TELECOM Digest     Mon, 27 Dec 93 02:50:30 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 839

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

   Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback? (Phil D. Howard)
   Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback? (John R. Levine)
   Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback? (Dennis G. Rears)
   Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback? (Alan Boritz)
   Re: Caller ID in Software? (Phil D. Howard)
   Re: Caller ID in Software? (Ralph Becker)
   Re: Quantum Economics (was Union Losing Telco Jobs) (David Devereaux-Weber)
   Re: Quantum Economics (was Union Losing Telco Jobs) (Michael Hui)
   Re: Calling a PBX and Billing (Macy Hallock)
   Re: Calling Card Databases (Lee Sweet)
   Re: 911 Changes in Toronto (Robb Topolski)
   Re: 911 Changes in Toronto; Auto-Dial Alarm Devices (Greg Abbott)
   Re: TDD Software Wanted (Steve Peltz)
   Re: Modem Monitoring Question (David A. Kaye)
   Re: How Are Telephone Cal (Chris Farrar)
   Re: Unique(?) Problem With Voicemail Prompts (Dave Levenson)

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] (P D H)
Subject: Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 16:17:26 GMT


[email protected] (Erik Berg) writes:

> Problem is, my wife works with DCFS, a government agency that looks

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Caller-ID and Auto Callback information
> are both passed to the called-party's central office and there is no
> real way to avoid having that information available if making a direct
> call to someone. You can do *67 to ask the CO not to give out your
> number but you can't defeat the call-return part of the process. There
> is a service which operates on a 900 number at a premium fee which
> allows you to call through it and out to wherever causing the called
> party to get no usable ID/return call information. Even that guy won't
> cover for you in the event of legal action against you, but for all
> intents and purposes, it provides an effective shield.  I think the
> number is 1-900-BLOCKER.   PAT]

One possible solution is a number to call in to DCFS to make outgoing
calls from.  Obviously you need to identify what number to make the
calls look like they come from in addition to an access code.  It
could be a lot of digits to dial, but you could stick the codes in a
memory that most phones now have these days.  I don't know if equipment
that could make calls look like they come from your extension is avail-
able.


Phil Howard, KA9WGN   <[email protected]>

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

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 93 19:20 EST
From: [email protected] (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback?
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass.


>> it seems to me that calls from someone representing the ...

>> 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: I quite agree. An 'alternate ID message'
> should be provided for people in that category of employment who do
> some or all of their work from home.

Hey, that's a fine idea.  I do consulting work, some at clients'
offices, and it will be a pain when CL-ID arrives here because then
I'll no longer be able to call client B from client A's office without
telling B that I work for A.  Same problem for doctors who return
after-hours calls from home or friends' houses.  So can we please make
'alternate ID message' standard everywhere?

Regards,

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


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'd make 'alternate-ID' available on a
'need-to-have-it' basis where the applicant for the service had to
give specific, valid (from a list of a few) reasons for needing the
service. Permission for same would be renewed (or denied) annually, and
any defalcation, phreaking, failure to pay the bill when due, etc. would
be grounds for immediate removal of the privilege. The alternate message
would have to include some published, working phone number somewhere,
and the subscriber owning the number used as someone else's 'alternate'
would need to give permission as part of the annuual permit process.
For example, a police officer's phone might alternately identify as the
police department switchboard, ditto the social worker's phone might
identify as the agency's main number. The person (or company or agency)
allowing their number to be used as an alternate would sign off agreeing
to accept responsibility for the content of the transmissions made when
their ID was being used. In other words, 'improper' use of the phone via
your alternate (probably employer's) ID in order to deflect attention
away from yourself would be a serious matter if you got caught at it.
You'd lose the privilege of course, but you might lose your job as well
if your employer found out that *their phone service* had been jeopardized
by your behavior.  Fair enough?  I think it is a good compromise. A star
code (i.e. *63 or similar) would be prepended to the dialing string
meaning to use the alternate-ID for the call being presently made.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 93 14:48:49 EST
From: Dennis G. Rears <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback?


> In article <[email protected]> [email protected].
> edu (Jon Edelson) writes:

>> 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.

