TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Nov 93 14:43:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 758
Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson
CA Tax Regulations for LD Providers (Pat Myrto)
Strange T1 Behavior (Tom Lowe)
Network Timing (Steven L. Spak)
Call Waiting 14.4 Modems (Thomas Neudecker)
Billing Insert: Regulation of 900 Charges (Susan J. Bahr)
Radio Shack Video Home Security Thing (H. Shrikumar)
Calling Card Question (Danny Burstein)
Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels? (William H. Sohl)
Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels? (Kevin Martinez)
Re: Wanted: Info on Cellular Phone Monitoring Systems (Michael D. Sullivan)
Re: Wanted: Info on Cellular Phone Monitoring Systems (Gregg Siegfried)
Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized (David Leibold)
Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized (Allen Mcintosh)
Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized (Danny Burstein)
Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized (David A. Kaye)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Pat Myrto)
Subject: CA Tax Regulations for LD Providers
Date: 14 Nov 93 03:15:39 GMT
Perhaps someone in the group -- or the Moderator -- can help me get
some information. Does anybody know the regulations and rates for
determining if tax is applicable, and what taxes, a LD provider
located OUTSIDE of California for long distance calls originating
within (and if applicable) outside of California?
Telccom outfits in CA are quite evasive on the subject (read: no
useful information), and there has been not very much luck in getting
meaningful information from authorities. This has been going on for
awhile.
Ideally the formula for computing applicable taxes, and when they
apply, or a table of the rates if its derived from a table would be
the ticket. A file containing this info available for ftp would be
great. I did a search using archie looking for anything with 'tax'
and all I got was a lot of 'syntax' matches. :-(
Response by e-mail would be preferable, but I will be keeping an eye
on the group to see what happens. This is for a friend who is the
book keeper for a small LD provider who purchses wholesale time from
the larger providers who have their own infrastructure.
I can receive email at the uucp host this originated from, or from
another account at
[email protected].
Thank you,
[email protected] [Without prejudice UCC 1-207] (Pat Myrto) Seattle, WA
If all else fails, try: ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
[Moderator's Note: No, no, you do not want to get involved in utility
tax accounting and procedures. Repeat after me, "I do not want to know
about utility tax accounting procedures ...". Say it a few more times.
Rooms and rooms full of people at desk after desk sit all day long
day after day with pens, calculators, computer printouts, giant books
full of spiral-bound notebook-like pages of tiny print listing the
proper percentages to the fifth decimal point of taxes to be paid, how
they apply, when and where they apply, how each telephone company
acting as collection agent for all other telephone companies is to go
about paying the taxes due to the *thousands* of government entities
for which they collect including every state in the union, the federal
government, every town in the USA which has a tax on telephone service
and whether or not the tax is only on interstate, intrastate or local
calls or all three categories. When that 25 cent coin is put in the
box on the payphone, how many ways do you suppose it gets divided?
A penny for the local government; two pennies for the state; another
penny or two for the federal government; a few cents to the telco whose
equipment terminated the call; if the customer put the call on his
calling card then a few pennies to the telephone company which issued
the card in exchange for their collection and billing services in
getting the customer to pay the 25 cents when his bill comes out, etc.
Telco accounting back-offices in general are not nice places to work
unless you have a very good mind for detail and enjoy very detailed
work with numbers, percentages, forms to be filled out in quintuplicate
and similar. The *tax accounting* people get all the above times
three or four.
I don't know of any single source where you could look at a 'table'
and see how much tax is paid on a given piece of telco traffic. It all
is relative to where the call originates and terminates, and the
number of taxing agencies which sit on either end or in the middle.
You could go to two different people in telco tax accounting and give
them the same data and get two different answers, just like at the
federal Internal Revenue Service; that's how complex and obscure the
rules are. But you'd never get to those people anyway, since telco
does not like customers speaking to anyone except the Business Office
reps. And just about the time telco tax-accounting droids think they
have it all figured out, the government says the rules are different
and maybe even retroactive.
Go to the state department of revenue or taxes; whatever they call it.
Ask them for printed information on telephone taxes. They probably
have some brochure with basic details. If you somehow find someone who
is willing to add you to a 'mailing list' dealing with changes in
tax rates, procedures and changes therein, you'd probably fill up a
room with file cabinets very quickly. PAT]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Tom Lowe)
Subject: Strange T1 Behavior
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 16:34:05 PST
I have a client with several T1s from Sprint. A strange thing happens
when I place a 14.4 modem call to one of the channels and a voice call
to an ADJACENT channel (using 800 numbers). A static type of noise
becomes present on the voice call when the far end is talking. It is
especially noticable when listening to ringback or busy signal. If I
disconnect the modem call, the static goes away.
