TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 Nov 93 00:06:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 748

Inside This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

   Computer CNID Solution Summary Sought (Scott Coleman)
   Apple Newtons Recalled in Australia (Mark Cheeseman)
   Signaling System #7 Cost/Performance Information (Dave Munsinger)
   Re: Caller ID-Blocking Unblocking (Mark Steiger)
   Cordless Phone Systems (Delavar K. Khomarlou)
   Information on Mobile Data Systems/Technologies (Peter Chan)
   Landline Telegraph Service (Gabe M Wiener)
   Tech Job Available (Ian Eisenberg)
   AT&T Craft Access Butt-Sets (Eric Kiser)
   Re: Analog Telephone Interfaces For Computers (Andy Behrens)
   Re: Nationwide GTE 800 Outage? (Brian Nunes)
   Re: Brush Fires in Southern California (Stephen Friedl)
   Re: Preparing My Case Against Sprint (Chris Labatt-Simon)
   Re: Busy Signal Strangeness (John Desmond)
   Re: My Meeting With the Commish (Christopher Zguris)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Scott Coleman)
Subject: Computer CNID Solution Summary Sought
Date: 8 Nov 93 16:32:39 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


Caller*ID is _finally_ making it to my podunk neck of the woods next
month. Consequently, I'm in search of a CNID box with a computer
interface. Since I'm sure there's a collection of prevailing
net.wisdom on which CNID boxes are a) decent and b) can be interfaced
to a computer in some fashion already summarized somewhere, if someone
would be kind enough to forward me a copy of said summary I'd be most
appreciative.

Additional info: I'm running a 386SX Intel platform machine (MSDOS). I
currently run a BigmOuth/Powerline I PC voice mail card, which I would
like to augment with CNID capability. If there is another low-cost
solution, such as a voice mail card with CNID capability built in, or
perhaps one of the newer V.32bis modems with CNID and voice processing
capabilities, I'd consider that also.

NOTE: If my initial assumption is incorrect, and no summaries of this
type of info exist, I'll be happy to produce a summary of responses and make
them available.


Thanks for your help.

>From the virtual desk of...
Scott Coleman, President ASRE (American Society of Reverse Engineers)
Ed Green Fan Club #005 - Disintegrate the SGA!
[email protected]

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Mark Cheeseman)
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1993 19:49:52
Subject: Apple Newtons recalled in Australia
Organization: Radio Active BBS, Sydney Australia.


A recent report in [Newsbytes] states that Austel (the Australian
telecomminications regulatory authority) has forced Apple Australia to
recall all Newtons sold in the country, for a firmware lobotomy (ie,
re-programming the firmware so that it is no longer capable of
generating DTMF tones).

[Sorry I can't quote the actual story, but I left it at work, and if I
leave it until tomorrow to post this, I'll forget.]

The reason given was that the device was not submitted to Austel for
approval, despite the fact that there is no electrical connection
between the Newton and the telephone line, and that many unapproved
DTMF diallers are for sale on the Australian market. Looks like I'd
better go and get my vocal chords approved before they're recalled too :-)

I intend following this up with Austel tomorrow, and will post any
results I get to the Digest.


Mark Cheeseman  [email protected]  Fido: 3:712/412.0 [+61 2 399 9268]
PO Box 199 Alexandria NSW 2015  Ph +61 2 353 0143  Fax +61 2 353 0720

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Dave Munsinger)
Subject: Signaling System #7 Cost/Performance Information
Date: 8 Nov 1993 20:43:07 GMT
Organization: QUALCOMM, Inc.


Does anyone have information on SS7 networks either currently deployed
or scheduled for deployment by the end of 1994?  Specifically:

1) What are the transaction costs (two-way) associated with
the network?

2) Are there costs associated with initiating service and
interface equipment?

3) What are the delays (two-way) through the network?

4) Any other information or contacts?

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Mark Steiger)
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1993 12:39:11 -0600
Subject: Re: Caller ID-Blocking Unblocking
Organization: The Dark Knight's Table BBS:  Minnetonka, MN (Free!)