> Sounds like a perfect application for DISA via the government agency's
> telephone system to me.  > >

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I quite agree. An 'alternate ID message'
> should be provided for people in that category of employment who do
> some or all of their work from home.  That should resolve many of the
> complaints about privacy we hear now.   PAT]

 No.  Caller-ID should be the number of the phone that called you.
If you start allowing an 'alternate ID message' you start preverting
the idea of Caller-ID to where it is worthless.


dennis


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I personally would opt to have it the
way you suggest, Dennis. I have no patience for example with attornies
who insist on getting my home number while refusing to give theirs to
me. Whenever an attorney asks for my home number, my immediate response
is to ask for his. When he says he does not give it out and that he
takes calls at his office, my response is I do the same.  Touche, and
all that. For that matter, attornies have had Caller-ID for years, long
before telco invented it; they use their secretaries to find out who
is calling and screen out the calls they don't want / are afraid to
deal with. So now the rest of us have Caller-ID as well. My heart is
really bleeding. But as a compromise to the many fine people who really
are in a bind as a result of working at home, etc, I would make the
'alternate-ID' service a tariffed, but relatively restricted offering. PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Privacy and Caller ID/Auto Callback?
From: [email protected] (Alan Boritz)
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 93 06:56:35 EST
Organization: Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - +1 201 934 0861


I think that supposedly intelligent people (doctors, lawyers, social
workers, and their employers) should find their OWN solution to that
issue and not burden the public-switched-telephone-network, and the
rest of us, with their problems.  If an employee has a legitimate need
to routinely make telephone calls from their residences for their
employer, the employer should provide a phone line for their exclusive
use.  The City of New York has done that for certain Mayoral employees
for years.


aboritz%[email protected]  or  uunet!drharry!aboritz
Harry's Place BBS (drharry.UUCP) - Mahwah NJ USA - +1-201-934-0861

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

From: [email protected] (P D H)
Subject: Re: Caller ID in Software?
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 15:46:21 GMT


> [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]

I take it that a lot of people are interested in which modems do
include the hardware feature and have cooresponding firmware to deal
with it.  I would suspect one reasonable way to deal with it is when
the "RING" message comes from the modem, the second one can include
the caller-id info.  Then your host software can choose to do with it
as it wants.


Phil Howard, KA9WGN      <[email protected]>


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Actually, the 'RING(ING)' message on
the screen is not synchronized with the incoming ring very much. On
my modem it runs a second or two late so probably the message could
be delayed long enough to pick up the data which is always sent at
the very instant the first ring finishes, and it could come with the
first RING announcement.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 93 11:48:44 EST
Reply-To: [email protected] (Ralph Becker)
From: [email protected] (Ralph Becker)
Subject: Re: Caller ID in Software?


> 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.

I think the question here is "Is there any software out there that
will exploit the existing Caller ID capability of my modem and make it
act like one of the add-on Caller ID boxes that are available?".  This
is a good question.  I also have such a modem, and I've been looking
for a utility like this ever since I got Caller ID (New England
Telephone calls it PhoneSmart).  It would be even better if it had an
automatic logging capability.  Anyone seen something like this?

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

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 93 10:48:14 CDT
From: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Quantum Economics (was Union Losing Telco Jobs)


In Quantum Economics (TELECOM Digest V13 #834), Kriston J. Rehberg
writes:

> ...Why NYNEX isn't replacing its ancient copper street pole wire with fiber
> optics TODAY is beyond me...

NYNEX is still regulated.  The state Public Utilities Commission must
approve all capital projects, and if there is functional copper in
place, the regulatory paradigm says that replacement would add
unnecessary cost to the ratepayers.  It is likely that NYNEX can see
the handwriting on the wall but is working with regulatory
constraints.

If telecom regulation were to be totally removed, it is likely that
there would problems with providing service to low revenue and low
density subscribers.  The problem we all face is how to let the
regulated companies move into new technology without loosing service
to some market segments.


