Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa10704; 16 Feb 95 18:56 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA00777; Thu, 16 Feb 95 12:55:04 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA00770; Thu, 16 Feb 95 12:55:01 CST Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 12:55:01 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9502161855.AA00770@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #101 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Feb 95 12:55:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 101 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC (TELECOM Digest Editor) Security of Cordless Phones? (Jeffrey A. Porten) Area Code/Prefix Trivia (mstrandrew@aol.com) Is Origin Cell of Cellular Call Logged? (Chuck Cairns) Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder (Richard Wildman) Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Lars Poulsen) Re: Local Calling Areas (Linc Madison) Re: New Motorola Micro-tac Elite AMPS Cellphone (Marcus Lee) Directory Assistance Direct Connections (Kevin Bluml) US-MA-Boston Principal Technology Consultant, Recruiter (Beverly Kahn) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 11:59:10 CST From: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: Kevin Mitnick Captured in Raleigh, NC Kevin Mitnick, who had earned the unofficial title of 'America's Most Wanted Computer Hacker' was arrested Wednesday morning at his home in Raleigh, North Carolina. Mitnick had managed to evade authorities in both Los Angeles and Seattle during the past two years. He was caught through the efforts of one of his latest victims, computer security specialist Tsutomu Shimomura of the San Diego Supercomputer Center. Shimomura was robbed of security programs he had written when his computer was broken into on Christmas Day, about two months ago. But one thing Mitnick apparently had not forseen was that the programs he stole -- and then used -- would be used to help track him down. Shimomura was able to detirmine this past weekend that Mitnick, 31, was connecting through a modem attached to a cellular phone somewhere near Raleigh. Through the cooperation of telcos and cellular companies, authorities were able to track Mitnick to his home early Wednesday morning. Authorities say they hope this latest arrest brings to an end the career of a man who began hacking and phreaking when he was in high school. At one point Mitnick broke into a North American Air Defense Command computer in Colorado. Referring to Mitnick as a 'dangerous computer terrorist', Justice Department spokesman John Russell said the raid was conducted at 1:30 am on the apartment in Raleigh in which Mitnick was living alone under a false name. "His obsession was his downfall," said Deputy United States Marshall Kathy Cunningham in Los Angeles. "His obsession to hack and phreak using cloned cellular phones left us a good trail to follow." Mitnick, who is known by the hacker name 'Condor' says he took that alias after seeing the movie 'Three Days of the Condor' starring Robert Redford as a man on the run from the government. He grew up in Los Angeles, and was convicted there in 1988 after a series of phreaking and hacking incidents which included disconnecting the phone service to Hollywood stars and others. Although initially he was given just a short prison term followed by federal probation, he continued to act out in his self-destructive ways and when his probation officer threatened to revoke his probation and send him to prison, he disconnected her telephone to get even and then ran off! And he is supposed to be a smart guy? In 1989, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles portrayed Mitnick as a brilliant young man 'obsessed with junk food and computers' who infiltrated computer networks and telephone switching systems in the United States and England. Although federal authorities suggested that he had broken into National Security Agency computers, he was never charged with that crime. At one point however, they considered him so dangerous they got a judicial order denying him any use of telephones at all, for fear he would call up a computer and access it using the touchtone buttons on the phone. In the earlier 1988 case, Mitnick agreed to plead guilty to hacking the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) computer network and stealing a program. He also pleded guilty to theft of sixteen MCI long distance access codes and using them to make long distance calls. For this, the court's imposition of punishment included several years imprisonment with all but one year suspended, to be followed by federal probation for the remainder of his term. After release from prison, Mitnick began his probation. When his probation officer suggested she would revoke his probation because of his behavior and return him to the penitentiary, his response was to hack the appropriate computer and disconnect her phone service ... he then fled. In the fall of 1992, Mitnick was working for a private investigative firm in Calabasas, California when the FBI was conducting an investigation into the break-ins of Pacific Bell computers. Realizing they were about to close in on him, he fled again ... to surface only yesterday when a man he decided to trifle with -- Tsutomu Shimomura -- decided not to get mad, but instead to get even! Shimomura cooperated very closely with the government to pinpoint Mitnick's whereabouts. On Wednesday, February 15, 1995, Mitnick was taken before a Magistrate in Raleigh, North Carolina where he was arraigned on the charge of violating the terms of his probation in 1988, and new charges of computer fraud in North Carolina. Assistant United States Attorney David Schindler in Los Angeles said additional charges pertaining to Mitnick's actions in San Diego, Seattle and Colorado would also be presented. Citing its belief Mitnick was a danger to the community and likely to flee again if released, the court ordered him held without bail, and once again restricted his unsupervised use of telephones. Mitnick may be a smart man, but he seems to lack some common sense. One does not ever screw around with one's federal probation officer; you don't play with her telephone to get even; you don't run off when she calls you. And when you are on the lam or otherwise, you don't steal from someone like Tsutomu Shimomura. Speaking of whom, Shimomura attended the proceedings in Raleigh on Wednesday. At the end of the hearing as he was being led away, a handcuffed and shackled Mitnick turned to Shimomura, whom he has never met or seen before and said, "Hello, Tsutomu, I respect your skills." Shimomura nodded, then turned his back and walked away. It must be remembered that in the United States, our constitution requires a presumption of innocence on the part of Kevin Mitnick until his guilt is proven to the satisfation of a judge or jury in a court of law. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: jporten@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Jeffrey A. Porten) Subject: Security of cordless phones? Date: 16 Feb 1995 17:38:49 GMT Organization: University of Pennsylvania Having just gotten a new cordless phone (BellSouth 46mHz), and living in the paranoid environs of Washington, DC, I find myself wondering just how likely it is that the world is listening to my calls. The phone has ten channels, and a security code feature which, so far as I understand, exists mainly to prevent another cordless handset from tapping into my base unit, but does nothing to scramble the signal from the handset. I live in an apartment building, with a few others nearby, so consider this a high-density area. Should I go on the assumption that people are always listening in? Sometimes? Almost never? I have a corded set that I keep hooked up for confidential calls; as a stopgap, I sometimes scan channels on my cordless so any eavesdropper will at least have to fiddle to find me again. Does this help, or am I kidding myself? Thanks, Jeff [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Corded or cordless, the assumption should be that your telephone calls are never secure. In actual practice, it may not matter to you; if you are just in idle chatter with someone you aren't going to bother with the trouble of special precautions. My personal belief is the use of scanners to listen to cordless phones is still a relatively rare thing; how many people do *you* know that own scanners who are within range of your cordless phone? And of those, how many are sophisticated enough to know how to program the scanner for cordless? So my feeling is generally its not a big deal, and if you do have something very important and personal to say, you might want to go to a payphone anyway. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 11:26:45 -0500 From: MSTRANDREW@aol.com Subject: Area Code/Prefix Trivia A friend of mine recently sent to me some notices from the news group regarding changes in area code assignments. I observed that some trivia notes were also included regarding NPA assignments. I wanted to make you aware of another example pertaining to Port Roberts, Washington. Point Roberts is a six square mile section of land located on a penisula south of Vancouver, Canada. The Point is in the United States because the portion is south of the 49th. For many years, the local prefix 946 was assigned to the 604 area code and local coin phones were desinged to accept Canadian currency. Sometime in the early 1980s, the 946 prefix was reassigned to the 206 area. I have not been there since, so I cannot offer an update if the coin phones were transfered to accept US currency. I thought you would enjoy this. My friend asked that I reference his homepage for your reference. http://www.america.net/~mikef/mikef.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The last I heard, which was some time ago, 604-946 and 206-946 both got you the same thing in Point Roberts. I think directory assistance via 206 or 604 were both available also. Did you know it is impossible to travel from Point Roberts to anywhere else in the United States by automobile without going through Canada? School kids there go to school 'around the bend' in a nearby area in Washington State, but to do so, their school bus has to enter Canada, drive a few miles east, then drive back into the USA again, the same as anyone else wanting to drive to the next (USA) town over. PAT] ------------------------------ From: chuckc@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Chuck Cairns) Subject: Is Origin Cell on a Cellular Call Logged? Date: 16 Feb 1995 16:52:46 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site Is the origin cell on a cellular call logged? Best Regards, cc [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: To find out the answer to this, I turned to our resident expert, Kevin Mitnick ... ... he says they are, unfortunatly. Uh, I know this is a rude question to ask, but have you some reason to wish they were not? PAT] ------------------------------ From: rich@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Richard Wildman) Subject: Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder Date: 16 Feb 1995 16:24:13 GMT Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site Here are two updates. After my original posting I received about 14 responses, most of which had similar horror stories to tell about MCI billing problems. As I mentioned previously, the bill was paid in full by credit card in January. This week (of 2/5), we had a phone call from MCI where we were told we had not paid our bill -- I interrupted and told the woman, "Yes, we had, by credit card." "We already have the credit card billing with the MCI payment on it" -- the exact amount she was saying we still owed! She hesitated a moment, and then said, oh yes, I see it now! Makes one wonder just how complicated a form she is looking at, and what is wrong with their programmers if such a field is not checked before the bill is flagged as not paid! In addition, yesterday, Feb. 9, we received notice in the mail warning us that our bill would go to a collection agency if we did not pay. [This is the second mail from MCI in the past week -- we did receive a listing of calls made, though it did not appear to be a bill -- my guess is that this resulted from an emailing to an MCI employee whose address I pulled off of a news group, and who faxed the original posting to MCI's Consumer Executive Customer Relations (Residential).] In any case, my wife called this time. She got ahold of a woman and explained the situation to her. But no, the woman said, her records did not show we had paid. She, in turn, called another office, who then told her, yes, we had paid! The woman assured my wife that the problem would be cleared up. We are not holding our breath. And the second update. We received a nice letter of apology from MCI's Denver office yesterday (2/14), along with a $25 check for local or MCI phone service! Unfortunately, also yesterday, two MCI bills arrived, both for the same exact amount we paid by credit card in January. And sure enough, one bill was to our old address (old by five years) -- the Post Office evidently caught it and delivered to our current address. My wife, glutton for punishment that she is, called the MCI number listed on the bills. Again, it was not clear to the woman she talked to that we had paid the bill. The MCI employee did say our account was being transferred. This did jive with what was stated in the apology -- that U.S. West had sold out their rural service (we have a cabin) to PTI, and that this had happened last October (fits month problem started), and then (MCI) had made a series of errors that we had been experiencing. It is interesting that MCI thinks they are transferring our service, since we terminated their service after paying the bill. The woman said she was going to flag our account so that we would not keep getting mail and phone calls (where have I heard that before). This situation must be an example of the notorious "corner case". Life goes on, RW ------------------------------ From: lars@spectrum.