TELECOM Digest Wed, 23 Feb 94 11:48:00 CST Volume 14 : Issue 100
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
Looking For Low Cost Phone System (Keith Danekind)
Re: Area Code Closeness (Jim Derdzinski)
Re: Area Code Closeness (Carl Moore)
FCC FTP Site Operatonal (Robert J. Keller)
Re: Digital Cellular Phones (David Boettger)
Re: 200 "Exchange" Within 1-900 Numbers (Christopher Vance)
Re: These Cell Phones Don't Work - Why? (Steve Kuo)
Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls (
[email protected])
Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls (William H. Glass)
Re: Don't Trust the Phone Company (Mark Brader)
Re: Get Paid For Receiving Commercial Email (Scott Hinckley)
Re: Internet Costs and Software Are Free (Martin McCormick)
Re: History of Numbers in UK (Dale Worley)
Re: RBOC Names (Carl Moore)
Re: AT&T Says That They Can't Resolve my Calls' Origin (Will Martin)
Re: Percentage of DTMF Circuits (Donald Campbell)
Re: AirTouch Communications (Terry Gilson)
Re: Clipper Debate (A. Padgett Peterson)
Re: Vermont Gets Ready for NNX Area Codes (Carl Moore)
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. All
opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any
organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages
should not be considered any official expression by the organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1994 07:02:19 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University -- Computer Science Department
Subject: Looking For Low Cost Phone System
From:
[email protected] (keith danekind)
The small company for whom I work is growing and we need to expand our
phone system. Currently we have two incoming lines, the second of
which has call waiting, and a data line that is shared by a fax
machine and a modem. We are currently not able to handle the phone
traffic and the boss would like an automated solution rather than
hiring a receptionist to answer the calls. We are interested in call
routing to one of several phones and voice mail. A PC based PBX would
be great! Basically, we would like the phone system to greet the
caller and ask him or her for an extension number. The system would
then route the call based on the touch-tones entered. The budget for
this system is $5000 or less. Does anyone have any suggestions on how
to do this or where I might find more information? Thanks in advance.
Keith Danekind Colorado State University
Internet:
[email protected]
------------------------------
Date: 23 Feb 94 01:15:07 EST
From: Jim Derdzinski <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Closeness
Paul Robinson asked in issue #92:
> I sometimes wondered why, when the new area code system was being intro-
> duced, that something akin to the Zip Code(R) system wasn't created,
> where the U.S. and Canada were broken into perhaps six or eight areas,
> and in each area the states were assigned a block of numbers corresponding
> to their prior usage, multiplied by 3 or 10, e.g. California would probably
> be assigned all of the numbers, say, 220-299, while the 320-399 group
> might encompass Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and
> Hawaii. Then you might have the 820-899 or 920-999 (or both) groups
> being used for the "non-assigned" number codes the way 700, 800 and
> 900 numbers are now.
The Editor noted that this was done to make it easier to dial the most
widely used codes (i.e. larger cities, centers of commerce, etc.) on
the old rotary dial sets.
Another story that I had heard was that AT&T had somehow concluded
that people made fewer dialing mistakes when the codes were staggered
across the country versus a smooth logical pattern like the ZIP codes.
The staggered pattern was supposed to force people to pay attention to
their dialing. (Of course, it doesn't work, as I've dialed a few
wrong long-distance numbers myself.)
At any rate, the continuity of a pattern like that would have been
interrupted sooner or later with the introduction of new codes.
BTW, am I by chance the only one who hates the newer X1X and X0X local
prefixes? I always get them confused with area codes when taking
messages or calling them.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 17:15:58 EST
From: Carl Moore <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Closeness
Flaw: 713 includes Houston, not Fort Worth. Fort Worth is 817.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 14:53:00 -0500
From: Robert J. Keller <
[email protected]>
Subject: FCC FTP Site Operatonal
The FCC's anonymous ftp site is operational. There is not much there
yet, but at least it is on-line. Here is the text of an FCC News
Release issued today, and a copy of the README file I picked up at the
site.