David Devereaux-Weber, P.E.             [email protected] (Internet)
The University of Wisconsin - Madison   (608)262-3584 (voice)
DoIT - MACC Communications; B263        (608)262-4679 (FAX)
1210 W Dayton St.                       Madison, WI 53706

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

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 15:24:00 +0000
From: michael (m.m.y.) hui <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Quantum Economics (was Union Losing Telco Jobs)


500 channels is only overwhelming when you do not have an efficient
means to find out what you want to watch, and when it's on. Given that
many channels, you would need a nice database, possibly downloaded
into your home computer via the same cable that feeds digital
compressed video into your set top converter. Then, some powerful and
at the same time easy to use database program will let you efficiently
find what you want to watch, schedule everything, including
programming your VCR automatically to tape those shows you can't watch
in real time, and your week will be all set.

The only debate right now concerns where the database software will
run. One school thinks that the set top box should run everything,
hence it'll at least have to be a moderately powerful computer. That's
an expensive, but ultimately the best solution. The stop gap solution
is to require that you have a popular brand of personal computer
available at home, which you then run the program supplied to you by
the cablevision company along with the supplied hardware connections.

Tastes always diverge, and always multiply. In order to cater to a
more diverse taste, you need more channels. How can you argue with
that?

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

From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 93 09:32 EST
Subject: Re: Calling a PBX and Billing
Reply-To: [email protected]
Organization: F M Systems/Telemax  Medina, Ohio USA


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

> Not necessarily.  Our AT&T Definity system supervises an incoming call
> immediately.  When asked why, our telecom support group mumbled
> something about compatiblity with our voice-mail provider.

This has affected the way we set up ACD groups.  At one time, we could
offer the initial "all agents are busy, please hold" message without
giving answer supervision, and be within the rules.  Now, we give
answer supervision on the first message and start paying for the calls
immediately.  This has induced clients to use automated attendants and
voice mail to route and answer calls more quickly.

Here's how things changed:

Several of the types and mfr PBX systems I work with have software
flags to control answer supervision on TIE, DID and CCSA trunks.

About two years ago two of the manufacturers came out with software
patches to disable control of answer supervision.  The effect of these
patches was to "hard code" supervision on answer or announcement.
Only ringback, busy tone and reorder tone now do not give answer
supervision on DID and CCSA trunks.

The field service bulletin that accompanied these patches stated that
the FCC had ruled that answer supervision must be provided if anything
other than a standard call progress tone was given to the incoming
trunk.  There is a provision for an intercept recorder, but it is very
strictly controlled.

Upon inquiry, I was told that AT&T had asked for this change in the
FCC CPE requirements due to fraud and revenue loss.  These changes are
now part of the FCC part 94 telephone equipment rules, and are
mandatory.  (Hmmm, I think thats the correct part number.)

Since I have heard this from two different manufacturers, in basically
the same words, I'm inclined to beleive it.  I haven't taken the time
to locate and reread the FCC paperwork.

Comments:

I know that AT&T modified their No. 4 ESS machines to give only one
way transmission on incoming calls until answer supervision in
response to toll fraud situations.  I also know of one site that
deliberatly set up part of their incoming T1 trunks not to give answer
supervision to avoid billing (they were using another IXC, not AT&T,
at the time).

When I installed my first T1 from an IXC directly into a customer PBX
some years ago, I experimented with answer supervision flags and
network behavior.  The IXC was giving me a complete transmission path,
regardless of the answer supervision I provided. This matched my
experiences in working with CO to CO trunking back when I worked for
the telephone co.  At the time, I figured someone would use this to
defraud an IXC at some point, and even wondered why ROLM could get
away with the way their auto-hold feature (or auto-camp on) worked.

BTW, I always set up my systems to operate the way I knew the network
was supposed to work.  Not only because I was honest, but because I
know that someday someone would be testing, notice the behavior and
turn down the trunks for service ... and I'd get the repair call from
a very unhappy customer.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG  +1.216.723.3030  [email protected] [email protected]
Telemax, Inc. - F M Systems, Inc. 152 Highland Drive  Medina, OH 44256 USA

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

From: [email protected] (Lee Sweet)
Subject: Re: Calling Card Databases
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 13:01:42 EST


We recently had to have a local POTS line (for a modem, of all
things!) disconnected because, in the recent past (few years?),
someone had an AT&T Calling Card hooked to this number.  The number
appears to have been stolen/posted on Phreaker BBS/who knows what, and
we regularly got bills for hundreds of $ monthly for calls from/to
Peru (billed to the Calling Card).