If there is one or more channels between the calls, there is no problem.
The T1 is using D4 and AMI formats. I am not getting any timing slips.
Has anyone experienced such behavior or have any ideas?
Thanks!
Tom Lowe
[email protected] 609-698-7044 X201
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Steven L. Spak)
Subject: Network Timing
Date: 14 Nov 1993 00:44:24 GMT
Organization: George Washington University
I attended the Federal Radionavagation User's Conference last week at
the FAA headquarters in DC to add a voice to those making policy for
such systems as Loran-C, GPS, and other important references.
A US Coast Guard commander indicated that those users depending upon
these systems (I use Loran-C to time a vast communications network)
need to respond in writing. There has been considerable pressure to
minimize the number of radionav systems. People are exaggerating the
usefulness of GPS, especially as a dependable and precise time
reference.
If you don't want Uncle Sam to shut down Loran, please respond
to the following address:
Navagation Working Group
DOT/RSPA/DRT-20
Washington DC 20590
Deadline for comments for their plan is February 11, 1994.
It seems that these feds go through this process every two years!
Steven Spak
[email protected] Transmission Engineer
Tel: (202) 392-1611 Fax: (202) 392-1261
------------------------------
From: Thomas Neudecker <
[email protected]>
Subject: Call Waiting 14.4 Modems
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1993 23:04:22 -0500
Organization: Sponsored account, Drama, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
I recently upgraded my modem to LineLink 14.4 modem. I now use a SLIP
connection to connect to the network. On the other modems I have had
Call Waiting would break the connection. I know about the *70 tone
signal to deactivate call waiting. My problem is that the error
correction on the modem doesn't accept the call waiting tones until
after eight to twelve rings and people I need to talk to can't get
through. Bell of PA said they hadn't seen this use of call waiting
before and that the 5ESS switch at my CO is has a very short off hook
time for the tone to be sent. Does anyone know of a modem init string
to let call waiting and the modem work as I wish?
Tom Neudecker
[email protected]
Voice: 412 828-7621 Local Data System: 412 828-8011
------------------------------
Date: 13 Nov 93 22:10:23 EST
From: Susan J. Bahr <
[email protected]>
Subject: Billing Insert: Regulation of 900 Charges
The FCC and FTC both are regulating the provision of 900-type
services. The FCC generally refers to the services it is regulating
as "pay-per-call" services, and the FTC refers to the ones that were
to be discussed in notices sent to customers as "telephone-billed-
purchases." Repeating their definitions of these services may not be
much more illuminating. The one thing to keep in mind: if you ever
get billed incorrectly for a service you received via a 900-number,
there are now more rules that may apply to resolving your billing
dispute for that specific service, and these are rules which you and
the other parties involved should follow in resolving the billing
dispute.
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (H. Shrikumar)
Subject: Radio Shack Video Home Security Thing
Date: 14 Nov 1993 17:34:43 GMT
Organization: UMass, Amherst MA + Temporal Systems Bombay India
Hi,
I saw in a recent Radio Shack catalog a mention of a Home Security
Video thingummy they have introduced. So I looked it over when I
dropped by to pick up batteries for my smoke alarm (that time of the
year :-)
The door unit is maybe 5x3x1 inch, and has speakerphone and video
camera functionality. It has two two-terminal tie posts ... one sends
a twisted pair to the base unit, and the other a pair to your door
opener relay.
I presume that the twisted pair between the base unit and the
door unit carries power as well as data which multiplexes the
video, audio and control. I assume it is data ... just guessing.
The base unit looks like a integrated phone + answering machine ...
only there is a LCD display and a contrast control that you need to be
a little clever to set right.
You can have it all for $2XX ... where the XX I am sure is 99 :)
Q: Does anyone have any technical info on this?
What runs on that line between the units? What compression, etc?
Any "alternate uses" ... or cute ideas for it?
Q: Does not seem to integrate with the POTS, nor does it seem to have
a one door unit + multiple base unit version for use with door
buzzers in apartment blocks. Radio Shack oversight in product
design and positioning?
shrikumar (
[email protected],
[email protected])
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (danny burstein)
Subject: Calling Card Question
Date: 14 Nov 1993 04:06:48 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
In yet another display of my ignorance, I ask the following question:
Can a calling card be acquired from either the LEC or an IXC with
the following restriction: that it can -only- get billed by the Local
Carrier (where appropriate) or by the disgnated IXC?
This would do a good job of reducing the tele-zleaze surcharges.
Thanks,
[email protected]
[email protected] adds: all the usual disclaimers regarding liability,
intelligence, accuracy apply. spelling disclaimer is doubled.