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs Date: 16 Feb 1995 10:07:46 -0800 Organization: Rockwell International - CMC Network Products In article Mikeboyd@voyager.cris.com (Mike_Boyd) writes: > .... Because of the way that the costs are separated jurisdictionally, > and given the subsequent wide discretion of the PUC in setting rates, intra- > state and interstate access charges for a given LEC may vary greatly. For > example, terminating a minute of switched traffic from IXC "A" to end > user "Z" may cost the IXC 3 cents if the call is interstate and 8 cents if > it is an intrastate call. I have always been amazed at the complexity of ratemaking. Looking from high above, the local access part of a long distance call is a local business call, and should be billed as such by the LEC. (Strictly speaking, if the call originates from a residence, the originating access segment is a local residential call.) Of course, this originating segment should be paid by the caller on the LEC bill. The IXCs do get some specialized services provided on their trunks, and they probably should be charged for those; obviously it is simpler for the IXC to get a validated originating billing number handed in with the call than to have to do their own subscriber authentication, but it seems to me that it should be optional for the IXC do make this "make or buy" decision. Since the cost of a timed local business call is about one or two cents per minute, the access charges should be in the range two to four cents. If that is what FCC sets for interstate access fees, it seems to me that they are staffed with people who can add and subtract. We should all lobby for some improved sanity in this area as we move into the "open network" where many subscribers want to get the same types of processing options that carriers have been getting. Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM Rockwell Network Systems Phone: +1-805-562-3158 7402 Hollister Avenue Telefax: +1-805-968-8256 Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Internets: designed and built while you wait ------------------------------ From: lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Local Calling Areas Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 22:23:37 GMT Mark Rudholm (rudholm@aimla.com) wrote: > Here in the Los Angeles area, GTE and Pacific Bell offer flat-rate > calling to residential customers for "Zone 1" and "Zone 2." > Basically, if you are calling anywhere inside about 18 miles from a > flat-rate line, the call is free and unmetered. If you live on or > near the shoreline, you could theoretically only have 50% the "free" > calling area of someone who lived at least 18 miles from the ocean, > since half of your 18 mile radius could be out on the Pacific. Well, first of all, it's approximately 12 miles, not 18. 0-8 miles is Zone 1, 8-12 is Zone 2, and 12-17 is Zone 3. Over 17 is "local toll," until you cross your LATA boundary. The distinction between Zones 1 and 2 is no longer meaningful. > Since the "basic monthly fee" is in theory supposed to cover those > "local" calls, aren't those of us on the shoreline getting cheated, > since we pay the same basic-rate? Should unmeasured service therefore > cost less if you live near the ocean? > I'm curious to know what everyone thinks of my idea. Well, in a word, dream on. There are other factors that you have neglected, like population density. Lots of people live near the coast, in far denser concentration than most places 24 miles inland. There's also the fact that even with half or more of your calling area consisting of open water, you still have more people within 12 miles than in the entire eastern half of the state. Besides that, if we gave you credit for the so-called useless open water in your local calling area, we would then have to charge you toll rates to call the local dolphins, porpoises, and whales when they get cell phones. Besides that, you get to have the pleasure of watching guys with unbelievable tans walk up to one another and say, "Duude, like, your surfboard is ringing. Are you gonna answer it?" Linc Madison * Oakland, California * LincMad@Netcom.com ------------------------------ From: e9321452@student.uq.oz.au (Marcus Lee) Subject: Re: New Motorola Micro-tac Elite AMPS Cellphone Date: 15 Feb 1995 05:13:31 GMT Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland king@wildebeest.cig.mot.com (Steven King) writes: > aj.knox@auckland.ac.nz (Andrew Knox) publicly declared: >> Motorola New Zealand is apparently about to launch a new AMPS cellphone >> called the Microtac Elite. >> I would be quite interested to know whether anyone has any details >> about this phone or about pricing of it throughout the world. Motorola's MicroTAC Elite is the latest entry into the competitve pocket phone category and is one of the lightest phones available today throughout the world. At a mere 113 grams, the MicroTAC Elite actually weighs less than a D-cell battery. The MicroTAC Elite uses the new lithium ion battery technology offering great talk time from very small batteries and an optional headset jack to provide handsfree operations. The recommended retail price is between $1500 and $2000 AUS (Prob be $1500 when it is released here in Aust by the end of the 1st quarter, looking at how much I bought my GSM International 8200 for). "Only 113grams (with slim Lithium Ion battery). Revolutionary battery technology gives longer talktime Menu with icons for easy use. Data capable." "When the first MicroTAC went on sale in 1989, it was the smallest and lightest portable phone ever. The crown for lightest phone has rested on a variety of heads since then but Motorola intends to wrest it back. The contender is the 113g MicroTAC Elite. Although it's an analogue phone, the little Motorola has an optional digital answering machine which greets callers with your voice and allows them to leave short messages." LiIon Standard Battery LiIon XT Battery Weight: 113grams 163grams Batteries Standard LiIon Talk Time: 60mins Standby Time: 10hrs LiIon XT Talk Time: 120mins Standby Time: 20hrs Power Watts: 0.6W Battery Strength indicator: YES Charger: Internal fast charger, Two Pocket IntelliCharge rapid charger is incl. Memory Features/Positions Scroll search (list of no.'s): YES Alphanumeric: YES 99 locations Numeric: YES Scratchpad memory: YES Dialing Keypad: Large well spaced tactile keys. Selectable tones. Last number recall: YES remembers last 10 Auto Redial: YES on system busy Any Key Answer: Flip activates call Display Screen size: 2lines x 7 characters Call in absence display: YES Signal Strength Indicator: YES Other Features Data Capabilities: Can accept a variety of Motorola data acc. Ring volume control: YES Vibrating Capabilities: YES Extras Nine selectable ring tones to differentiate your phone from others Answering machine and internal charger, optional handset adaptor Security Lock: YES Heeeh. That was taken from a variety of publicatons. If you want more info, just ask, I've got more detailed details about the phone. Marcus Lee Ph: +61-7-395-1479 University of Queensland Australia +61-41-119-5358 Internet: e9321452@student.uq.edu.au Fax:+61-7-843-2937 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 10:24:29 CST From: kevin@carina.cray.com (Kevin Bluml) Subject: Directory Assistance Direct Connections USWest now has an offering in MN where a business can set up to pay for the dialing of their number from 411 type services. I believe they also offer the usual caller pays to have them dial for you. I heard an ad the other day saying businesses could set this up and pay 35 cents to have the call connected directly to them when someone called for the number. Also saw MCIs new ad for 1-900-Callinfo (or whatever the letters were..) But it is now 900 and there is a note saying it is from MCI and I believe they even mentioned MCI in the voiceover. Still 75 cents and basically the same commercial otherwise. From: Kevin V. Bluml - Cray Research Inc. 612-683-3036 USmail 655 - Lone Oak Drive, Eagan, MN 55121 Internet kevin.bluml@cray.com UUCP - uunet!cray!kevin ------------------------------ From: ndt@world.std.com (New Dimensions in Tech.) Subject: US-MA-Boston Principal Technology Consultant, Recruiter Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 15:39:49 GMT PRINCIPAL TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANT JOB #00695 Our client, a very successful business/financial organization, located in the BOSTON area, is searching for a Chief Scientist/Principal Technology Consultant. S/he will have a very heavy background in all areas of COMMUNICATIONS: *High Speed Fiber Optic LANS *High performance Internetworking Routers *Frame Relay *ATM *Internet *FDDI *TCP/IP This position reports to a very senior person. We are searching for an executive who also has the ability to manage a small group of engineers. This position is RELOCATABLE. Salary in the six figures. All of our positions require that you have three or more years of professional working experience and that you be a U.S. Citizen or Permanent Resident. At the current time, we have no entry-level part-time, or contracting positions available. If your qualifications match the above specifications, please forward your resume immediately, referencing Job #I00695, via fax, U.S. mail or email (ASCII only please) to: Beverly Kahn New Dimensions in Technology, Inc. tel: 617-639-0866 74 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 101 fax: 617-639-0863 Marblehead, MA 01945 email: ndt@world.std.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #101 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa12920; 16 Feb 95 21:45 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA06428; Thu, 16 Feb 95 15:23:09 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA06422; Thu, 16 Feb 95 15:23:06 CST Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 15:23:06 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9502162123.AA06422@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #102 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Feb 95 15:23:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 102 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Details on NPA 888 Selection (Jeff Buckingham) Here's the Story on GETS (gbouwka@allnet.com) Re: FCC/PCS Market Numbers (Bob Keller) Re: Scam at UC Berkeley (Carl Moore) Re: Messaging Software for Windows (Rudy Rawlins) Re: Telco Signaling Requirements (Gene Delancey) Re: GTE PCS/Global Roam (Sam Spens Clason) Re: BA Files Waiver to Prevent Higher ISDN Costs (John Levine) Re: Numbers Numbers Numbers ... (Steve Coleman) Re: 256Kbps Overseas Circuits at 56Kpbs Costs (Tom Coradeschi) Last Laugh! Re: How I Fooled Caller-ID (Gordon L. Burditt) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 10:28:26 -0800 From: jbuckingham@wynd.net Subject: Details on NPA 888 Selection Reply-To: jbucking@callamerica.com Here are the notes from the group that helps to make decisions such as what the next toll free NPA will be. Readers may be interested in what goes on behind the scenes with a complex selection such as this. 800 Expansion The question of the individual company's position regarding opening the "D" digit was asked. Sprint and MCI supported opening the "D" digit. USTA opposed, and noted that PBX software as well as end office software would have to be modified in order to permit this to occur. Bahamas Telephone stated that they had no difficulty either way, but that there could be a problem for PBXs. A poll was taken and opening of the "D" digit as a method for expansion was not accepted. Bob Hirsch noted that the OBF message processing committee requested that codes in the 88 range not be used because they are being used for billing purposes. MCI noted that they had asked their MSG committee rep., and they knew nothing of that concern. Of those present, none knew anything about the billing concern raised in the OBF letter. MCI proposed that we open an ERC, 888, for expansion. GTE asked for their rationale. MCI's response was that 888 was what their marketing organization asked for. GTE proposed that we start with 822. NANPA proposed that we start with 833 because it is consistent with the reservation of 533 that has already taken place for PCS 500, and that it would make administration easier for them. Bernie Murphy, SRCI, proposed that we start with 880. In response it was noted that 880 is not an ERC. GTE proposed that 888 not be used because it is unique and has special value because it has the same three digits. Madeline Bogdan asked what we were going to do with the OBF Message Processing committee concern about their current use of 88X codes for billing purposes. The option of starting with 888, then 877, 866, etc. was selected. USTA proposed that the expansion code is to be available for in service use on 4/1/96. AT&T pointed out that their marketing people would want to know with some certainty when the services would be opened, as certain of the numbers would be more desirable than others. AT&T also proposed that, if there was a problem meeting the 4/1/96 date the resource be opened as a non-portable code initially as a back-up to insure that the industry is not caught without resource to fill customer needs. It was noted that, based on current 800 number fill and demand rate, exhaust will occur on 4/1/96, so the industry has to be ready to go by that time. Bell Atlantic noted that they had checked this and could not be ready before 5/1/96. SBC noted that they'd be pushing it to make 6/1/96. Proposed recommendation to resolve the 800 exhaust: 1. 888 is assigned for resource expansion, and 877, 866, 855, etc. Are reserved for expansion. (recommendation) 2. 