Point is, C&P Telephone/AT&T LD both said that *nothing* could be done
to invalidate the number in whatever (international?) database it
lived on in as a valid Calling Card number.  What?!  There's no way to
have these things drop dead when the number is disconnected?!

Comments, anyone?

BTW, we finally said, the heck with it, killed the number, got a new
one, and all's fine.  Two positive notes.  AT&T *never* had a problem
crediting for the bogus calls, once the facts were explained, and C&P
swapped the line at no charge, also.

I still find the 'can't kill it' very hard to believe/understand!


Lee Sweet                        Internet *lists* - [email protected]
Chief Systems Consultant        Internet *e-mail* - [email protected]
Datatel, Inc.                               Phone - 703-968-4661
4375 Fair Lakes Court                         FAX - 703-968-4625
Fairfax, VA 22033                (Opinions are my own, and only my own!)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: AT&T/telco cannot directly control the
input into the database of the PTT's involved, but they can and do
regularly ask the PTT's to remove bad numbers. And, when they have
charged back enough of it to the PTT involved, the number usually gets
blacklisted, but when reaching directory assistance or an inward oper-
ator in certain third world countries takes fifteen minutes for that
function alone, you can imagine how speedy their business office
people operate.

Ever try to reach directory assistance or the operator in Nigeria when
they don't feel like responding (their lunch break or whatever)? And
when they do answer, they ask you five times how to spell the name of
the person you want, then they put the phone down to go away somewhere
to look up the number and come back in maybe five or ten minutes only
to give you a wrong number. That is unless someone else over there
does not walk past, see the phone laying there off hook and 'helpfully'
hang it up without asking if anyone is on the other end, forcing the
AT&T operator to dial back a second time and start it all from the
beginning.  How fast do you suppose they work on fraud stuff in their
'database', if you want to be generous and call it that?    PAT]

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

From: [email protected] (Robb Topolski)
Subject: Re: 911 Changes in Toronto
Organization: KAIWAN Internet Access (310-527-4279, 714-539-0829)
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 21:08:34 GMT


Tony Harminc ([email protected]) wrote:

> For these reasons, effective January 1, 1994, the Emergency Services
> of Metropolitan Toronto will not respond to, or act upon any alarm
> transmitted directly to the 9-1-1 system, from any auto-dial alarm
> device.

(Speaking for myself only, as a 911 operator)

It is a good policy.  One thing a 9-1-1 operator does not want is a
couple hundred constituents with these dialers -- ESPECIALLY during a
power failure, earthquake, or other source for false alarms.
Auto-alarm systems also have a tendency to rarely but occasionally
"run away" -- dial over and over and over despite the proper receipt
of the call.

The ones I have heard have a pre-recording that says by voice "There
is an emergency at 123 Elm."  We don't know if they need police, fire,
or paramedics.  Even if these devices got smart and actually relayed
some information, the false alarm thing would clog the 9-1-1 system in
the moments following a storm or power failure.

Here's what I would like: a "Help, I've fallen and can't get up" panic
button with two-way communication that dials 9-1-1 ... that absolutely
would not react to power failures/surges/fluxes or spurient RF.


Robert M. Topolski <[email protected]>

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

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1993 13:34:24 CST
From: Greg Abbott <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: 911 Changes in Toronto; Auto-Dial Alarm Devices


> NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
> RE: 9-1-1, Auto-dial Alarm Devices

> In order to provide the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto with an
> effective, efficient emergency response service, the Metropolitan
> Toronto ambulance, fire and police service providers utilize the 9-1-1
> emergency telephone system.

[rest deleted]

Illinois State Statutes prohibit the connection of *any* type of
automatic dialer alarm/emergency dialer to dial a the 9-1-1 emergency
number.

