TELECOM Digest Wed, 22 Dec 93 13:51:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 834

TELECOM Digest Wed, 22 Dec 93 13:51:00 CST Volume 13 : Issue 834

Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson

Re: Caller ID in Software? (Todd D. Hale)
Re: Caller ID in Software? ([email protected])
Re: Technical Analysis: Santa Claus, Science and Myth (Jim Agnew)
Re: Quantum Economics (was Union Losing Telco Jobs) (Kristin J. Rehberg)
Re: How Are Telephone Calling Cards Verified? (Curtis R. Nelson)
Re: The Superhighway and Telcos (John R. Levine)
Re: Voice Mail HW Wanted (Jeff Kenton)
Re: FCC: No! GTE!!! (Mark Voorhees)
Re: Two Cellphones With Same Number? (William Bauserman)
Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback? (Jon Edelson)
Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback? (John R. Levine)
Re: Being Paged by Mystery 800 Number (Wilson Mohr)
Re: Being Paged by Mystery 800 Number (David A. Kaye)
Re: Angry Monkeys Go on Rampage (Don Lynn)

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 GEnie.
Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations
and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

* [email protected] *

The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of
Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and
long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers.
To reach us: Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone
at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: [email protected].

** Article submission address only: [email protected] **

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 gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated
Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech
Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience
of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups.

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

From: [email protected] (Todd D. Hale)
Subject: Re: Caller ID in Software?
Organization: Novell, Inc., Provo, UT, USA
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 15:54:32 GMT

In article <[email protected]> Paul Robinson <[email protected]>
writes:

>> Are there any tools that do Caller ID in software? I really do not
>> want to buy a box when I have all these nice computers sitting here
>> ready to do some work for me.

> Software only goes so far. Caller ID is sent on a telephone line as a
> stream of data between rings to a telephone line which is on-hook.
> Therefore, you still need hardware that can monitor an on-hook line ...

So, what is the easiest (cheapest) way to access Caller ID? What
simple hardware device is available to do this? And, which modems
allow me to access it before the phone is answered?

Thanks in advance!

Todd D. Hale [email protected] [email protected]
Unofficially speaking, of course.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The cheapest and most effecient way is
to purchase a Caller-ID Display box from telco or some other supplier
of same. Seriously. Don't bother re-inventing the whole process. In
addition, there are modems which display Caller-ID messages in the
process of otherwise doing their thing. PAT]

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

From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Caller ID in Software?
Organization: KAIWAN Internet Access (310-527-4279, 714-539-0829)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 08:16:24 GMT

In article <[email protected]>, Paul Robinson <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Software only goes so far. Caller ID is sent on a telephone line as a
> stream of data between rings to a telephone line which is on-hook.
> Therefore, you still need hardware that can monitor an on-hook line
> and retrieve the data that is delivered. Software can't do this
> unless there is hardware there to pick up the information, any more
> than a color paint program can generate colors from a black and white
> scanned image.

Zfax has an option to detect Caller ID. Unfortunately, there is no
Caller ID in CA for me to test it. You also need a ZyXEL modem to do
it. Zfax is free.

[email protected],Anonymous FTP,Telnet kaiwan.com(192.215.30.2)FAX#714-638-0455
DATA# 714-539-0829,830-6061,310-527-4279 818-579-6701 16.8k/14.4k 8-N-1
ZyXEL U-1496E 16.8K: $279.00, U-1496E+ 19.2K: $389.00 Voice/FAX/Data Modems
AT&T DATA Port 14.4K: $189.00(Int) $209(Ext) w/ QuickLink II, FAX/DATA Modems

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

From: Brainwave Surfer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Technical Analysis: Santa Claus, Science and Myth
Date: 21 Dec 93 09:09:02 -0400
Organization: Medical College of Virginia

In article <[email protected]>, Dan L. Dale <0005517538@
mcimail.com> writes:

> SANTA CLAUS: Science and Myth

Stuff deleted ...

> 5) 353,000 tons travelling at 650 miles per second creates enormous drag -
> air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as
> a spacecraft re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of
> reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy per second each.

Well, according to quantum theory, if you pinpoint the energy of a
particle, you cannot pinpoint the location of Santa, plus you're
leaving out quantum "tunneling", which is probably facilliated by
Elf-assurance!!! If Santa seems to have mastered quantum tunneling,
then he does his work while the night of the world has no end, as time
does not seem to exist in a quantum tunnel.