> P.S. Who would call an 800 number and think the call was anonymous :-)

> [Moderator's Note: Who would consider a call to an 800 number to be
> anonymous?  Oh, a lot of people would. This discussion came up on
> Usenet (snicker) recently in one of the privacy discussion groups and
> some people were outraged to find out that the persons/companies paying
> for their (800) calls were getting the information as to who was calling
> and whose calls they were paying for.  PAT]

Lesseee ... why should the person who is PAYING for the call have the
right to that information ... :) That's why caller blocking is
available on a local level. The guy making the call is paying for the
call, either with the monthly charge, or per call charges.  Where I
work, we're in the process of integrating Caller-ID with our
phone/computer system.  We have 400+ incoming T1's for voice.  We use
one T1 for caller-ID data for every six T1's in use.  When a customer
calls up, their account information will be brought up on the computer
in front of the operator taking the order.  If it's a previous
customer, we could concevably take the order in under one minute.
We're currently trying to get some forms printed up to protect us
against an unauthorized person calling from someone's house and using
their account.

It's there and available.  As a matter of fact, we have it now, but on a
limited basis. If we get an "unwanted" call, we can type in the trunk
number and get the ANI off of it.


Origin: The Igloo BBS 612-574-2079  (1:282/4018.0)
Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo BBS (612) 574-2079
Internet: [email protected]   Fido: 1:282/4018  Simnet: 16:612/24

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Delavar K. Khomarlou)
Subject: Cordless Phone Systems
Reply-To: [email protected]
Organization: Ontario Hydro
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 13:29:09 -0500


Our company is investigating the use of cordless phones (with mobile
base stations) in our stations (harsh environment).  Generally, the
walls inside plant are very thick concrete (nuclear grade) and line of
sight is not available.  We are looking at an 800 Mhz and a 1.2 Ghz
(European) system.  Can someone tell me which system would have better
propagation characteristics in this environment? Our preliminary tests
show that we get alot of fading and loss of portions of speech (I
suspect due to sync loss or framing loss) and more likely due to
multipath fading.  I don't check the newsgroup very often.  The best
way to respond would be email:

             [email protected]

Thank you very much.

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Peter Chan)
Subject: Information on Mobile Data Systems/Technologies
Organization: Dept of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Univ of Melbourne
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 00:57:50 GMT


Hello netters,

Does anyone know where I can find articles and/or technical reports
regarding the following mobile data systems/technologies:

- Motorola Mobitex;
- Aridis;
- Cellular digital packet data;
- D-AMPS and GSM (phase 2).
- others ?.

Please reply through email to [email protected].

I will post a summary to the newsgroups if there is any appropriate
reply.

Thanks a lot.


Regards,

Peter Chan  ([email protected])
Dept. of Electrical & Electronic Engineering
University of Melbourne,  Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia.
Tel: 344 4672 Fax: 344 6678

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Gabe M Wiener)
Subject: Landline Telegraph Service
Date: 9 Nov 1993 04:37:49 GMT
Organization: Columbia University


Over the years we have seen many articles and had many discussions on
the operation of cordboard service ... trunking, signalling, etc.  But
I'm curious if anyone knows the specifics of how the landline
telegraph service operated.

I assume there were local private lines as well as inter-city trunks.
Were these switched a la the early cordboards?  i.e. could someone
with a private line send directly to another city?  Or only to the WU
office?  How did the WU operators switch between lines?  What was the
protocol for raising an operator at the other end?  How did one "get
in" on a busy line?  Etc ...

Is there a comprehensive history of the operating practices of the
landline telegraph service in the US?


    Gabe Wiener -- [email protected] -- N2GPZ -- PGP on request
Sound engineering, recording, and digital mastering for classical music
  "I am terrified at the thought that so much hideous and bad music
 will be put on records forever."  --Sir Arthur Sullivan


[Moderator's Note: The first TWX machine I recall seeing sometime in
the 1950's was not a dial unit. The person at the machine went off
hook and presently a message would be typed out to him on the paper
saying 'here is optr may i help u?' to which the person at the machine
would respond by typing the desired TWX number he wanted to connect
with. If the person at the machine did not respond in a timely way the
'optr' would ring the Control-G BEL at him a few times and maybe
another message line 'r u there' <DING DING DING DING>. Of course if
'optr' was slow to respond or took the request but then seemingly
disappeared and did not either connect or give a report in a few
seconds to a minute later, the clerk would do the same tactics in
return -- pound the BEL key to which the central office would reply,
'optr here mom' where 'mom' = 'moment please' or 'stand by' or more
rudely, 'hold your horses, I am busy and will get to you in a minute'.
Or they might just type 'mom'. Western Union had an automatic gizmo
for their operators to use which (from a telex you got the Western
Union operator) responded with a message typed out every thirty
seconds or so, 'ALL POSITIONS BY ... MOM' where 'BY' was the historic
abbreviation for 'busy'. After passing the number you wanted there was
no audible or written confirmation the other end was ringing, but if
the other end answered the calling machine would see the typing start
on the paper. Otherwise the operator would return sooner or later to
type out 'nbr da' (doesn't answer), 'nbr by' (busy), 'nbr od' (machine
at that end out or order) or perhaps 'sorry nc' (no circuits available
now, try again later) or 'sorry nsn' (no such number, or such a number
but it was a voice phone and not a TWX). There were other responses
as well, two were 'wud' and 'ocd' for Western Union denies service and
other Carrier denies service. Typically this meant the subscriber to
Western Union telex (or other carrier's telex with whom you were asking
for interconnection, like a long distance call today) had been disconn-
ected for failure to pay their bill.