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (sohl,william h)
Subject: Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1993 04:45:32 GMT
In article <
[email protected]>
[email protected].
com (sohl,william h) writes:
> As to my personal opinion, the ECPA is a joke and only provides a
> false sense of security to cellular users who buy into sales
> statements that because it is illegal to listen to cellular, then the
> security of cellular converstations is assured. In fact, the ability
> to PROVE a violation of the ECPA occurred is all but impossible unless
> the violator publicly admits they have listened to cellular. Bottom
> line is that the ECPA is essentially an unenfoceable law that ranks in
> the same catagory as the old sodomy laws.
> [Moderator's Note: That's really something, to equate the laws
> pertaining to privacy in communications with the old (but still in
> force in about half the states in the USA) laws on sodomy. The latter
> are considered by many people to be an invasion of individual privacy,
> while the former are considered by many people to promote and protect
> individual privacy. In any event, they are all a bunch of worthless,
> unenforceable laws, eh? So what else is new in these United States? PAT]
Pat, when a law is unenforceable, it is both useless, and a waste of
time to even enact. Can you truly say that the ECPA has improved the
privacy of cellular? I doubt it. The ECPA is a "feel good" law with
no true impact. The politicos who passed can say ... "boy we feel good
about striking a blow for privacy" even though the blow has the impact
of a feather against a brick wall. Since listening to cellular isn't
something done in public (anymore than sodomy is) just how do you see
the ECPA helping communications privacy?
Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ email via UUCP bcr!cc!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays email via Internet
[email protected]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Kevin Martinez)
Subject: Re: Do You Monitor Cellular Channels?
Organization: a2i network
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1993 03:46:48 GMT
In <
[email protected]>
[email protected] (Tony
Pelliccio) writes:
> In article <
[email protected]>,
[email protected]
> (Kevin Ian Cooke) wrote:
>> In light of the recent discussions about scanning cellular frequencies, I
>> would like your help with the following:
>> I am interested in writing a story about people who, from time to
>> time, like to listen to their nieghbors' cellular phone conversations.
>> I know you're out there, especially folks in the *.dcom.telecom
>> worlds, since (as I'm sure most of you know) it only takes slight
>> alterations to cell phones and FM scanners to get them to hear the
>> cellular frequencies.
> This is true. Matter of fact a friend of mine is so close to a cell
> site that his scanner, when it's on the 70cm ham band, picks up
> cellular calls with ease. It's made for some rather amusing listening.
In regard to the above, I live right under a cell site antenna tower
and *every* radio and TV I own picks up these annoying conversations
on occasion. Even my telephone (noncordless) picks them up sometimes.
I keep thinking of the Gilligan's Island episode where his filling
becomes a rectifier and detects broadcast band radio.
Does the ECPA make it illegal to live in my neighborhood or only to
possess a receiving device (or a filling)? Would these cold evenings
be even colder without the comforting rays of this antenna? Perhaps
this is the cause for retries on zmodem transfers ....
Kevin Martinez
[email protected]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Michael D. Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Info on Cellular Phone Monitoring Systems
Date: 14 Nov 1993 03:02:59 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
The only thing I would add is that making a device like this and
*using* it would violate the federal wiretapping laws, which is a
felony.
It may be true that cellular phone use isn't really private, because
anyone could be listening, but it's no more legal for them to listen
than it is for them to bug your bedroom or boardroom.
Under federal law, any conversation going through a cellular switch is
considered a telephone conversation subject to the wiretap laws (the
technical term is "wire communication". A cellular phone is just as
private as a landline phone, because people have the same legal right
not to be "scanned" as they do not to have someone tapping in on a
craft set.
Michael D. Sullivan |
[email protected] [email protected]
Washington, D.C. |
[email protected] [email protected]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 93 19:08 PST
From:
[email protected] (Gregg Siegfried)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Info on Cellular Phone Monitoring Systems
Organization: Claircom Communications, L.P.
In article <
[email protected]> Steven King writes:
>
[email protected] publicly declared:
>> A friend of mine, without net access, has received some information on
>> a product called "Cellmate Model B" It supposedly allows you to dial
>> in a cellular phone number, and listen to both sides of the call. How
>> does this work? Is it reliable? Has anyone ever heard of any other
>> products like this that are cheaper (this is ~$6000)?
> [ excellent back of the envelope cellular monitoring description deleted ]
The Cellmate does indeed exist. It functions, actually, quite
similarly to what Steven describes, although I'm not sure about its
ability to deal with handoffs. It's certainly very plausible.
I was recently being monitored by one of these things. They work.
And neither your friendly cellular carrier nor the FBI really cares.