888 should be available for assignment on or before the 800 resource exhausts, but no late than 4/1/96. It is acknowledged that some networks may not be able to support the 888 relief plan until later than 4/1/96. (recommendation) 3. This date (4/1/96) is based on current available exhaust projections which indicate exhaust of 800 by the end of 1Q96. (concern) 4. Some 800 service providers stated that lack of 800/888 line numbers for any period of time is unacceptable. (concern) 5. Due to the potential for 800 exhaust prior to 888 availability, the industry must immediately consider reasonable steps to be taken to extend the life of the 800 resource and accelerate availability of the 888 resource. (Recommendation) It was proposed that following letter be sent to the CLC: Attached is an agreement reached at INC 13 concerning 800 resource exhaust and relief. This agreement is scheduled for final closure at INC 14. During our deliberations several significant issues were identified that require the industry's immediate consideration. These issues include but are not limited to: Implementation of the new numbering resource for toll free calling and the need to extend the life of the current 800 resource through review and possible modification of the existing 800 number administrative guidelines. Due to the confusion regarding forum responsibilities on the topics there is an immediate need for CLC to clarify where 800 assignment guideline changes and 888 implementation should be addressed. Several issues were submitted at INC 13 that outline more specifically the work that is suggested. Absent your direction, the INC believes these issues may not be resolved as expeditiously as possible and may result in exhaust of the 800 resource prior to the implementation of the 888 NPA. C.C. ICCF Participants OBF Participants 800 Ad Hoc C0-Chairs David Hanna, Bahamas Telephone, made a presentation on behalf of the 809 NPA administrations. In his presentation the Caribbean nations are requesting assignment of an N00 code for paid 800 traffic from the Caribbean, as a first alternative, with 880 as the second alternative. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 13:57:37 EST From: GBOUWKA@ALLNET.COM Subject: Here's the Story on GETS Pat, Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) is a service offered by the Office of the Manager National Communications System (OMNCS) to meet the national security and emergency preparedness (NSEP) requirements of the defense and other federal telephone networks. GETS provides emergency access and specialized processing in local and long-distance telephone networks. GETS uses three types of networks: major long distance carriers (the big three); local carriers (Bell, independent, and cellular); and government leased networks such as the FTS2000 and Defense Information System Network (DISN). GETS uses a simple dialing plan and personal identification number (PIN). GETS is accessed through 1-710-NXX-XXXX from a phone presubscribed to ATT/MCI/Sprint (or 10XXX), or through FTS or DISN. The real value to the system is the fact that GETS traffic receives priority treatment through controls such as trunk queuing, exemption from network management controls used during network congestion, and enhanced routing to assure a higher probability of completion. The slogan of the GETS program manager is "When the going gets tough, GETS keeps you going". Wouldn't you like to have a GETS PIN the next time you want tickets to a special concert and you can't get through to Ticketmaster? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, a PIN like that would be useful when trying to get through to the Skokie bus station for the Greyhound schedules, that's for sure. So it seems GETS and 'area code 710' are basically just new versions of the old ABCD keys (for various levels of priority) which were used in the old AUTOVON days. I assume one's phone has to be specifically turned on; you won't be able to access 710 until a flag is toggled somewhere in your central office which says to allow your use of it. Thanks for your answer, you are the first person here in my couple years of asking who has submitted an answer about 710. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 11:51:15 EST From: Bob Keller Subject: Re: FCC/PCS Market Numbers In TELECOM Digest V15 #99 alan.rp@ix.netcom.com (Alan Petry) asked: > Does anyone have a list of the FCC designated markets as listed in > the fcc.gov gopher for the PCS Auctions. Here is the numbering scheme as well as the population figures for each of the PCS MTAs as reported by the FCC in its September 19, 1994 Public Notice (Report No. AUC-94-04, Auction No. 4) announcing the auction for Broadband PCS Frequency Blocks A and B. (All population figures are 4/1/90 U.S. Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.) Market Major Trading Area Population ------ ------------------ ---------- M001 New York 26,410,597 M002 Los Angeles-San Diego 19,145,232 M003 Chicago 12,069,700 M004 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose 11,891,177 M005 Detroit 10,001,009 M006 Charlotte-Greensboro-Greenville-Raleigh 9,752,317 M007 Dallas-Fort Worth 9,694,157 M008 Boston-Providence 9,452,712 M009 Philadelphia 8,927,748 M010 Washington-Baltimore 7,777,875 M011 Atlanta 6,942,084 M012 Minneapolis-St. Paul 5,986,039 M013 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Orlando 5,417,788 M014 Houston 5,190,849 M015 Miami-Fort Lauderdale 5,136,581 M016 Cleveland 4,945,749 M017 New Orleans-Baton Rouge 4,925,269 M018 Cincinnati-Dayton 4,716,665 M019 St. Louis 4,663,926 M020 Milwaukee 4,541,432 M021 Pittsburgh 4,102,766 M022 Denver 3,880,637 M023 Richmond-Norfolk 3,846,210 M024 Seattle (Excluding Alaska) 3,827,175 M025 Puerto Rico-U.S. Virgin Islands 3,623,846 M026 Louisville-Lexington-Evansville 3,556,648 M027 Phoenix 3,510,140 M028 Memphis-Jackson 3,465,226 M029 Birmingham 3,244,076 M030 Portland 3,059,948 M031 Indianapolis 3,017,475 M032 Des Moines-Quad Cities 3,006,139 M033 San Antonio 2,986,524 M034 Kansas City 2,913,304 M035 Buffalo-Rochester 2,777,046 M036 Salt Lake City 2,573,372 M037 Jacksonville 2,274,933 M038 Columbus 2,145,561 M039 El Paso-Albuquerque 2,113,890 M040 Little Rock 2,051,667 M041 Oklahoma City 1,877,478 M042 Spokane-Billings 1,863,335 M043 Nashville 1,767,391 M044 Knoxville 1,721,911 M045 Omaha 1,659,273 M046 Wichita 1,124,174 M047 Honolulu 1,108,229 M048 Tulsa 1,096,396 M049 Alaska 550,043 M050 Guam-Northern Mariana Islands 176,000 M051 American Samoa 47,000 The FCC's MTAs are based on Rand McNally Major Trading Areas, but the Commission made some minor modifications and some major renumbering. Thus, don't expect these numbers to match what you find in any Rand McNally business atlas. If you want to see a detailed county-by-county consolidated listing of all PCS Regions, MTAs and BTAs as well as cellular MSAs and RSAs, check at: http://www.clark.net/pub/rjk/ and select the anchor pointing to information of PCS and cellular markets. Bob Keller (KY3R) Email: rjk@telcomlaw.com Law Office of Robert J. Keller, P.C. Telephone: 301.229.5208 Federal Telecommunications Law Facsimile: 301.229.6875 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Feb 95 12:43:47 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Scam at UC Berkeley Where would the transfer go? Within the campus exchange? I don't understand how the transfer can result in result in long distance charges against your number. The closest I can think of is call forwarding, where your phone incurs message unit charges or toll as the case may be, as if you yourself dialed the number which you are forwarding to. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: In one instance, they ask to be trasferred to the local PBX operator who then 'sees' it as an inside call coming to her for assistance. The caller then asks the operator to assist in making connection to a long distance number; the operator sees no reason no to since it is 'obviously' a company employee. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 18:03:44 GMT From: rudy rawlins Subject: Re: Messaging Software For Windows Organization: Nothern Telecom Toronto Lab. Toronto, Ontario Canada. In article , Bob Baxter writes: > Ideally, a call would come in, the receptionist would take down the > message, and file it in the software. Later, when someone calls in to > check their messages, the receptionist would simply call their name up > and read the listing. > Ideally, the software should also have report capabilities, i.e. print > out all unanswered calls, number of callbacks, etc. I have had > absolutely zero luck in locating such a package. Any help would be > appreciated. Have you considered voice mail? Here comes the plug, Northern Telecom Meridian Mail, or (gasp!) any of the competitors can allow your receptionist do this, but using the callers voice rather than a written message. The merits of which I don't have to explain. If you need help with this send me some private email. Rudy Rawlins Northern Telecom Toronto Lab ESN 416-597-7403. rudy@bnr.ca ------------------------------ From: anadigicom@aol.com (Anadigicom) Subject: Re: Telco Signaling Requirements Date: 16 Feb 1995 14:18:16 -0500 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) Reply-To: anadigicom@aol.com Anadigicom Corporation is a manufacturer of a broad range of interface (Anadigicom) products including signaling converters covering the types you described. Your request for per country specifications is an intensive task as we have been in this business for ten years and we get new signaling requirements almost on a weekly basis. There are core specifications such as those mentioned and they are generally specified in the CCITT recommendations but each country and perhaps switch manufacturer, customizes the signaling standard for their own use. There are variations for national and international links as well. We have demonstrated considerable success with companies using a standard interface protocol running into our signaling converters to support the wide variation present within the world domain. This allows existing network products to be supplied world wide. The Anadigicom products also support a wide range of physical interfaces including the analog two wire or four-wire applications and the digital T1 and E1 links (with conversion between the two all inclusive). Please send us your mailing address and/or fax number for additional information or contact the below: Anadigicom Corporation Attn: Gene Delancey Ph-703-803-0400 FAX-703-803-2956 EMAIL: anadigicom@aol.com ------------------------------ From: d92-sam@black29.nada.kth.se (Sam Spens Clason) Subject: Re: GTE PCS/Global Roam Date: 15 Feb 1995 18:42:17 GMT In johnmark@tigger.jvnc.net (John Mark) writes: > CO/NY has already launched a similar service (January 1995). CO/NY > customers get a SIM card (they call it a CellCard) for $49.99/year. > They can then purchase or rent a GSM phone and can roam in 23 GSM > countries. The agreement is with Vodaphone in the UK. Incoming calls > must be routed through the customer's NY cellular number. The cost of > roaming is a flat $2.49/minute for outgoing calls regardless of > destination (local or international) and $2.49/minute + toll from NYC > for incoming calls. In the original announcement there was something about "dual mode phones" and roaming between technically different systems. An American subscriber can roam a GSM (or DCS) net because his SIM card tells the GSM operator all it needs to know. There is however one catch here. The other way around doesn't work as smoothly. I suppose you've read the horror stories about US-Australian AMPS roaming here in the Digest. Intersystem roaming would be very easy if there only were some standard for SIM cards. Or at least if all new systems used some sort of subsriber ID-card. Questions: 1) Are any of the proposed American PCS systems going to use SIMs? 2) Are there any global standards been proposed for SIMs? Sam Sam Spens Clason ------------------------------ From: johnl@iecc.com (John Levine) Subject: Re: BA Files Waiver to Prevent Higher ISDN Costs Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 16:48:14 GMT Bell Atlantic is all hot and bothered that the FCC has ordered telcos to charge a subscriber line charge per ISDN channel rather than per line. I agree that the FCC's move is stupid, but I don't see why it's such a big deal. The fee goes straight into the telco's pocket. If the FCC wants them to collect $7 rather than $3.50 as the SLC, they can drop the nominal rate by $3,50 and collect the same actual amount of money that they would have otherwise. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com Primary perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies" ------------------------------ From: stevecoleman@delphi.com (Steve Coleman) Subject: Re: Numbers Numbers Numbers ... Date: 16 Feb 1995 10:19:14 GMT Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation > idea, I can't help the feeling of being manipulated by a bunch of > startup companies (most of whom probably won't even exist five to ten > years from now) by having to dial 11 digits to call my upstairs neighbor. The dial plan is being manipulated by a bunch of startup companies?? I don't think so! I am responsible for routing the calls for one of the smaller LD companies. The dial plan "problems" that I have encountered are with the LECS. For example, Pacbell in Los Angeles requires seven digits on FGA within the home NPA. USWest in Phoenix requires seven digit for "local" calls but you must dial 1+10 for toll calls within the home NPA. Ameritech in Chicago allows seven digits within the home NPA of 312. I don't even want to *talk* about SWBell in Dallas. These are hardly "startup" companies. We'll see how the "startup compaines" deal with the local dial plan when local dial tone competition really takes off. I would *love* to see some kind of consistency from the LECS. The same applies for FGB/D termination. Some LECS require seven digits sent to the tandem, others require ten. It just makes my job a little more challenging! Steve stevecoleman@delphi.com ------------------------------ From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: Re: 256Kbps Overseas Circuits at 56Kpbs Costs Organization: Electric Armaments Division, US Army ARDEC Picatinny Arsenal NJ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 14:58:17 GMT In article , routers@halcyon.com wrote: > For how to have 256Kpbs lan to lan thruput on overseas circuits at > 56Kpbs cost, contact routers@halcyon.com. We also can piggy back > seperate asyn or sync low speed (up to 19.2) applications at no charge > on the same circuit. For dial up overseas lan to lan transmissions we > have a V.34 product that has a V.35 interface with SDC (sync data > compression) with a thruput of 85Kpbs sync. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Why don't you tell us a little more > about it right here, rather than requiring people to write to you > about it? You might have a very good product we should all hear about. > When sending in messages like this, more specifics, please. PAT] [TELECOM Digest Reader's Note: Why don't you let him leave it as it is. He gave a simple announcement, asking people to contact him for further info. On mailing lists *I* run, that's considered good etiquette. Anything more becomes an advertisement, which I (and most of my readers) dislike intensely. TJC] [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well you raise a good point where the ongoing -- and getting worse on this net -- problem of balancing advertise- ments versus infomercials versus solid information is concerned. I dislike very much running straight advetising here (especially when they don't pay me! ) and generally don't do it. If someone has the common courtesy to put their message together so it looks more like an infomercial then the line I draw is a bit more ragged. Some of them are more 'info' than 'mercial', and if it looks interesting I use it. What I am getting a lot of -- and I wish it would stop, but it won't -- are the notes from people saying 'gee, I found this great new long distance company, and it is really a bargain. Write to me and I will tell you all the details'. What they mean to say of course is they are an agent for the company; they don't have the brass bedsprings needed to just say so and float yet another advertisment on the net (what's the difference these days, one more or less), so they play tricks and *pretend* like they want to have a real discussion of LD carriers when what they do in return to your response is send you the canned file they have prepared. Now in the case of 'routers', I get more than I feel comfortable with of his messages ... let's put it that way. He seems to have the solution to everyone's problems in telecom, whatever they may be, in his office. When I run his articles, then I get messages from people saying 'well, that's the fifth one of his *commercials* you have run this month. ... etc'. So I have decided with some of these people if they want to send an infomercial I can run and talk about if it suits me, then okay, I will do it perhaps. But if they want to do a hit and run, quick and dirty thing about 'gee, I have the solution here, just write me', then I am going to put my foot down and say this platform cannot be used for advertising. I admit it is a judgment call. You are correct etiquette says don't advertise on the net; at the same time I would rather see an informative, well prepared infomercial which might benefit some readers than either an outright blatant commercial or a 'sneak one past the moderator' type which says 'I have all the answers, just write me'. In the latter case, they use my bandwidth to send a selected message to a few people that none of the rest of us (hopefully) benefit from. I see the onrush of commercial advertising on the net as something that is going to be very hard for even experienced moderators to keep in check as the advertisers grow more sophisticated in *how* they submit their material. I've had people write to me with deliberatly drummed up questions that were dumb as could be, and in good faith I would have published them and answered them -- albiet perhaps in my cranky, snotty way -- had not they then changed user names and sent me the *answer to the question* as a 'Re;' even before the original was published. Merely a coincidence of course that the answer involves products their company sells. Yeah ... they are doing that. Having discovered the question and answer, give and take format of the newsgroups, they use shills, or straight men to pose the initial commentary, seeking the advice of the net to solve whatever needs to be solved. Then bingo, here comes the answer from someone else at the same company, pretending like all we are doing is having an honest exchange of ideas, etc. "Oh gee, you mean fifty thousand people saw the answer I gave him about our product X ... gosh!" There is room for everyone on this net, including the .com sites and the numerous commercial enterprises which have came aboard in recent months, **but they have to play by the rules**. Yes, we want to hear about new products and servces which may be beneficial or solve problems, but no, we don't want blatant advertising. We don't want cross posting to thousands of news groups. We don't want you to cook up your own problems in order to have an entrance to present your own solutions. Just be part of us and participate in an intellectually honest way. In fact, the commercial enterprises on the net these days can be very valuable parts of this process we go through here, *if they will just cool it and follow netiquette.* Thank goodness this has not been as much of a problem here in telecom as it has been in some of the other newsgroups. We have for the most part a spendid bunch of people here sincerely interested in the unimpeded flow of information; and sometimes that information deals with commercial products. Thanks for writing, Tom, and good luck with your e-publishing endeavors. There aren't many easy answers on the net these days, are there? PAT] ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Last Laugh! Re: How I Fooled Caller ID Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 05:49:16 GMT [Ahem! I have asked Gordon Burditt to pronounce the benediction for us today. Let us Bray! PAT] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Remember the book and movie a few > years ago called 'Tandem Rush'? The sick phreak sits at home and dumps all > this very high current on the phone line causing the phone on the *other end* > to catch fire and/or electrocute the recipient ... yet it goes unnoticed in > the central office ... balogna! Can I get the central office to perform this service for me? Please? I just dial *86 (somehow this code seems appropriate) instead of using Call Block when I detect that a telephone solicitor has called, and it melts his phone. (It doesn't have to work on outgoing calls.) It might even make a lot of money for the RBOCs if marketed as "Call Block With Extreme Prejudice". Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #102 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa13103; 16 Feb 95 21:51 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA09007; Thu, 16 Feb 95 16:37:52 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA09001; Thu, 16 Feb 95 16:37:50 CST Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 16:37:50 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9502162237.AA09001@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #103 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Feb 95 16:37:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 103 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Mexican Union Lodges Complaint Against Sprint (D Shniad) California Local Prefixes Database Wanted (John J. Henderson) Book Review: "Computer Networks" by Black (Rob Slade) Ameritech Announces TT Charge Reduction in Confusing Way (Bradley Bittorf) T1 Test Equipment Wanted (E.M. Sullivan) PCS Survey; Please Participate (Prakash Hariramani) Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (John S. Maddaus) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 13:03:29 -0800 Reply-To: pen-l@ecst.csuchico.edu From: D Shniad Subject: Mexican Union Lodges Complaint Against Sprint Mexican union lodges NAFTA complaint against U.S. company: TELECOM UNION BLASTS SPRINT'S LABOR PRACTICES MEXICO CITY, February 9 -- In the first formal complaint by a Mexican union against a U.S. corporation under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Telecommunications Workers of the Republic of Mexico charged the Sprint Corporation with violating "basic norms of labor rights" in the U.S., declaring: "We do not want this to happen with Sprint in Mexico." Today's filing by the union's General Secretary Francisco Hernandez Juarez cited Sprint's mass firing of 235 Latino telemarketers in San Francisco on July 14, 1994. Juarez noted that the shutdown of Sprint/La Conexion Familiar, a subsidiary that sold long distance phone service to Spanish-speaking customers in the U.S., occurred one week before a vote on representation by the Communications Workers of America (CWA). Sprint committed "more than 50 violations of the law" during the workers' union campaign, as determined by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board, Juarez stated. The charges were filed with Mexico's National Administrative Office (NAO) for the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, the side agreement to NAFTA dealing with labor policies in Mexico, Canada and the U.S. The Mexican union represents employees of Telefonos de Mexico, the national phone system with which Sprint is trying to form an alliance to create a telephone network throughout North America. Juarez charged that the slow judicial process under U.S. law, and the absence of a prompt remedy to the violation of workers' rights at La Conexion demonstrates "the ineffectiveness of the U.S. law to comply with the principles contained in (the NAFTA labor side agreement) to which the U.S. is now obligated." The union leader called on the NAO to "declare that Sprint will not be allowed to establish itself in Mexico given its track record of abuses against workers until the company reinstates the fired U.S. workers and declares that it will "respect the rights of workers" and recognize unions in both countries when a majority of workers in a Sprint enterprise seek to unionize. The Mexican union also urged the NAOs of the three NAFTA countries convene a forum this year "attended by government, labor and management representatives from the telecommunications industry to explore ways to collaborate and discuss appropriate standards concerning workers' rights ... good paying jobs, as well as other important matters." The NAFTA labor side agreement provides for consultations among representatives of the U.S., Canada and Mexico up to the level of the secretaries of labor to resolve disputes over the lack of compliance with labor standards guaranteed in the agreement. The Sprint/La Conexion Familiar affair also has drawn concern from Sprint's prospective German business partner, Deutsche Telekom AG. The board of the German phone system, which is negotiating a 10-percent stake in Sprint, valued at $2 billion, cited Sprint as the inspiration for a new policy "ensuring that employer-employee relations customary in Germany are recognized and complied with" where the company "operates jointly with its global partners." Sprint's shutdown of La Conexion Familiar was the subject of a month-long trial prosecuted by the NLRB's Region 20 in San Francisco before an administrative law judge. A ruling is expected this spring. -- Communications Workers of America For further information, contact Jeffery Miller, CWA Public Affairs Department, 202-434-1163 ------------------------------ From: John J. Henderson <70733.731@CompuServe.COM> Subject: California Local Prefixes Database Wanted Date: 16 Feb 1995 21:24:19 GMT Organization: Valley Infosystems I recently contacted Pacific Bell here in California and asked them if a database was available where you would put in your area code (say 916 for Sacramento) and then your prefix (say 851 for Ranch Cordova, a suburb of Sacramento) and it would give you back all the prefixes that are local, non- toll calls. This information is available for just your local are in the front of the Pacific Bell white pages, but I'd like this information for the whole state ... plus I don't look forward to typing in all those prefixes and their cross references. The person I talked to at Pac Bell said that the information was not available from them, except of course if I wanted to get every phone book for the state of California and do it myself. She said that they use an in house program that tell them that infromation, but it wasn't available to the public. Does anyone have any ideas? Or is this database available somewhere? John J. Henderson Valley Infosystems Sacramento, CA 70733,731@COMPUSERVE.COM ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 14:28:03 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Computer Networks" by Black BKCMPNTW.RVW 950109 "Computer Networks", Black, 1993, 0-13-175605-2 %A Uyless Black %C 113 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 %D 1993 %G 0-13-175605-2 %I PTR Prentice Hall %O (515) 284-6751 FAX (515) 284-2607 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 436 %T "Computer Networks" This is a very complete and well organized text on data communications. The intent of the work is to address the components of a computer network system, and this succeeds quite well. (Those interested in network specific topics, such as routing, should look elsewhere.) Areas covered include introductory material, layered protocols, polling protocols, satellite networks, local area networks, packet switching, X.25, digital networks, a brief look at TCP/IP, personal computers, PBX and upper layer protocols. Additional reference material is included in the appendices. Occasionally, the material becomes too specific and shows signs of age. The chapter on personal computer networks uses concepts and jargon which will be quite foreign to those familiar with the micro field. By and large, however, this is an excellent source not only for a general overview, but as a reference in a number of data communications areas. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1995 BKCMPNTW.RVW 950109. Distribution permitted in TELECOM Digest and associated publications. Rob Slade's book reviews are a regular feature in the Digest. Vancouver ROBERTS@decus.ca Institute for Robert_Slade@sfu.ca Research into rslade@cue.bc.ca User p1@CyberStore.ca Security Canada V7K 2G6 ------------------------------ From: bjb@petrel.cle.ab.com (Bradley J. Bittorf) Subject: Ameritech Announces Touch-Tone Charge Reduction in Confusing Way Date: 16 Feb 1995 19:42:09 GMT Organization: Allen-Bradley Company, Inc. I received an insert from Ameritech yesterday in my bill. In part, it read: "The monthly $1.80 Touch-Tone Service charge will be eliminated over the next three years. Starting January 9th, you'll pay $1.00 less per month. The remaining Touch-Tone charge no longer will be shown separately on your bill. Instead, the reduced monthly charge of $.80 will be included in your "access line" charge." My interpretation of this was that all customers would see their "access line" charge increased by $.80/month. However, I spoke to an Ameritech residential service representative, who told me the $.80 would be added to my "access line" charge. In other words, the "access line" charge will be $.80 more for those with Touch-Tone service. Then, sometime in the next three years, that will disappear too. (Probably the next time the "access line" service increases -- I predict by $.80!) In the meantime, Touch-Tone customers may not realize they are paying extra for it. Incidentally, the installation charge for Touch-Tone has been dropped (not sure if that's temporary or permanent), so I relented and finally got it. I guess the $.80 is within my threshhold of annoyance for having to switch my phones back and forth between tone and pulse. ;-) Bradley J. Bittorf | Phone: 216.646.4629 Allen-Bradley Company/Rockwell Automation | FAX: 216.646.4484 747 Alpha Drive, Highland Heights, OH 44143 | e-mail: bradley.bittorf@ab.com ------------------------------ From: EM Sullivan Subject: T1 Test Equipment Wanted Date: 16 Feb 1995 18:53:34 GMT Organization: Capital Area Internet Service info@cais.com 703-448-4470 Can anyone comment on a T1 test equipment manufacturer called Compression Techniques Corp? They make a T1 tested called the TStar. I'm looking for opinions from users as to how it compares with some of the other alternatives (like the TTC Firebird). ------------------------------ From: Prakash Hariramani Subject: PCS Survey; Please Participate Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 11:08:52 -0500 Organization: Information Networking Institute Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh PA We are graduate students at the Information Networking Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. We are doing research on Personal Communications Services commonly known as PCS. PCS could revolutionize the way people communicate. We could move from the current concept of one phone per location to one per person. We have designed a survey which can be accessed through a World Wide Web browser such as Mosaic or Netscape at the following URL: http://www.ini.cmu.edu/~ph2k/pcs/survey.html We wanted to ask readers of this newsgroup to participate in this survey, if they had the time. Trial runs indicate that the survey takes between 10 and 15 minutes to complete. Our survey focuses primarily on the following aspects of PCS: pricing, penetration, features for both residential and business users. Thanks! Andrew Scott Prakash Hariramani Paul Varley Information Networking Institute Carnegie Mellon University 5000 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213 ------------------------------ From: jsm@mvulo.att.com Date: 15 Feb 95 00:06:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? Organization: AT&T Pat: My $.02 worth in three parts, carrier perception now, what is wrong with that perception IMHO, and potential ramifications for future wireless offerings (purely prognostication on my part). This is merely intended to share my experiences in a related subject. I hope no one takes offense at anything I've said. No finger pointing intended, only opinions based upon customer feedback. Addressing fraud is an amazingly complex issue that requires numerous companies to work together jointly when in fact they are competing against one another in the very same businesses and constantly seeking leverage against one another. It is a credit to the standards bodies that standards addressing these issues have been agreed upon by such diverse companies. Implementing same, is another story. No one company can implement the existing fraud and security standards alone. At that point, the only option is proprietary, which is what is being done now. All in all, it was a thoroughly frustrating two years in an unbelievably dynamic environment, and by far the most enjoyable job I have held with my company. BACKGROUND: I spent the better part of the past two years traveling to various cellular providers to attempt to get them to distribute our cellular privacy/security products. I had the unique opportunity to meet with carriers and their customers. Although you may wonder what this has to do with fraud, there are in fact many similarities between the two. For instance, addressing both requires something on both the subscriber and switch ends, whether it be a user pressing a PIN sequence and the switch understanding the sequence or a phone with privacy/encryption built in and complementary adjunct at the switch or on a desk. Additionally, one could argue that what C1 did in NYC just pushes the fraud out a level to the user (i.e. the calling card number you just gave the operator is now being used to someone elses benefit at your expense) which then enters the realm of privacy. There was and is an interested user base but the carriers are not interested. Why? (NOTE - that these are not my opinions but those expressed to me by carrier personnel from engineering, marketing, product management, sales,etc. from regional VPs to engineers and sales execs): THE CURRENT VISION: 1) Cellular is still profitable despite fraud/security implications. Carriers sign up record numbers of users each year. If you were reporting positive financials up your management line, would you change and open up a potentially huge can of worms that could undermine your financials given enough press? There is little financial incentive to do anything about fraud if the bottom line looks good already. 2) Digital will take over and have fraud protection (and higher security) built in. Within two years, analog will no longer be an issue and security and fraud problems will disappear. 3) I know some of my customers need it but I have to make a business case and I don't think enough people care. 4) Our sales forces only know how to sell phones. They have lost the ability to sell services. 5) We can't admit to our customers that our services are insecure! 6) Costs too much money -- the user will never pay for it. 7) If it were in a Motorola flip phone, we'd buy it in a minute. 8) Most importantly, customers (including myself) continue to pay their monthly cellular bills, which cover the operating expenses for the carrier (including losses from fraud) and provide a tidy profit as well. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS VISION: 1) Analog subscriber growth continues at a record pace. What is not taking off is airtime for potential high usage business users. So, carriers are now looking for new services to offer (voice messaging, data, etc.) to attract same. None of these services (or for that matter the basic cellular service) offer enhanced security (that meet the standards of many corporate security instructions) or built in fraud protection that is an inherent part of the switch and phone and yes for many reasons, digital is just as insecure as analog (we can debate this in another forum if you like). I read a recent report (WSJ I think) that fraud in the NYC area cost the local carriers $60M alone last year. But if I had to guess, I'll venture that the financial picture for the NYC carriers show positive Economic Value Added as the numbers get passed up the corporate financial hierarchy. Fundamentally, I believe there are two reasons why business customers limit air time -- cost and security. Cost could be driven down if fraud could be controlled. Security could increase call-minutes (and therefore carrier revenue), and like fraud an optimal solution involves both your subscriber piece and the switch. There are implications here for PCS (see prognostications below). I have heard many stories how employees have been given cellular phones as perks and been told not to use them for business. 2) Two years ago, digital was going to replace analog by 1998. Thanks to multiple digital standards, analog now has a rosy future. In a recent quote in Mobile Phone News 12/12/94, Motorola says "Digital accounts for less than 5% of cellular growth in the U.S. As of October 1, there were 21.5 million analog users in the country, compared with 250,000 subscribers using TDMA..." I have been told by Motorola, Nokia and NEC personnel that the bread and butter for the subscriber equipment portion of their business will continue to be analog for the forseeable future. Actually, I would think that the thought of replacing 21.5 million analog phones would be an incentive for manufacturers to use any excuse to create a new analog version of existing phones with fraud and security built in. As an aside, when the Bar Associations in NY, MA, NH and other states rule it is unethical for an attorney to discuss client matters over a cellular phone, they are not differentiating between analog and digital. From this I could draw one of two conclusions; either the carriers have done a poor job of positioning the advantages of digital to the user or maybe there are none. Anyone offering odds that CDMA (with whatever security/fraud standards are decided upon) will be rolled out in a diluted version first sans some portion of those standards? 3) Financial responsibility is extremely fragmented in cellular. A good general rule is any addition to the MTSO needs to be cost justified for that MTSO. This affects fraud/security in two ways. First, it dilutes the business case by forcing the regional managers to look at each expense (not unreasonable). The net result is that corporate tends not to look at the problem as something it needs to be involved in because it is regional in nature. McCaw San Francisco certainly has more fraud potential compared to McCaw Oklahoma, so let San Fran fix their problem. Second, it removes the corporate clout required to implement a solution within subscriber equipment. Since corporate usually negotiates subscriber equipment purchases, regional managers have zero chance of independently approaching a major manufacturer such as Motorola, Nokia, etc. If they are allowed such independence, their numbers and therefore bargaining power are still reduced. 4) Just an excuse for asking your sales people to sell high priced basic service and higher priced enhanced services to a varied customer base. If my salary depended upon attaining a sales quota, you know I'd be concentrating on selling basic service and a Motorola phone to the "average" customer. It's the easiest sell. 5) I would assert that the press is doing an adequate job of this on the house. Also, isn't C1-DC's denial of roaming in NYC a tacit admission that they have no control over the fraud problem in NYC? Ditto for the Nynex, Bell Atlantic, C1-NY PIN deal. And you know your in trouble when publications such as {Woman's Day} (7/20/93) say things like "So, if you'd rather keep your personal conversations private, make and take them on an old-fashioned, wired telephone". Still, fraud and security are an extremely tough sell. There are Fortune 100 companies whose security departments routinely monitor executives cellular calls and provide them with transcripts. I have given equipment to CEO's of some of these companies, only to have it politely returned with a note indicating that they didn't see the need. Very likely, these same executives have appeared before Congress in the last couple of years to complain about their losses from foreign intercepts by the French, et. al. and they probably haven't addressed that problem yet either. Losses due to communications fraud and lack of security are too intangible to measure by the average user that has to date been left in peace (or at least is unaware of events to the contrary), let alone the carriers (the press seems to be doing OK with this though). Now if your carrier sent you a letter saying that effective immediately they were doubling your monthly rate and call charges to cover losses from fraud or told you that you would have to exchange your existing phone at your cost, would that get your attention? Not to worry, they wouldn't risk losing the profitable business that they have by being so rash. 6) Maybe true. Its amazing the excuses that people give for not buying products to protect them against fraud or intercept. It's too big, heavy, costly, don't like the voice quality, wanted blue instead of black, doesn't say Motorola on it, and on and on. However, the biggest excuse is that human beings tend not to take responsibility for the problems that occur, especially when their insurance does not cover the loss. When a user is "hit" (and they often don't know that they have been), they believe it is the responsibility of the "telephone company" to protect them or cover their losses (Ma still lives on in spirit). You need only look at the reaction to PBX fraud as evidence. To their everlasting credit (and the good of their financial picture) telcos/carriers are perpetuating this "feel good" spirit by continuing to cover the losses. The extra price of security and fraud control equipment is tangible, one can look at a purchase order and see the difference. The losses due to fraud or lack of security can disappear at many finance levels with creative accounting. If users were truly concerned, then there would be many more than 250,000 TDMA subscribers now. For all its shortcomings, TDMA does have better authentication, although initially this may not have been the case. By the way, this is only a guess but I'd bet that the PIN arrangement is required for both dual mode and analog phones. Can anyone confirm this? 7) It is very difficult if not impossible to get major phone manufacturers to make changes to cookie cutter subscriber equipment to add anti-fraud or enhanced security, even if it adheres to TIA standards. These pieces are produced in lots of hundreds of thousands at a clip. Carriers have painted themselves into a corner on subscriber equipment -- they have given it away at a loss for so long to get customers to sign up that customers have grown used to getting the equipment for free or minimal cost. Carriers are loathe to change this successful equation. My Motorla digital flip user guide clearly stated that enhanced privacy was only available for digital calls. Typical of the industry last year was the decision to move forward with digital and refrain from adding features such as enhanced privacy or authentication to the soon to be replaced analog system. I never did find an area where the switch supported the enhanced privacy feature that the phone had. Maybe the industry has changed its mind by now. But that still leaves a minimum of 21.5 million pieces of analog subscriber equipment that do not support any potential improvements to the switch, and those numbers increase by thousands every day. Sounds a bit overwhelming to me, but I am still of the opinion (eternal optimist that I am) that it could be done by any of the carriers if managed properly. 