> Merry Christmas with all the Blessings,
> Wishing You and All at Home
> Joy, Happiness, Peace, Prosperity and Success
> for the New Year.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: My sentiments exactly! PAT]

And mine also!!! Remember the reason for the season!!

a VERY Merry Christmas to you all.

Jim Agnew [email protected] (Internet)
Neurosurgery, AGNEW@VCUVAX (Bitnet)
MCV-VCU This disc will self destruct in
Richmond, VA, USA five seconds. Good luck, Jim..."

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Since as you point out, under the
circumstances there is no real measurement of time, maybe Santa Claus
in fact works all year around if you decide to let him ... PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Quantum Economics (was Union Losing Telco Jobs)
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 09:34:46 EST
From: <V2ENA81%[email protected]>

Charles McGuinness writes:

> A. Padgett Peterson writes that he thinks that there is not much of a
> logical reason for a 500 channel system. Specifically:

>> The point I am trying to make is that it is a common fallacy to think
>> "if enough is good, more is better". Simple logistics would be bad
>> enough: for example the TV viewing guide that comes in the paper now
>> requires four pages of bar charts for every day -- and this is just for
>> the "standard" channels, can you imagine the size of a 500 channel
>> listing ?

> I think the perspective is wrong. It's not that a system where you
> have to press "upchannel" 500 times to loop around is going to be a
> success, but a system where I get to choose which 40 (or whatever)
> channels are on display instead of the cable company will be.

The idea behind the so-called "500-channel" cable system is that you
have between 50 and 150 channels of "regular" cable channels of which
you choose the channels you want. These will be the "regular"
networks which most people recognize today, such as MTV, CNN, Comedy
Central, various SuperStations, and movie channels.

The rest of the 300 or so "channels" (not all of which may be "TV"
channels; cable companies say 500-channels to brag about the bandwidth
of the new fiber lines) are used for things such as Direct-To-Home
viewing of Request or Pay-Per-View events, some of which can be
displayed ON DEMAND for the customer, INTERACTIVE television, and, in
addition to various audio and computer services such as
Telephony/Voice Mail and the Internet, and (in the case of our local
cable company) a fully monitored home security system that won't
depend on the telephone company anymore.

Once our local cable fully implements the 500 channel bandwidth in our
area they can potentially destroy the monopoly that NY Telephone (now
NYNEX) holds on the local calling area, unless antitrust regulations
subvert this. Why NYNEX isn't replacing its ancient copper street
pole wire with fiber optics TODAY is beyond me, because telephony is
such a simple application when compared to video. It is also
interesting to note that NYNEX's ISDN and "Switched-56" service won't
be available in this area until at least 1995. It is even more
interesting to note that full deployment of the local cable company's
fiber-optic network is nearing completion well ahead of schedule,
currently in 2Q94, and this is in an area which usually sees such
services very late in the game. It's going to be a great decade for
local cable companies!

As a side note, I believe they will handle upstream traffic either by
using two fiber optic lines, or (for remote areas) the same fiber optic
with split download/upload bandwidth, or existing telephone wire.
Whether there are two conductores are inside the same wire on the pole
right now or not isn't known by me. In very many, more populated
locations you will see two wires on the pole in parallel, but in
remote areas you will see only one wire. For some reason I don't see
upstream traffic as posing such a large problem in the present day
because it will be mostly small request packets for programming and
transfers, with the bulk of the bandwidth almost always happening in
the download portion of the transmission (except for the occasional
video telephone conversation, of course! :)

Kriston J. Rehberg Internet: [email protected]
Associate Programmer/Analyst IBM Internal: V2ENA81 AT OWEGO
ENSCO, Incorporated or (AFS): [email protected]
IBM Corporation, Owego, NY USA phone: (607) 751-2180 or tie: 662-2180

��

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

Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 06:28:28 CST
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How Are Telephone Calling Cards Verified?

> First question is, how do they verify phone calling card numbers? My
> calling card is a Pac Bell card, and it works absolutly everywhere
> within the US I've ever tried to use it, including out of area Bells
> (like NyNex). Since NyNex doesn't touch PacBell, they would have to
> traverse a long distance carrier's line, which seems odd.

> Or there's a central clearing house somewhere. Or there's a simple...