Theoretically, the Cellmate is not available for sale in the United
States, except in a situation similar to duty-free shopping. You must
show a ticket out of the country. However, the electronic
countermeasures specialist/vendor I discussed the device with said I
could purchase one merely by showing a bus ticket to Vancouver BC, for
example, on the order of a hundred bucks from here in Seattle. When
you are purchasing a 6K device, another hundred bucks for a bus ticket
you're not going to use isn't a big deal. So, they're around.
The way I came in contact with the device was after I discovered I was
being monitored, I essentially verbally drew the same picture that
Steven did for the aforementioned countermeasures expert, and he came
back right away with "Oh, you mean the Cellmate. Sure ... I have them
for $6K".
I have no idea whether a CDMA or TDMA digital version of the Cellmate
exists.
The experience did spark an interest in electronic countermeasures for
me, although it seems quite like the arms race. I especially liked
the scanner that covered everything from 0-1.2Ghz, although I didn't
purchase it.
Gregg Siegfried
[email protected]
[Moderator's Note: You can always send the ticket back to Greyhound
and get a refund you know, less a small handling charge. Tell 'em you
decided not to make the trip after all. Or what the heck, go up and
check out Vancouver or Victoria; they're both lovely places to visit.
When purchasing verbotin radios and equipment around Chicago, one need
not bother with bus tickets. One shop selling stuff like linear ampli-
fiers for the eleven meter band and a variety of snooping equipment
has you sign a 'certification' (yuk yuk!) saying the radio is only
being purchased for the purpose of export outside the USA to your
'customer' in some other country where such things are legal. The
proprietor said to me once that an odd thing about most of his cus-
tomers is they are all named 'John Smith', or at least that is the
way the certification form was signed. But if you do decide to make
the bus trip north, stop off at Port Townsend, WA and visit the nice
folks at Loopmanics; they have some neat books and other things for
sale to people who value privacy or love violating it, either way. PAT]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected]
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 93 22:50 EST
Subject: Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized
Jamie Mason <
[email protected]> wrote:
> 905 area code isn't ringing bell in U.S.
> The United States has literally hundreds of phone companies that
> need to know about last month's change for parts of the 416 area code
> -- but some are still telling callers that the number doesn't exist.
The Star specifically mentioned one person's experience in Frankenmuth,
Michigan. I can't verify whether the company involved is Ameritech, GTE
or whoever, though the Phonefiche says this is supposed to be under the
Bay City/Saginaw directory area. Wonder how those folks will do when
810 gets started next month (splitting 313 Detroit region).
Other cities reporting problems are Sebring, Florida (GTE or Centel?)
and Palm Springs, California (GTE? PacBell?). Anyone confirm the telcos
involved?
Digest readers who are interested in testing 905 out could try to get
Toronto weather information at +1 905 676.3066 to see if 905 will work
(pre-recorded message). I work in (905) area as well, and could
provide the work number(s) on request.
David Leibold
[Moderator's Note: Well, it works from 708-329 in Skokie. I know a
couple years ago I had a battle with IBT over a new exchange which
opened in the 414 area of Wisconsin. It took them two months to get
around to putting it in the tables here. PAT]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Allen Mcintosh)
Subject: Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1993 04:13:50 GMT
We have relatives in Canada, and our long distance carrier (one of the
biggies) offers a plan that gives us a discount on certain numbers.
Shortly after 905 became active, we called them up and asked to have
the NPA changed. They were unable to do it -- whatever OSS they were
using hadn't been updated. It was possible to place a call using 905,
so they had at least done something. We're going to keep using 416
for a while ...
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (danny burstein)
Subject: Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized
Date: 14 Nov 1993 14:10:17 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
The most likely scenario is that these calls are coming from in-house
PBXs or similar setups, and get blocked at that end. And, let's not
forget the COCOTS.
Then again, since we're dealing with '905', which is pretty close to
'900' (which routinely gets blocked for the obvious reasons) could it
be that some systems are set up to blcok '90X' area codes?
Anyone out there try calling other 90X area codes and get blocked?
[email protected] adds: all the usual disclaimers regarding liability,
intelligence, accuracy apply. spelling disclaimer is doubled.
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (David A. Kaye)
Subject: Re: NPA 905 Not Universally Recognized
Date: 14 Nov 1993 12:41:02 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [login: guest]
Jamie Mason (
[email protected]) wrote:
> "Bell Canada says its new 905 area code isn't getting enough
> respect south of the border."
> This seems, then, like an odd situation. How is it possible that
> there exist "phone companies" that don't notice an area code split?
The problem MAY stem from the fact that 905 was previously one of the
area codes assigned to Mexico a few years ago, before it was decided
that Mexico would be reached only via country code. Until about three
years ago you could reach them both ways.
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V13 #758
******************************
******************************************************************************
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