8) Well, I guess that says it all. I still pay my monthly bill but I don't turn the phone on much any more. I used to be able to take care of business while driving between Phoenix and Tucson. It made me much more efficient. My cellular bills used to range between $300 and $600 a month (and I didn't violate Corporate Security Instructions because I had an attached encryption device that I used faithfully). Then I made that one clear phone call (sheer convenience) to make my travel arrangements to show my equipment to BellSouth in Atlanta. Amazing how on a direct flight from MHT to ATL my luggage was broken open and five cellular phones, a scanner, and an ESN reader were left untouched, only the encryption/privacy equipment was destroyed. Since I changed jobs and gave my encryption devices back, I no longer travel and have a need to stay in touch and be more efficient in my new job (at least my new management probably isn't interested in paying that much for more efficiency). Now I try not to turn the phone on near Boston to let the ESN readers and scanners pick up someone else. I don't even like to call home and find out my kids are home alone much less let the world know it. I use the phone for directory assistance and calling stores. Makes me a much more efficient shopper. Still its hard to pass up a $.10 pay phone (still have it here in NH) for three minutes knowing it will cost me $1.50 on the cellular. Come to think of it, why do I need cellular service? It's not as useful as it used to be. PROGNOSTICATIONS (my favorite): 1) Carriers need to get analog right. If you attend a regional C1 wireless expo, you will hear that PCS is already here today, and the speaker will hold up a dual-mode phone and describe all of the nice services available, meant to make your deskphone expendable. In reality, that analogy is based upon the ubiquity of analog service. The concept of communications any time, anywhere is only available now because of analog infrastructure. To date, carriers have shown no propensity to strengthen the notion that the wireless "deskphone" as it exists today is as secure and fraud resistant as the wired one (which is already on my desk and costs a lot less to operate). They have already entrenched in customers minds the standards for PCS; expect more of the same. They have made PCS sales much more difficult. PCS sales people will have to overcome the weaknesses of analog, something digital has not been able to do to date. 2) Note several disturbing trends in the carrier responses to fraud. First, every carrier that attempts to deal with fraud is implementing its preferred method and they are dissimilar. I have to wonder if the Nynex and C1-NY PIN strategies are compatible. Second, anti-fraud efforts are concentrating on local territories. Your Nynex PIN is probably worthless on the West Coast where you probably stand at least an equal chance of being cloned. Third, all the "fixes" are user impacting and represent a step backward from direct dial capabilities. In an age where cell phones are now being sold with dial tone (ostensibly to get users to transition more easily from the deskset), we are now faced with the probability that we either have to enter a PIN or talk to an operator (none of which I have to do from my deskset). These are interim steps for an analog system that will continue to be much more than an interim system. This interim analog system is the test market for enhanced PCS services and the response will not be "knock the door down, let me get this thing" if the price of these services are lack of security and increased exposure to fraud. There is at least one district director whose carrier employer is committed to enhanced services that recognizes the risk he takes every time he powers his current generation PCS vehicle (aka cellular phone) up, places or receives a call. 3) The entire concept of the Wireless PBX is doomed unless security and fraud are addressed and solved both in the Campus environment and with the particpating carrier. Too many corporate security instructions exist which preclude discussion of proprietary business over cellular phones. Keep in mind also that with the winding down of the cold war, many ex-government security folks are now being hired by major corporations to address the security weaknesses of these companies, and they do know the score. John S. Maddaus jmaddaus@attmail.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much for such an interesting inside view on the cellular fraud problem. Your article was one of the best on the topic I've printed since this thread began. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #103 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa14492; 16 Feb 95 23:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA12621; Thu, 16 Feb 95 18:11:06 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA12615; Thu, 16 Feb 95 18:11:04 CST Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 18:11:04 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9502170011.AA12615@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #104 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Feb 95 18:11:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 104 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Does AT&T 7506 TAD 03A Pass CID to RS232 of Original Caller? (A Varney) Re: How I Fooled Caller ID (Anthony Chor) Re: Who Belongs to 10732 Five-Digit Access Code? (Walter Turberville) Re: Who Belongs to 10732 Five-Digit Access Code? (David Breneman) Re: Emergency Cellular Phone (Brad Hicks) Re: Apple, Data-PCS, Canadian PCS Services (Elizabeth Bonkink) Re: Security of Cordless Phones? (Mark R. Wilkins) Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder (Chris Hardaker) Recommendations Wanted For Caller-ID Capable Modem (Tim Petlock) Happy Haleyville, Alabama 911 Emergency Call Day! (Steve Brack) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: varney@usgp2.ih.att.com (Al Varney) Subject: Re: Does AT&T 7506 TAD 03A Pass CID to RS232 of Original Caller? Organization: AT&T Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 00:02:29 GMT In article , wrote: > An early reply would be appreciated ... Oops ... > Today I'm ordering my AT&T 7506 TAD 03A and ISDN service with NYNEX. > Does this particular 7506 pass the CID of each caller to the RS232? I > want to plug my computer in and have it look into my customer database > and pop up the record for the customer before I even know the phone is > ringing. > I'll program it. I just want to know if the firmware allows it, and how. The firmware allows it. Without the manual (or the hint below), you'll never figure out how to get it. (No fair tracing the firmware....) Anyway, the firmware you need is Feature Package 3 (FP3) or later, with an ADM-2. With phone powered up, hit SELECT and then TEST. After the neat self-test finishes, the display will show the FPx.y level and firmware date. (It will also emit this annoying "BEEP" until you hit SELECT and TEST again.) If you are at FP3.0 or later, you should have the "ISDN ADM FP3 Users Guide," 555-021-729 to tell you how to use it ... but the real power user also needs "ISDN API Programmers Reference Manual", 533-705-200. FP3 supports: - D or B-channel data (X.25 or "raw" on the B-channel) - a basic monitor capability for voice or data calls (see below), - a version using Hayes(tm) AutoStream(tm) / to monitor for both, - a range of Human Interface monitor capabilities that will report button presses, switch-hook, key presses, lamp status, volume, sound/alerter status, etc. - a "control" capability that allows the ADM to actually break the Human-to-CO interface and control calls, sound, buttons, etc. (The alerter will play tunes within reason....) - AutoStream also allows the ADM EIA-232-D port to intermix data (D or B-channel) with these controls. (There is also a NETBIOS modified interface from EXCELLTECH available to support up to 4 7506's from a PC. Never tried it myself ...) Anyway, to get the most basic voice monitor capabilities, set the 7506 Data capabilities (SELECT, then DATA) to: - 9600 or higher (the ADM will autosynch unless you block it) - "EnhAT" mode (not "AT" or "CMD") - Parity and Data Mode shouldn't matter. Now hook up your terminal/emulator to the ADM port -- type "at" and it should say "OK". If not, see Users Guide .... Now enter "at&O1" (you want to monitor with ID 1) Then enter "at%A0=3" (you want to monitor VOICE with ID 1) Then enter "at&&X0,0,98" (this turns on Enhanced monitoring results) That should do it. Here's a captured stream from my work phone (7506). The PARTY, CAUSE and SCA lines will not appear except in Enhanced monitoring mode. Good luck. I didn't design this interface -- I just use it ... Al Varney - all typos mine vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv I've added these comments. at <- Just to ensure everything's working.... OK (I'm in non-AutoStream mode, logging the ADM port....) RING:01 <- New call on Call Appearance 1 (CA1) (This is an incoming call, RING is a poor term) SIGNAL:01,40 <- Turn on "Audible Ring - Pattern 0" tone PARTY:01,1,4,1,NXXXXXX <- CA1 incoming voice call information from SETUP 1 = Calling Party number 4 = Subscriber number (7-digit in NANP) (or 2 = 10-digit number and 1 = International #) 1 = E.164 numbering plan (ISDN/Telephone) (you may get private/screening codes added before the number if blocked/out-of-area, etc.) SCA:01 <- Call Appearance 1 associated with switch-hook DISPLAY:01,01 1 <- Display 01, Call Appearance 1 text ==> "a=" on 7506 DISPLAY:01,03708-NXX-XXXX <- Display 03, Calling Number DISPLAY:01,05MY BOSS <- Display 05, calling name (blank padded) DISPLAY:01,07InI <- Display 07, Call type 'InI' == Incoming, Internal DISPLAY:01,0A02-14 02:38pm <- Display 0A, Date/Time CONNECTED:01 <- Handset lifted, connect caller SIGNAL:01,4F <- Turn off Alerting tone DISPLAY:01,01 1 <- Refresh the display.... 7506 automatically starts a 'call duration' timer on the display in place of the Date/Time DISPLAY:01,03708-NXX-XXXX DISPLAY:01,05MY BOSS DISPLAY:01,07InI CAUSE:01,10,2 <- I hang up - 10 = Release cause 'normal' SIGNAL:01,4F,10 <- Turn off alerting(!) and show 'cause value' SCA:01 <- CO auto-selects CA1 when phone is idle CLEARED:01,10 <- B-channel idle, with 'cause value' indication (ISDN is littered with "cause values".) -------------------------------------- Here's the same stuff when I call myself (neat ISDN debugging tool) CALL:01 <- Pick up my handset, Call Appearance 1 (CA1) active SIGNAL:01,00 <- Turn on "dial tone" tone DISPLAY:01,01 1 <- Display CA1 text ==> "a=" on the 7506 PROMPT:01,0102 <- CO tells set to send more digits (the display automatically records these) SIGNAL:01,3F <- Turn off tones (after first digit) PROCEEDING:01 <- CO gets enough digits to process (this is a 'Centrex dial 9' type of access) PROMPT:01,0102 <- CO tells set to send more digits (the display automatically records these, after a ',') SIGNAL:01,00 <- Turn on "dial tone" tone again (dial POTS number now) SIGNAL:01,3F <- Turn off tones (after first digit) PROCEEDING:01 <- CO gets enough digits to process RING:02 <- New call on Call Appearance 2 (RING is poor term) (This is the incoming call) SIGNAL:02,40 <- Turn on "Alerting Tone - Pattern 0" tone PARTY:02,1,4,1,NXXXXXX <- CA2 incoming voice call information from SETUP <1 = Called Party number 4 = Subscriber number (7-digit in NANP) 1 = E.164 numbering plan (ISDN/Telephone) DELIVERED:01 <- The called party is being alerted PROGRESS:01,0208 <- Alerting in progress SIGNAL:01,01 <- Turn on "audible ring" tone DISPLAY:01,01 1 <- Display 01, CA1 text DISPLAY:01,02NXXXXXX <- Display 02, outgoing called number DISPLAY:01,07OuI <- Outgoing, Internal call DISPLAY:02,01 2 <- Display 01, CA2 text (This wipes out the CA1 display) DISPLAY:02,03708-NXX-XXXX DISPLAY:02,05AL VARNEY <- Hey, that's me!! DISPLAY:02,07InI DISPLAY:02,0A02-14 10:37am CAUSE:01,10,2 <- I'm not answering me, so hang up on CA1 (I could have hit CA2, putting the outgoing call on hold and answering the incoming one. The high- tech way to talk to yourself.) SIGNAL:01,4F,10 <- Turn off tones (audible ring) SCA:02 <- CO autoselects the CA2 button (little does it know that CA1 was the same call. This would allow me to answer CA2 by lifting the switch-hook but, of course, the incoming call is about to die.) CLEARED:01,10 <- B-channel idle on CA1 call CAUSE:02,10,0 <- Drop incoming call (0=unknown location?) SIGNAL:02,4F,10 <- Turn off tones (alerting) CAUSE:02,10,2 <- Drop incoming call, 2=local public network SCA:01 <- CO autoselects CA1 on idle 7506 CLEARED:02,10 <- Drop incoming B-channel ------------------------------ From: Anthony Chor Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 10:21:23 PST Subject: Re: How I Fooled Caller ID In TELECOM Digest #93, 0006718446@mcimail.com (John Combs) writes: > By the way, don't forget that all those new, be-here-any-day-now > voice and data-simultaneously modems working on analog lines are going > to have to do considerably better than a mere 4:1 compression ratio. > And, there ain't no way they'll connect through an AT&T SLC96 which > has channel compression turned on, but the ADSI phone will. > The point is, ADSI is a simple, cheap technology that provides Caller > ID on Call Waiting, and has an extra feature that also allows simple > text interaction between home and businesses. It is targeted at the > majority of the population that eyes a PC with suspicion/derision, but > has no qualms about using a telephone, even if it DOES have a screen. > And, it doesn't need Bellcore to champion it -- the RBOCs will take > care of the issue by offering to sell/lease the hardware at cost, > knowing they'll make their money by increased sales of calling > features on home phone lines. Bell Atlantic did this a couple of > years ago with simple