Once upon a time (before divestiture), Alternate Billing Services
(calling cards, collect, third number billing) were supported by an
AT&T database called the Billing Validation Application (BVA) and
AT&T's CCIS6 signaling network. The BVA was used to validate AT&T
calling cards as well as cards for Local Exchange Companies (LEC). If
the LEC provided operator services and Mechanized Calling Card Service
(MCCS), the switch had CCIS6 links to the BVA.

In early 1992, the LECs and AT&T divorced themselves of the BVA and
migrated to a new system, the Line Information Data Base (LIDB). LIDB
is composed of a number of separately owned databases (RBOCs, AT&T,
and some of the large independent LECs), accessed via the Signaling
System 7 (SS7) network. Those telcos not large enough to have their
own LIDB had to make arrangements for their numbers to be placed in
someone else's LIDB.

When the LEC needs to validate a calling card or third party number
for billing, an SS7 query is launched from the operator switch to a
hubbing provider's Signaling Transfer Point (STP). Anyone that
provides a hubbing service has SS7 links to all the various LIDBs.
The STP looks at the first three digits of the billing number and
determines which LIDB the query should be routed to (Global Title
Translation-GTT). The query contains the identity of the orignating
switch and a transaction ID, which allows the response to return to
the proper switch and the switch to match the query with the response.
Bellcore maintains a guide called the LARG (LIDB Access Routing
Guide), which is updated monthly. The LARG is used for maintaining
STP global title translation tables.

The transition from BVA to LIDB was a little shaky at first, but it
works well today. It normally takes about half a second to receive a
response to a query.

> Second question is this:

> What's the telecom situation in Alaska like? I remember there was a
> discussion a while ago about Hawaii. But then I was up in Alaska a few
> months ago, and pay phones weren't too good on the 10xxx numbers.
> AT+T seemed to give me something called Alascom. Does MCI really not
> serve Alaska, or just not the pay phones? Is there a different set of...

Although Nebraska is a long way from Alaska, I have one theory. It's
possible that Alascom may have an agreement with some or all of the LD
carriers to provide operator services on their behalf and then pass
the call to their trunks. If you dial 10XXX + 0 and end up at an
Alascom operator, that may be the case.

> Here's another tidbit: when I call 10xxx - 0 - 510 xxx xxxx from my
> 415 work number, in order to get lower rates (intra LATA calls that
> Pac Bell makes a fortune on), Pac Bell's error message is:....

In Nebraska, LD carriers must get approval from the Public Service
Commision to carry Intra-LATA calls. If they don't have that
approval, we (Lincoln Telephone) have to block those calls. I don't
know if the same exists in California.

References:

1) United States Telephone Association (USTA) National Services Advisory
Committee (NSAC) Bulletin TD 91-131, 11/27/91

Curtis R. Nelson, P.E. email: [email protected]
Lincoln Telephone Company phone: (402) 476-4886
1440 'M' Street fax: (402) 476-5527
Lincoln, NE 68508

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

Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 09:17 EST
From: [email protected] (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: The Superhighway and Telcos
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.

> What we really need is a new packet-switched network [with faster dialups]
...
> In addition, the market is crying out for ubiquitous one-number access, ...

> How about a new 950 service (950 is better than 800 since it avoids
> local access charges) ...

Holy modem tax, Batman!

There's a good reason you don't see one number access: it costs more.
When a long-distance company connects to the local phone network, it
pays, by modem standards, a stiff price, four or five cents per
minute, or roughly $3/hr at each end of the connection. If you call a
950 or 800 number, whoever the carrier is pays that, even if you don't
directly see it on the bill. AT&T has one-number 950-1288 service,
but it's only used for on-line services that are already so expensive
that an extra $3/hr isn't a big deal.

The 'modem tax' brouhaha from 1987 was about these connection costs.
The FCC, not totally unreasonably, said that packet networks look a
lot like long-distance phone companies, so they should connect to the
phone network in the same way. This would allow all sorts of swell
features not now available, e.g. Sprintnet could assign each of their
providers a 700 number so you could dial directly to the service you
want, using the same number regardless of where you're caling from,
instead of having to dial a local Sprintnet number, then go through a
second dialing dialog to tell it who you really want to talk to. But
along with a real phone connection comes real phone pricing, and
nobody wanted to pay that extra $3/hr. So the FCC backed off and left
us with the current situation where packet nets have a special rule
that lets them connect to the phone network like ordinary business
customers, without paying any per-minute charge.