You could also use your TWX/telex to call 'collect' if you wanted the
machine on the other end to be billed for the call. You added that
phrase in the opening request given to 'optr'. She would type out to
the other end that it was collect and get their okay to put it through
else she would get back to you with the reply 'sorry cr u pay' (charges
refused, will you pay for it?).  PAT]

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Ian Eisenberg)
Subject: Tech Job Available
Date: 8 Nov 1993 19:31:06 -0800
Organization: (CYBERSPACE) Public Internet 206.286.1600


My company is looking for a technician in the Seattle area.  Must be
well versed in PCs and general telephony.  Knowledge of analog and
digital preferred.  PC knowledge should include ability to change
drives, troubleshoot etc.  Worldwide travel necessary.  Progressive
fast paced company.  Send Email to [email protected] or fax resume to
Ian Eisenberg  206-286-5298.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 93 22:14:12 EST
From: [email protected]
Subject: AT&T Craft Access Butt-Sets


I'm sure you've all seen them advertised recently, surplus. The
safety-yellow AT&T craft-access butt sets are available new, in the
box with two batteries, charger and manual for $60 (how's that for
pennies on the dollar, AT&T?). Well ... I broke down and bought one
(ok -- I bought three).

Even the standard TALK and MONITOR are swanky on this thing. The
entire thing is menu driven on a 3"x3" LCD, with user input through a
four-way plus button joystick and the standard 3x4 DTMF keypad. (Alpha
input is via the keypad -- press 1 once for 1, twice for Q, thrice for
Z, etc.)  The dialed number is menu driven, or you can do it manually.
MONITOR and TALK modes have digital volume access, and MONITOR has a
QUIET mode for extra sensitive noise hunting. I got all that working ...

The trick is these were used by AT&T folk to access the work
scheduling computer system, and they have a 1200 baud Bell 212 modem
and terminal program built in. But I can't seem to figure out the
protocol used by the terminal program. On CONNECT, the butt-set sends
tildes (~) until the remote system sends ACK, and then some five-digit
something that I can't figure out; every time I enter the fifth digit,
it goes back to tildes. I took the thing apart (a real trick, since it
had #10 TORX screws with the security restriction post in place all
the way around) and yanked the uP program EPROM. It disassembled to
more than 20000 lines of 8031 (Intel MCS-51 series) assembly language.
I've been able to wade througha lot of it, but isn't there an easier
way?

Does anyone have access to / references on the protocol used by these
things? I'd hate to reprogram it from scratch; I'd like to write a
small BBS for my PC that would interact with the screen, joystick and
keypad using the current protocol, if I could find out what it is.


Thanks,

Eric Kiser
[email protected]
[email protected]

------------------------------

From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Analog Telephone Interfaces For Computers
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 18:13:03 GMT


[email protected] (Joe Picone) writes:

> Can somebody suggest a good state-of-the-art telephone interface that
> can be computer controlled?

Anyone who is interested in this sort of thing should read Computer
Telephony ("The magazine for Computer and Telephone Integration").
Lots of useful ads too.  It's free to qualified subscribers, $38/year
for others.  Ask them to send you a subscription card.

You can reach them by:

   Mail: Computer Telephony, 12 West 21 St., New York, NY 10010
   Phone: 212-355-2886
   E-mail: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>


Andy Behrens
Burlington Coat Factory, Schoolhouse Rd., Etna, N.H. 03750    (603) 643-2800

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Brian Nunes)
Subject: Re: Nationwide GTE 800 Outage?
Organization: This Way Out, the int'l lesbian & gay radio magazine
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1993 23:08:51 GMT


On Thu, 4 Nov 93 21:06 PST Robert L. McMillin ([email protected])
wrote:

> My girlfriend called me in the middle of the day today to ask how she
> could call the 800 number they used at her work for credit card
> verification.  Apparently, she said that she had been told that GTE
> had a nationwide 800 routing failure!  Has anyone else heard of this?
> Who else has been affected?