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

From: [email protected] (Steve Peltz)
Subject: Re: TDD Software Wanted
Date: 26 Dec 1993 20:58:24 GMT
Organization: CERL - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


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

> Mike, the phone company is right -- you can't get ASCII to Baudot
> (code used by TYs) communication by software alone.  You're going to
> need a hybrid ASCII/Baudot modem. There are several on the market,
> including the MIC300i, and they have a version for the Mac too.

Baudot is just a 5-bit code, right? Any synchronous-capable serial
chip can do that (such as a Mac). Is the modem encoding itself also
different, possibly different carrier frequencies or such? It can't be
just Baudot coding that causes the problem.

Why don't they start releasing dual-mode TDD machines, that can handle
ASCII and "standard" modem standards, and eventually phase out Baudot-
only machines?

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

From: [email protected] (David A. Kaye)
Subject: Re: Modem Monitoring Question
Date: 26 Dec 1993 18:13:48 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access  (415) 705-6060  [login: guest]


Mark Case ([email protected]) wrote:

> location goes down.  The question is: how can the location be
> monitored so that it may be determined whether the problem is with the
> modem or with the transmitter?

Have some area of the transmitter's failure trip a dialer or an
answerback on the modem.  When I ran a voicemail company I set up
dialers with a bunch of relays in series detecting things such as
power outage, high temperature, etc.  If any relay in the series
opened up, the dialer would seize a trunk and dial out.  (I *am*
available for consultations.)

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

Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How Are Telephone Calling Cards Verified?
From: [email protected] (Chris Farrar)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 93 12:43:00 -0600
Organization: C-9 Communications


[email protected] said something along the lines of the
following:

> number, like first three digits are 510, so talk to PacBell, but what
> to do about people like ATT who are issuing calling cards but don't
> have local phone numbers? If there's a central clearing house, how big

Bell Canada will issue calling cards to businesses (or replacement
personal cards if yours is lost or stolen) with numbers that do not
match your actual phone number.  When I last had a 416 area code
number, my card was 416-234-XXXX-PPPP, when my wallet was stolen, the
new card that was issued to me was 476-176-0187-PPPP.

For my current calling card, with a 519 area code number, running the
card number through software (on a PC) that will tell if a Visa or
MasterCard number is valid, has the card number come back as being a
valid MasterCard, even though it is several digits too short to be a
MC.


Chris

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

From: [email protected] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Unique(?) Problem With Voicemail Prompts
Organization: Westmark, Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1993 01:43:56 GMT


In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] writes:

> Someone in our firm is currently experiencing a "different" problem
> with our voice mail system.  She will be leaving a message in
> someone's voice mailbox and the system will interrupt her, saying "To
> Send this Message, Press..."- as if she had punched a key, but she
> hadn't.  The problem has been re-occurring.

> Our vendor (Octel) calls it "PROMPT INTERRUPTION", and says it happens
> when some individual's voice frequencies are very close to the tones
> generated by the keypad.  The system interprets the voice as a key
> being punched.

This is usually called 'talk-off'.  Your vendor's explanation is
probably correct.  The voice mail system thinks it hears a DTMF
(touch-tone) character somewhere in the sound of a user's voice.

A human voice typically generates only one frequency at a time, and
the components of the touch-tone signals are pairs of non-harmonically-
related frequencies, so this problem does not occur very often.  It
takes an unusual combination of vocal characteristics and distortion
to make it happen.

Voice mail equipment vendors attempt to reduce talk-off in several
ways.  The touch-tone detector is usually programmed to require some
minimum duration of tone, often in the absence of energy at other
frequencies, before recognition.  But making the minimum duration too
long, while reducing talk-off, makes the system insensitive to real
touch-tones sent by people who punch keys very quickly, or by tele-
phone sets that generated short tones whose duration is not related to
dial button dwell time.  Most anti-talk-off techniques result in some
compromise of the ability to detect valid tones.

Does the user experience talk-off only from one telephone set?  Try
replacing its handset or transmitter element.  Can the minimum tone
duration on your voice mail system be administered?  Try increasing it
a few tens of milliseconds.  We have found that 50 - 75 msec. work
well.


Dave Levenson  Internet: [email protected]
Westmark, Inc.  UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Stirling, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: 908 647 6857

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #839
******************************


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

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.