I suspect the main reason you don't see 9600 bps dial-up packet
network connections is that there's not much demand for them. By the
time you factor in the slowdowns due to network connection, and
consider how much cheaper normal long distance is compared to ten years
ago when the packet nets were getting giong, it's about as fast to
dial direct at 14.4K.

If you want to complain about slow data connections, complain about
the local telcos who have been slow to introduce ISDN, which provides
dual 64K bps connections, and have done so at prices that make it
unattractive.

There's also a chicken and egg problem here: ISDN per-minute prices
are, by and large, the same as toll rates, but ISDN connections can be
set up and taken down very fast, so a connection of a few seconds
makes sense. If Compuserve, say, were set up so you called in via
ISDN, it blatted a few hundred K of screens and hung up, then you
pondered off-line for a few seconds, then reconnected, it blatted a
few more hundred K and hung up, you could actually be connected for
only five minutes out of each hour, and even at regular phone rates,
the phone bill would be on the order of 75 cents/hr. But since there
isn't much ISDN, there's not much incentive to make things work that
way.

Regards,

John Levine, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

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

From: [email protected] (Jeff Kenton)
Subject: Re: Voice Mail HW Wanted
Organization: Kenton Systems Corporation, Weston MA
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 14:51:59 GMT

[email protected] (Joseph I. Ceasar) writes:

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dialogic also makes voice mail cards
> capable of handling four lines. They are (I think) in Parsippany, NJ. PAT]

Dialogic is in Parsippany -- four line voice mail cards for a PC are
$1150.

Also try Rhetorex in Campbell, CA, which has similar equipment for
about the same price.

Jeff Kenton (617) 894-4508
[email protected]

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

From: [email protected] (Mark Voorhees)
Subject: Re: FCC: No! GTE!!!
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 09:56:05 EST
Organization: [MindVox] / Phantom Access Technologies / (+1 800-MindVox)

Steve Lichter writes:

> There have been follow ups on this and it appears GTE plans to take
> the same action as Bell Atlantic has done and bring suit against the
> FCC.

GTE has effectively taken the same action as Bell Atlantic. By going
to court to seek to continue the Cerritos project, it is raising the
same constitutional issue, as did Bell Atlantic: whether telephone
companies can offer video programming (as opposed to just transport)
to their customers.

The Cerritos project had operated under a waiver from that prohibition,
and GTE now seeks to have the prohibition declared unconstitional,
which is exactly what Bell Atlantic successfully did.

[email protected] Mark Voorhees

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

Date: 22 Dec 93 09:48:02 GMT
From: Bauserman, William
Subject: Re: Two Cellphones With Same Number?

John Landwehr writes:

> Ameritech and Cellular One in Chicago claim that you cannot have two
> cellular phones with the same phone number. (This would be a nice
> feature if you have a car phone, and a handheld! But they claim the
> FCC doesn't approve. Translated -> they make more money this way).
> Their suggestion is call forwarding and no-answer-transfer.

This is not exactly true. If they are using an AT&T Autoplex Cellular
Switch, there is a software feature available that allows up to three
cellphones to have the same directory number (without this feature you
are only able to assign ESNs and DNs on a one to one basis) . So it
is available and I don't know why the FCC would not approve.

But why wouldn't you want to do it? The best reason is as Pat stated,
you will probably wind up in a fraud database and then none of your
phones will work or worse yet your monthly bill will come in a box :)
Also, the current setup of the cellular network wasn't designed to
handle two units with the same DN and it creates problems.

These problems are avoided if you NEVER turn both phones on at the
same time. But, if you do, it creates paging problems, alerting
(ringing) problems, and conversation problems (both land and mobile).

As always these opinions are completely my own.

Bill Bauserman [email protected]

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

From: [email protected] (Jon Edelson)
Subject: Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback?
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 01:42:30 GMT

In the first message of this thread, a question was asked about
blocking Caller ID in a situation where a social worker was calling
from home. Rather then getting into the whole 'right to Caller ID

��
discussion' it seems to me that calls from someone representing the
social agency should be identified as calling from the social agency.
The social agency is 'responsible' for the call, and while I think
that people have the right to know who 'made' a call, I don't see why
a home number needs to be made known for a business call, as long as
the business is identified.

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are suggesting then that perhaps a
valuable solution to one part of the Caller-ID controversy would be if
an 'alternate ID message' was available to certain individuals for use
at their home under controlled circumstances, i.e. a police officer
could have his ID shown as that of the Police Department, etc. Not a
bad idea really. PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 01:11 EST
From: [email protected] (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.