> (FYI, my girlfriend works in Torrance, CA, 310-373.)

I work in West Los Angeles, also covered by GTE, and we too could not
dial out to any 800 numbers yesterday.  We couldn't reach any of our
vendors, etc., without digging up backup numbers, and we couldn't even
connect to any of our computer data services.  It's OK now though ...

Grr ...


Brian Nunes=*-*-*-*-*-* [email protected] -*-*-1-213-656-9117
7985 Santa Monica Blvd. #109-473, West Hollywood, CA 90046-5112

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Stephen Friedl)
Subject: Re: Brush Fires in Southern California
Date: 8 Nov 93 14:17:38 GMT
Organization: Software Consulting, Tustin, CA


H.A. Kippenhan Jr. writes:

> You asked (a couple of days ago) about the reasons for the large
> number of fires in Southern California this year.

The explanation given was very good, but there are a few additional
factors here.

First, last year's rainy season was huge, following years of drought.
Brush and weeds simply shot up this spring.  Now we have much more of
this kind of dry fuel lying around just waiting to catch fire.

Second, because we truly do live in a desert, some of the plants take
interesting defense measures to keep alive.  They produce a kind of
volatile oil that seals in what little water they can find, and this
stuff burns very well.  Eucalyptus trees reportedly do the same thing,
and they literally *explode* when they get hot.

Finally, around this time of year we get a weather condition known as
the Santa Ana winds where hot and bone-dry air from the desert blows
in at very high speeds -- two weeks ago the wind was something like 50
miles an hour in my back yard.  Sales of Chap-Stic (tm) have got to
shoot up, because this wind is incredibly drying.

Sparks happen all the time, and now the confluence of all these
factors means that once a fire gets a bite, it will go on and on.  All
the fire chiefs know that *this* is the fire season.

The first fire was started accidently started by a transient who was
just trying to get warm, and it got out of hand.  He is reportedly
only being charged with a misdemeanor because all the officials in
charge know that he didn't intend to do any of this.  He is not from
around here and had no idea about all of the above.

Note that it gets worse.  Many of the areas that burned are on
hillsides and canyons, and the houses that remain are now surrounded
by scorched earth instead of groundcover.  The rainy season is coming
around in a few months, and those poor folks are going to have a devil
of a time keeping their houses out of the bottom of the canyon.

This is sad news even for the "rich folks".


Stephen J Friedl | Software Consultant | Tustin, CA |     +1 714 544-6561
3B2-kind-of-guy  | I speak for me ONLY |   KA8CMY   | uunet!mtndew!friedl

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Chris Labatt-Simon)
Subject: Re: Preparing My Case Against Sprint
Date: 8 Nov 1993 21:34:40 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY, USA


I'm in the process of going through a Business Law course right now,
so here goes ...

[email protected] (Chris Ambler - Fubar) writes:

> Meanwhile, I've been doing legal research, and have come to the
> conclusion that their verbal offer on the phone, my acceptance, the
> switching of my lines, and the one long-distance call to "activate"
> the plan constitutes a valid contract.

Your guarantee to them that you are going to use their services is not
thought of as valid consideration.  In order for there to be valid
consideration, you must offer them something which is detrimental to
yourself.

> Point of help number 1. If anyone has specific case references for
> verbal offer and acceptance, when acceptance relies on specific
> performance of an action intended to benefit the party which made the
> inital offer, this would be of great use to me. Also, if anyone knows
> if the section of the law dealing with "rewards" is relivant here, I'd
> like to know about it. Is there a section dealing with offers to the
> public of a premium in exchange for perchase of item or service?

In this case, courts will probably decide that no valid contract
exists.  Unless what Sprint did caused you unfair harm (e.g. you quit
your job, sold all of your stuff and moved to Idaho, and then they
refused to give you your modem), the law is usually more lenient with
the defendant.

> monetary value (average of ten street prices for the modem initially
> offered).

The most you would be allowed in a case like this would be any
expenses incurred because of the lack of a modem (this doesn't mean
lawyer fees, research fees, your time, etc.).  In order to get more,
you would have to prove something like emotional duress or great
monetary loss.

