (and others) told me about the amplifiers having > hydrophones in them for the benefit of the U.S. Navy. Seems > transatlantic cables are also handy for listening for submarines. While I don't doubt this, I can thing of another benefit. Once the cable is down there, it's only easy for somebody's anchor to find ;-} But if the repeater-mike is working, you could drag a noisemaker (PING, PING) and get the shore station to pipe it back to you. Two syncronized pingers, with space between them, some timing measurements, and you could rapidly locate the repeaters, and the path of the cable. wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 May 92 00:48 GMT From: Sandy Kyrish <0003209613@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Video Conference Information Wanted A summary of videoconference vendors can be obtained by contacting the International Teleconferencing Association at 202-833-2549. Be aware that in most cases you will arrange your transmission with a carrier and your room equipment from a vendor. ITCA will provide you with both equipment vendors and transmission carriers. UK-US videoconferencing is much more common than you think. Good luck! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 May 92 08:45:26 CST From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: Re: Device to Prevent Interference From Picked-up Extension? Reply-To: jack.winslade%drbbs@ivgate.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In a message dated 16-MAY-92, Michael Rosen writes: > Yeah, here's something ... "The Teleprotector Voice/Data Guard." It > says it "prevents