> Are there any devices out there that can scramble your phone number
> from Caller ID and Auto Callback?

Well, there's distinctive ringing. You get two numbers on your phone,
and they ring differently, one long ring or two shorts. Telco considers
the one long ring number to be the true number and provides it as the
Caller-ID number. It's an inexpensive service, $3/month around here.

For under $100, you can get a box known as a ring leader which listens
to the first ring of all incoming calls and connects to one of two
lines plugged into it. I'd suggest getting a ring leader, attaching
it to the phone line where it comes into your house, and plugging the
rest of the phone wiring into the line two output. Line one can
either go to an answering machine or be left unhooked.

This way, anyone who calls your main number gets on answer, the second
line is the number you actually give out.

Regards,

John Levine, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

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

Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 13:53:19 CST
From: [email protected] (Wilson Mohr)
Subject: Re: Being Paged by Mystery 800 Number

[email protected] (Console Cowboy) writes:

> I was paged five times in five minute intervals today by an 800
> number. Dialing the 800 number reveals a modem. It doesn't respond to
> any prompts and drops carrier after approximatly five seconds. The
> number is 8008841111. Who's doing this and why?

Well FWIW, welcome the new scam on the block. I got a page to
800-473-9323 number. When dialed the number thanks you "for calling
about making extra money!" I hung up at that point.

If you are interested you can hear it out, otherwise save your time.

BTW, it really peeves me that the pager user has to *pay* for each
page and some bonehead can waste my money without my consent. (that
is, if *I were paying for it.) OTOH I *could* call the number and hear
it completely through a billion or so times? Nah. not worth the
effort.

Bottom Line? If I don't recognize the number, I ignore it. (I was
bored ...;) ) If it is important they will page again (and again ...)
What about emergencies? I have a "code" set up for determining that
nature of the page. No code? No return.

Wilson Mohr [email protected]
Strategic Quality - Motorola Cellular Infrastructure Group
"ME speak for Motorola? No, I don't think so . . ."

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

From: [email protected] (David A. Kaye)
Subject: Re: Being Paged by Mystery 800 Number
Date: 22 Dec 1993 15:53:49 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [login: guest]

Dave Niebuhr ([email protected]) wrote:

> [email protected] (Console Cowboy) writes:

>> I was paged five times in five minute intervals today by an 800
>> number. Dialing the 800 number reveals a modem. It doesn't respond to
>> any prompts and drops carrier after approximatly five seconds. The
>> number is 8008841111. Who's doing this and why?

I don't know if this is an option, but some unscrupulous people were
billing back calls to 800 numbers with telco look-alike bills a few
years ago. This may be a scam to get you to call them. In this way,
they have proof that you did indeed call their number. Sounds fishy,
I know, but this scam was being done.

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

Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 10:29:45 PST
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Angry Monkeys Go on Rampage

I think that there is something to be learned from the policies of the
satellite Global Positioning System. They have first-class customers
(the military), and second-class customers (everyone else). The
second-class customers receive their information (concerning their
position on earth) with intentionally added inaccuracies. The
justification was that your average man-on-the-street should not be
given the accuracy sufficient to place a smart bomb in your pocket.
Clearly the Usenet should not be given accuracy sufficient to endanger
others, so just feed the TELECOM Digest to Usenet with intentionally
added inaccuracies (the nature of which can be left to your imagination).

Disclaimer: :-)

/Don Lynn

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But of course, Don! 'Everyone knows' I
send secret messages to the mailing list not seen by comp.dcom.telecom
and in fact what I do is leave the c.d.t. version a little messy
sometimes with spelling and grammatical errors *on purpose* not seen
by the list people (who's copies and the messages therein are always
perfect -- so perfect as to be divine). Then whenever I see a message
on Usenet with spelling or grammatical errors or just downright wrong
I know it had to be copied from my writings to the net.

I was in the local Radio Shlock store the other day when a customer
came in and ask the clerk for a dummy load to use in place of an antenna
when tuning up his radio. The clerk pointed at me and said "He's the
only one we have right now, but sometimes the store is full of them."

Remember Don and other readers: Let's put the 'X' back in Xmas. 'Tis
the season to be jolly even if you don't feel comfortable wearing
any gay apparal. Tra-la-la-la-la and all that. PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #834
******************************

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