> Point of help number two: If anyone knows anything I'm missing here,
> I'd like to know about it. I have legal citations to show that the
> contract was valid, I have a letter demanding performance of the
> contract, and I have documentation of names and times of phone calls
> where they refused to honour the contract. What am I missing?

In most states, you can't take a corporation to small claims court.
Actually, I think that's a Federal statute.  You have to hire a
professional lawyer (or an unprofessional lawyer -- it's up to you) to
follow standard legal procedures.

> At this rate, I should have a court date some time in December or
> January.  If there's anyone else who is taking Sprint to court over
> this, I'd like to hear from you as well, we can share information.

You can always talk to a lawyer about a class action suit.  This will
enable a lawyer to sue Sprint on behalf of everyone who lost out on
the modem offer.

I'm not a lawyer.  This is not advice, but rather observations and
comments, which may or may not be correct.


Chris Labatt-Simon   Design & Disaster Recovery Consulting
[email protected]    (518) 495-5474 Tel   (518) 786-6539 Fax


[Moderator's Note: You certainly can take a corporation into Small
Claims Court. I've done it with First National Bank of Chicago and
a few other times.  That's the rule in Illinois at least.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: [email protected] (John Desmond)
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1993 00:07:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Busy Signal strangeness
Organization: The Dark Knight's Table BBS:  Minnetonka, MN (Free!)


[email protected] (Mike King) wrote:

> After hearing various stories about strange busy signals, I thought
> I'd add mine to the list:

> I used to dial CI$ in downtown Washington, DC (202-338-3303, since
> replaced), from the MD suburbs.  I'm on either a 5E or DMS-100, while
> the CI$ number is on a 1A.  SS7 covers most of DC and suburban area.

> One night while trying to dial, I heard the 120 ipm "All Circuits
> Busy" indicator, but before the modem recognized the signal, all of a
> sudden, I heard <click>-<carrier>!  I got a normal connection, and
> proceeded to check my mail, etc.

 It sounds to me like the 1A switch has a ringing trunk wired to a
120 IPM audio source rather than a audible ring source.  I have seen
that happen before only the case I saw was a 60 IPM trunk was wired to
a 120 IPM audio source.  That is not quite so bad as the problem you
came across.  On an SS7 call the audible ringing signal does come from
the called CO.  It could be that you will never come across this again
assuming that there is only one trunk wired wrong.

  Sorry for the long delay in posting this.  I'm just catching up on
some reading.  :)

John Desmond - U S WEST Communications
[email protected]  -or-
[email protected]

Origin: HAM>link< RBBS 612/HAM-0000 Saint Paul, MN [K0TG] (1:282/100)
The Dark Knight's Table BBS +1 612 938 8924 Minnetonka, MN USA

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 8 Nov 93 20:53 EST
From: Christopher Zguris <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: My Meeting With the Commish


In TELECOM Digest V13 #741 Charlie Hofacker ([email protected])

> Well, I got my chance to have lunch with FCC Commissioner Barrett.
> There was a brief question and answer session at lunch.  I decided to
> ask him about universal access, and whether the concept of universal
> access should be updated to include more than POTS.  I think it would
                                                      ----------------
> be fair to say he was not enthusiastic about the whole idea of
 --------------------------------------------------------------
> universal access.  In fact, I might summarize his reply in the form of
 -----------------
> a rhetorical question he asked me back: who pays?  (Inspiration for my
> question came from Bob Boucher <[email protected]>).

 Amazing position. What was the FCC's original position regarding
breaking up AT&T and letting competiion into the market?

> Perhaps the most amusing moment came when a student asked him about
> the FCC and censorship.  He insisted that the FCC does not engage in
> censorship and is wholly unconcerned with any content whatsoever with
> the possible exception of kids TV.

 What about what he and/or the FCC is doing to Howard Stern? I'm sure
most of you despise Mr. Stern, but the FCC is certainly attempting to
censor him.  It may not be a direct effort to silence Mr. Stern, but
adding fine after fine to make him poison within his industry is
censorship pure and simple with the added effect of scaring everyone
in the industry int "compliance" with the FCC's view on things. You
mentioned in your original list of questions that you would bring up
the Howard Stern question, did you?


Christopher Zguris     [email protected]

P.S. If this is a flame, it is _not_directed at you Charlie!

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #748
******************************



******************************************************************************


Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.