Caller ID number-only boxes, and moved more than > a half-million in no time. (Of course, they regret that now, as they > are meeting resistance from those purchasers when they suggest trading > up for a fee to get a Calling Name and Number ID box.) > Until Bill Gates understands that sometimes dates DO matter, Microsoft > won't qbe replacing COs with super PC servers running NT. (Remember > that brag?) I'm not sure how this thread turned into a Microsoft-bash; I realize it's trendy, but it's not relevant to this discussion. The point of my posting was that ADSI is a non-scalable voice/data solution, obsolete before it ever reached widespread adoption. Rather than adopting an antiquated technology, we should be looking to newer, more flexible voice/data schemes. I was also not advocating a "pie-in-the-sky" solution, as John insinuates. However, it is important to see technology trends and build a plan which allows us deploy today and move toward the future with a minimum of fuss for users or providers. One approach may be to start with Radish's VoiceView, which DOES work on the ubiquitous analog line through any kind of switch and even from behind a PBX. The architecture that applications are built on to use VoiceView allows the transport to be replaced later with DSVD, ISDN, ATM, or whatever without changing the application. This is the kind of future we should be working toward -- ready today, ready for tomorrow. Furthermore, these technologies don't have to live in a box which looks like a computer. I totally agree with John that there are lots of people who "eye a PC with suspicion/derision." So for these people, there are companies building screenphones which support VoiceView and computer companies building devices which don't necessarily look like the computers we have today. As far as adoption goes, there are roughly ten million modems sold each year, most of which will be VoiceView equipped by this time next year. Contrast this to <1,100,000 screenphones (including proprietary non-ADSI phones) in TOTAL deployment by the end of the year (according to a Falkner&Gray report. What's more, since the PC industry enjoys a more favorable price curve than any industry, the price of PC-based solutions (including PC-based screenphones) should drop faster than non-PC based telephone hardware, thereby further widening the gap. Which user base do you want to develop for? (Hint: more is more.) Heck, I'll even bite on the Microsoft Windows NT in the back-office non-sequitor. NT is already being deployed in the network -- GeoTel makes an SS7 box built on NT. What's more, people like Octel and InteCom have already announced that their next generation systems will be built on NT. Over the next five years, you'll see NT moving into PBXs first and then into the CO (slower here due to inertia). I'll make a gentleman's wager with you, John, that by 2000, Windows NT will be commonplace in PBXs and CO's. ADSI is not a good solution, and, contrary to John's assertion, without Bellcore to advance it, it will never grow to support richer user interactions. Even with Bellcore's help, it will likely never grow up. In discussions we've had with folks in the telecom industry, it's clear that most of these people realize ADSI is a dead technology, so I'm not sure who will propagate and grow it. I think John's story about GTE giving away Caller ID boxes sums up my primary argument: if we take a heads-down-how-do-we-make-money-right-now approach without thinking about what the future brings, we will wind up screwing ourselves like GTE did. So before you think about deploying ADSI or building ADSI-based products, think about what your next step is what that step will look like for you and your users. You'll realize it's a doozy ... And, yes, Windows 95 will ship in 1995. Tony Chor, tonych@microsoft.com Program Manager, Telecom Products Unit, Microsoft Corporation ------------------------------ From: wturber@PrimeNet.Com (Walter (Jay) Turberville ) Subject: Re: Who Belongs to 10732 Five-Digit Access Code? Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 04:57:33 GMT Organization: Primenet In article tedwards@src.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes: > Recently an "urban rumor" has been going around: > If you want to know whether your phone has been tapped in the last six > months, dial in the following: > 107 321 404 988 966 4 > What you will get back is a digital recording consisting of (a) your phone's > area code; (b) your 7-digit phone-number; (c) the digit 8; (d) a pause of > a few seconds; (e) 9 zeroes in three groups of three -- 000 000 000; and > (f) a digit. If the digit (f) is a 2, your phone is clear. Otherwise, if it > is any other digit (usually it's a 1 in that case), your phone has been > tapped in the last six months. > OK - obviously this number is 10732-1-404-988-9664. Which provider is > the 5-d code 10732? Anyone know mroe details on the 1-404-988-9664? In my experience working for an RBOC, legal phone taps are not done via the switch. They are attached directly at some point to the tapped line. For the above scenario to be correct, there would have to be some universal "tapped phone database" which, if you think about it for a moment, is an absurdity. Walter (Jay) Turberville Phoenix, AZ wturber@primenet.com wturber@aol.com http://www.primenet.com/~wturber ------------------------------ From: daveb@dgtl.com (David Breneman) Subject: Re: Who Belongs to 10732 Five-Digit Access Code? Date: 16 Feb 95 20:43:02 GMT Organization: Digital Systems International, Redmond WA Thomas Grant Edwards (tedwards@src.umd.edu) wrote: > Recently an "urban rumor" has been going around: > If you want to know whether your phone has been tapped in the last six > months, dial in the following: > 107 321 404 988 966 4 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Gosh, what a mystery! > I don't know what the final digit is, but that bull about 'your phone > has been or is being tapped' is just exactly that: Bull! How would > AT&T know if some customer of Sprint (for example) had his phone > tapped by his local telco, at (for example) the request of law > enforcement. Whoever spreads these stories (you perhaps? 'urban > legend', indeed!) should stop it now. I don't know what the AT&T > private network uses that number for, but I can almost assuredly > advise you it has nothing to do with phone taps. PAT] I've heard this "wiretap" story myself. Most recently from a caller to a call-in show where the topic was the Clipper Chip. So, this rumor *is* circulating out there. In this case, the radio station called the number on-air and discovered that *their* lines were "tapped"! Scandal! A radio station's caller lines being *listened in on*!?! :-) David Breneman Email: daveb@jaws.engineering.dgtl.com Systems Administrator, Voice: +1 206 881-7544 Fax: +1 206 556-8033 Product Development Platforms Digital Systems International, Inc. Redmond, Washington, U. S. o' A. ------------------------------ From: /G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU1=0205465@mhs-mc.attmail.com Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 09:18:34 -0600 Subject: Re: Emergency Cellular Phone > I've been told that unactivated cellular phones in the PNW > region are able to dial 911, and 711 (cellular operator), unless the > phone has been flagged as stolen. Gee, I'd think they'd =want= stolen phones to be able to call 611, 711, or 911. After all, don't the police and the cellular phone company =want= to know what cell the stolen phone was located in? Could be pretty handy information! And who knows what other helpful information you could trick out of someone stupid enough to call the police on a stolen phone? J. Brad Hicks Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad ------------------------------ From: bonkink@server.uwindsor.ca (Bonkink Elizabeth) Subject: Re: Apple, Data-PCS, Canadian PCS services Organization: University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 15:58:30 -0500 In article monty@roscom.COM writes: > Apple Hails FCC Frequency Allocation for Data-PCS > CUPERTINO, California -- February 15, 1995 -- The long-expected era of > wireless computing was given a solid boost last week when all five FCC > Commissioners unanimously voted to allocate 10 Megahertz of radio > spectrum for low-power, wireless data communications, "Data- PCS." > As a result of the FCC's allocating the new band without further > procedural or administrative delay, starting immediately, > manufacturers can produce radio modems so educators and other users > can set up their own wireless networks. The cost and complexity of > wireless computing devices can be substantially reduced and their > bandwidth (or data rate) can be significantly greater, allowing for > such applications as multimedia. Can anyone briefly explain how this affects Canadian wireless data services or the plans for them? I've heard precious little about CRTC/Dept of Industry PCS policy, and I do try to read the papers now and then. With a major player like Apple pulling for wireless computing, and the FCC making it viable as above, will these products be able to appear in Canada? Eh? Kirk Zurell Bumper-surfing on the info highway... Swerving to avoid a deltree. ------------------------------ From: mrw@cs.hmc.edu (Mark R. Wilkins) Subject: Re: Security of Cordless Phones? Date: 16 Feb 1995 21:14:00 GMT Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA In article , Jeffrey A. Porten wrote: > Having just gotten a new cordless phone (BellSouth 46mHz), and living > in the paranoid environs of Washington, DC, I find myself wondering ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > just how likely it is that the world is listening to my calls. [ stuff deleted ] > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Corded or cordless, the assumption should > be that your telephone calls are never secure. Very true. Actually, in Washington, D.C. I would guess that a large number of your calls are being automatically recorded by equipment owned by friendly and unfriendly nations. The "world" may very literally be listening to your cordless calls along with many others in the Washington area. Increasingly, also, government intelligence agencies in many countries around the world support their domestic industries by passing along relevant technical or business information they run across in the course of other collection efforts. A recent investigation at Vandenberg Air Force Base, at which I work, uncovered evidence that the French intelligence agency was systematically collecting such information on the activities of forty cont- ractors working in the area of commercial space launch services. This according to reports in the paper, of course. So even if you're not working for the government, it may be that your work-related conversations are of interest to a competitor who happens to be aided by a foreign government. :-) Just a dose of paranoia to liven up your day! Mark Wilkins SRI International, Vandenberg AFB ------------------------------ Subject: Re: MCI Bureaucratic Blunder From: hardaker@clear.co.nz (Chris Hardaker) Date: 16 Feb 95 11:11:29 EST IMHO ... I have been reading this journal now for over six months and find it totally enjoyable. I have been particularly impressed (depressed?) by the number of situations that arise for bureaucratic megalomania. Coming from New Zealand and having worked for both of the major players in the Telco arena, I can only remember our bad old days. I have had numerous 'pre-competition' experiences with the billing systems and general customer service ethic of the governmental monopoly. CLEAR Communications came along and just like MGM Magic (Wires, mirrors, that kind of thing..) suddenly 'I' was important. Very similar to Richard Wildman's MCI experiences, TELECOM NZ were forever cutting people off for non-payment and then having to re-instate their service after a 'clerical error' was detected. The worst bit was they did not even have the decency to be embarrassed. Now, if I don't like to look of my bill, I can choose between five different formats, I can receive the account at any one of four times during the month (handy when the relatives live overseas and the bill usually arrives at the same time as the mortgage). Chances are, if I don't feel I should pay for a call, they will credit it back. If they make a mistake and I am without service for 24 hours (even due to a cable fault), I will get $50 in phone cards or $30 off my next bill. If my call is not billed in 90 days or if it is billed incorrectly, I will not be billed for that call at all, and I may get the erroneous amount as a credit also. This generally applies to both carriers. In the specific instance of CLEAR, I can get a 45% discount off my calls, just by talking for more than 30 minutes, any time of the day. If I call another person who uses CLEAR, I get an additional 10% discount. If I get a friend to join CLEAR, we both get $10 credits on our next bill. etc etc etc Although I am not saying anything against the United States in general, sometimes I think that the Telco's there need to remember just who pays the bills. It is the guy who can't get his modem to work because the line if out of spec., or the person for whom they just can't get that second line right, or the person who is getting just a little bit frustrated with the companies inability to realise when it's made a mistake. It seems to be way past due for the employee to realise they are lucky to be working at all, and the only reason they are is because the company they work for hasn't gone bust due to the 'little' people paying money for 'service'. All of the above in in my humble opinion, of course. Chris Hardaker Network Management CLEAR Communications Auckland, New Zealand Ph +64 9 9124286 Fax +64 9 9124451 Email HARDAKER@clear.co.nz Snail 49 Symonds Street, Auckland, New Zealand ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 14:22:58 CST From: Tim PETLOCK Subject: Recommendations Wanted for Caller-ID Capable Modem Hello, I'm hoping the readers of TELECOM Digest can help me out. I work for the University of WI- Madison in a dean's office. Many of our phone calls are from students who want advice on how to go about transferring to the UW, which courses to take, how their courses at another institution would transfer, etc. What I want to do is have an internal modem inside my PC that takes the caller-ID information. The only modem I've been able to find that *for sure* does it is a ZyXel U-1496-B. However, the cost of it is more than I can justify to our department administrator. Which other modems have this capability? Am I being completely unrealistic in trying to find an internal modem with this capability for under $150? Secondly, what's available for software? My computer is infected with, or rather, runs (almost) under Windows 3.11. What I need is a pop up program that is always running. When the phone rings I want it to show me the ID, and if there've been any notes taken on a previous call from that number, to show me that as well. Furthermore, it's gotta be robust -- I don't want to see "General Protection Fault" messages! Any assistance that readers can provide would be fantastic. I tried calling just about all of the local computer stores and the responses could, for the most part, be boiled down to "Huh?!" The most pathetic one was Inacomp, whose representative insisted that Caller-ID was a "standard 1200-baud modem signal" and that all I needed was software. I referred him to this months article in {Byte} magazine and got off that call as quickly as possible!! The most informed sales rep I talked to knew what caller-ID was and that there were modems that could decode the signal, but said that there just wasn't any software available yet that could do what I was looking for. SAY IT ISN'T SO! Thanks for any assistance you can provide. Tim Petlock Undergraduate Student Services - UW Medical School 1300 University Ave Rm. 1070 Madison, WI 53706 tim.petlock@ccmail.adp.wisc.edu ------------------------------ From: Steve Brack Subject: Happy Haleyville, Alabama 911 Emergency Call Day! Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 18:13:58 EST Congress has declared today to be Haleyville, Alabama 911 Emergency Call Day, according to a report broadcast on National Public Radio this afternoon. According to NPR, the first emergency services call to use the (then) new emergency number, 911, was placed in Haleyville, Alabama, on this day in 1968. The 911 system in Haleyville was put into place by Bob Gallagher, of the Alabama Telephone Company, and, among the inaugural callers was the president of the Alabama Public Services Commission, "Bull" Connor, perhaps more famous for siccing dogs on schoolchildren. According to Mr. Gallagher, he ordered the activation of 911 in Haleyville in part because AT&T had planned to have the first 911 call placed in Huntington, Indiana one week later. He noted that the mayor of Haleyville (pop. 6,000 at the time), was quite proud of the 911 emergency number and ordered large signs put up at the city limits announcing that in his town, you could dial 911 for any emergency. Gallagher also said that the underlying motivation for 911 was to cut down on operators' non-revenue time, such as that spent handling emergency calls. That might have been his company's attitude, but it doesn't sound to me like the typical Bell System attitude of that time. Steve Brack, Consultant sbrack@eng.utoledo.edu Toledo, OH 43613-1605 sbrack@cse.utoledo.edu Tel: +1 419 534 7349 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Indeed it was not Bell's attitude in those days. Back then, they had huge amounts of money to waste; the customer *always* came first, and they were extremely public relations minded. Their first and probably only concern was seeing to it customers were accomodated however possible. They still do that a lot, but we can see things getting frayed around the edges. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #104 ****************************** Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by MINTAKA.LCS.MIT.EDU id aa15057; 17 Feb 95 0:50 EST Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA15681; Thu, 16 Feb 95 19:32:33 CST Return-Path: Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.0-proxy) id AA15675; Thu, 16 Feb 95 19:32:31 CST Date: Thu, 16 Feb 95 19:32:31 CST From: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Digest (Patrick Townson)) Message-Id: <9502170132.AA15675@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V15 #105 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Feb 95 19:32:30 CST Volume 15 : Issue 105 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Why Does AT&T Immediatly Supervise on 0-500? (Doug Reuben) Re: Scam at UC Berkeley (Jeff Box) Re: Directory Assistance Call Completer (Jeffrey William McKeough) Re: Odd Phone Calls (Jeff Box) Re: Telstra (Australia) Information Wanted (Anthony Spierings) Re: Motorola Flip Phone and Low Battery (Marcus Lee) Re: Caller-ID Questions (Seymour Dupa) Re: How to Revive Nicad Batteries (Steve Forrette) Re: Privately Owned Cables on Public Utility Poles (Jack Pestaner) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 500-677-1616 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dreuben@netcom.com (CID Tech/INSG) Subject: Why Does AT&T Immediatly Supervise on 0-500? Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 04:52:39 PST On Thu, 9 Feb 1995 23:08:29 GMT, pritter@nit.AirTouch.COM (Phil Ritter) wrote: [In response to my post asking why AT&T opted to supervise 0-500 calls right from the start (as they do with all 0+ calls), thus resulting in airtime charges when I reprogram my 500/700 numbers from a cellphone.] > Actually, there is a reason for them to return supervision on 0-500 > calls. If they did not, it is unlikely that the cellular companies > would allow such calls at all! Odd that you say this ... almost every other LD carrier's calling card system, including Sprint, LDDS/Metromedia, and WilTel, do NOT supervise UNTIL the called party has answered. I can thus sit on the cellphone and enter calling card numbers all day to a busy number and NOT be billed (well, except in LA! :( ). AT&T is one of the ONLY carriers that I am aware of which starts 0+ billing BEFORE you even enter your card number. This is why I don't use AT&T from my carphone for calling card calls, and why I've obtained LDDS/Metromedia cards for everyone who works with me as well as other friends with carphones -- precisely so they don't have to pay to reach a no-answer or busy-signal as they do with AT&T Calling Card Calls. > While you may not "PAY" for the time that you spend programming the > service, I do not really want to give you free use of my most scarce > resource (radio channel time) while you are setting things up. Ok, fine. How about I write some software program which looks to the caller ID of a call from a cellphone. (You can get an 800 number to do this if your cellco doesn't send caller ID). When my Mac or PC gets this specific Caller ID or ANI, it goes into "ring detect mode". When it gets into the detectiom mode, it calls the carphone (or beeper) and rings it once. It then proceeds to count the number of rings which follow, with an allowance of maybe one ring either way. After "x" minutes, it stops looking for rings, and counts up all the rings with the given cell co's caller ID. I pre-program the software to know that 1 ring = forward my 500 to 555-1212 2 rings= forward my 500 to 555-4141 3 rings= forward my 500 to 555-6161 ...etc. So if the software received three rings with the cellco's ID (or one of the many cellco IDs), it says "Hmm ... three rings means forward the 500 number to telephone number 555-6161". My calls are now forwarded, I didn't pay a dime in airtime (except in LA, where pressing SEND costs airtime :( ), but I managed to use up a lot more system overhead than if I were able to reprogram the 500 at no airtime cost. Awkward? Yes, indeed. Time consuming? Yes, for both of us. And I have it up and running right now, and it works quite well. The software was simple enough to write, and the 800 service and configuration of the whole thing took a few hours more. So is this what you prefer? Is this REALLY preferable to allowing users to program -- not call anyone mind you, just program -- their 500/700/whatever numbers with no airtime charge? (And please, no arguments about how this is theft of service, etc. We went through this before, I thought both sides had interesting points, but I chose not to participate and do not wish to engage in that now. That is NOT the topic of this post.) The "You use our airtime, you pay" is a very narrow-minded approach. First off, the only reason I would *want* to access my 500 number for programming is to forward calls to the car while I am there. By charging customers airtime to call their 500/700 numbers to reforward them to their carphones, they are discouraged from doing so, and will receive fewer or no calls in the car. By being petty and cheap, the carrier is depriving itself of significantly higher revenues. Most people can reprogram their 500/700 numbers in 20 seconds or less. A single, one-minute incoming call can easily make up for that supposedly "lost" revenue, and after the initial minute, a cellular company which did NOT charge airtime for 500/700 programming (assuming AT&T did not preclude that option as they currently do) would gain a great deal more in airtime revenues for subsequent calls -- revenue that would otherwise have not been generated. As an example, frequently, I would like to have my 500/700 numbers forwarded to my car. They are usually forwarded to my pager. Instead of having an easy mechanism by which I can do this without charge, I need to use my software to do this, which is admitedly annoying, especially on short trips. So I normally just keep my 500/700 numbers forwarded to my pager or voicemail (which is then paged). If I get a page while in the car, I will almost always wait till I get to a landline phone, and return the call from there. Not because of any strong desire to "spite" the cell co. (I like my local cell co., actually), but just because I can say "Hmm ... ok, this guy can wait ... no need to talk this very second". However, if I were able to reprogram my 500/700 number(s) from the car with no charge, and a call came in, I'd be inclined to answer it, and thus generate revenue for the cell co. Secondly, as cellular and landline networks become increasingly integrated, the ability to control these "follow me"-type 500 services will begin to be incorporated into the combined functionality of the cellular and landline switches. As the distinction between the two becomes increasingly hazy, many of these services will be accessed in a similar manner to current "feature codes", such as call forwarding, which in most cases (Err ... Pac*Tel/LA and/or LA Cellular being the exceptions? ;) ) are not charged for. If AT&T wishes to have its 500 services maintain some sort of competitiveness with integrated landline/cellular services, it would be in its own interest to allow airtime-free 500 reprogramming, at least from its cellular properties, as well as to make haste in developing links to integrate its 500 services with its cellular services in a more seamless manner. Thirdly, the fact that other companies who have calling card services which do NOT supervise and which will not (generally) incur an airtime charge (again, let us forget about LA's cellular "services"), indicates that not only are people eating up "precious" airtime, but that they are "getting away with it" all the time. What happens when Sprint decides to add a few extra features to their calling card services, like the Time of Day, maybe? They don't need to supervise this to bill. Or what if they wish to provide ancillary services to their calling card system, like speed dialing? If they don't supervise while a user is programming their speed dial numbers into the calling card system, what is a cellular carrier going to do? Where do you draw the line and say "OK, at point 'x' you MUST supervise" to a given carrier? AT&T has IMHO foolishly opted to do that right from the onset, yet other carriers have more enlightened policies. The poster's notion of a cellular carrier dictating to the entire communications industry when *they* must offer supervision (prior to an actual answer, which should of course be supervised) smacks and such unmitigated arrogance that such a carrier's protestations are at best ignored. > It is not really AT&Ts place to chose for me which calls I bill for > and which I do not by selectively manipulating he return of answer > supervision. If the call is answered, even if answered by a machine, > AT&T needs to return supervision. The only exception to this is when > they return call routing exception recordings (which is certainly not > the case here). Really? Well, try telling Sprint, MCI, LDDS/Metromedia, et. al. this. I'm sure they will be very willing to cooperate with you ;). You know, when their calling card system picks up and prompts you for a calling card, well, that's a machine. Tell them that. See what they say. >> 5. Most cellular companies do not allow 1+500 billing (even those which >> AT&T owns), so you need to dial 0-500, resulting in an airtime charge >> to the caller even if no one answers or the line is busy. This was one >> of the biggest problems with ER700 -- no one wanted to call me from their >> carphones after about a month of using the service and seeing all these >> calls at 80 cents per minute to my 700 when I never even answered. > Actually, most cellular companies do not perform ANY form of casual > billing. This includes 900, 976, 800-chargeback, 10XXX billing, and > now 500. Its not clear when this will (or if it will, or if it even > should) change. Well, maybe Pac*Tel managed to get out of offering its customers 10xxx dialing by changing it's name to "Airtouch", but a good deal of carriers DO indeed offer this as a result of federal rulings. And with McCaw Cellular (unfortunately) being forced to offer Equal Access (one of the few cases where I have been opposed to this), I suspect that a MAJORITY of subscribers nationwide will have 10xxx dialing. My point was not to allow 500 direct billing (which could be manipulated to place international calls without the cell co. knowing -- see Pat's note at the end of a recent post regarding 500 numbers from hospitals). The point was that since the 500/700 services are designed to have inconsistent billing rates to allow for international forwarding (a difficult,