Bob Keller (KY3R)
[email protected] Tel +1 301.229.5208
[email protected] CompuServe 76100,3333 Fax +1 301.229.6875
News media information 202/632-5050
Recorded listing of releases and texts
202/632-0002
NEWS
Federal Communications Commission
1919 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the
full text of a Commission order constitutes official action. See _MCI_v._
FCC_, 515 F.2d 385 (DC Circ 1974)
February 22, 1994
FCC TO MAKE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON INTERNET
On February 22, the FCC will begin making some of its
information available through Internet. Starting today, the FCC Daily
Digest, the FCC News Releases, some Public Notices, and speeches by
Commission officials will be accessible. The file name by which each
document can be accessed will appear in the Daily Digest. In the
future, the Commission will be making more of its documents available
through Internet.
The FCC's Internet address is ftp.fcc.gov
- FCC -
Office of Public Affairs contact: Rosa Prescott at (202) 632-5050.
ftp.fcc.gov
README:
CONSTRUCTION AREA
Welcome to the FCC's online Archives. In the very near future we will
be providing anonymous ftp access to the Daily Digest, Press Releases,
Public Notices, and many other FCC staples. We also plan to provide
mailservs and mailing list subscriptions to some services.
Since we have only been on the internet since February 15, 1994, we
are still under construction. Services will be added on slowly.
Please submit any comments or suggestions to
[email protected]. Please
do not send me requests to be added to mailing lists as announcements
will be made regarding this at a later date.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 1994 14:20:00 GMT
From: david boettger <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Digital Cellular Phones
In article <
[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Bob
Goudreau) writes:
>> Well, then, you'd best not bring your cellphone to Canada. Both Bell
>> Mobility (Ontario and Quebec) and Cantel (the 'other' provider country-
>> wide) and I believe most (all?) of the other regional providers across
>> Canada are either converting, or have completed conversion to digital
>> service capability.
> Careful. I think that when Alex says "all digital", he means exactly
> that -- a cellular system that using nothing but digital signaling.
> Dual-mode systems, which combine support for the old (analog) AMPS
> system with support for one of the new digital systems (TDMA or CDMA)
> are *not* all-digital.
> Now, have Bell and Cantel actually stopped supporting AMPS, thus
> requiring all subscribers to replace their equipment? Sounds unlikely.
If you're going to use this definition, there are no "all digital"
cells in commercial operation; there are merely cells which have some
channels dedicated to digital traffic and some which are dedicated to
analog traffic. Of course, if you're using Northern Telecom
equipment, the point is moot because channels can be assigned to
analog or digital traffic on a per-call basis. :-)
David Boettger
[email protected]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (CJS Vance)
Subject: Re: 200 "Exchange" Within 1-900 Numbers
Organization: University College, ADFA Canberra, Australia
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 00:00:41 GMT
In article <
[email protected]>
[email protected] (John R
Levine) writes:
>> is for instance 1-900-000-0000 available?
> Probably not. Many local switches are programmed to reject numbers of
> the form NNX-1XX-XXXX and NNX-0XX-XXXX locally, and not send them to
> long distance carriers. I suspect that a lot of switches would reject
> 100 and 000 prefixes in 700, 800, or 900 numbers as well.
Well, here in Australia our 008 numbers (currently being moved to
1800) are of the form 008 XXXXXX (1800 XXXXXX). It's always dialled
with the prefix, so why cut out 20% of the number space? Same with
0055 XXXXX, moving to 1900 XXXXXX. I thought you lot had advanced
exchanges over in the US ...
Christopher
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Steve Kuo)
Subject: Re: These Cell Phones Dont Work - Why?
Date: 23 Feb 1994 00:38:30 GMT
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI USA
Reply-To:
[email protected]
In article <
[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Sean
Petty) writes:
> The customers on the other end were quite unhappy. Aparently their
> cellular phones had almost instantly ALL stopped working. It had us
> Anyhow, the other day Comcast published a letter saying: "The following
> phones are not compatible with our system -- all Motorola Model 8000-D's,
> All Harris Equipment, All Sony Portables that have a Black label under
> the battery, and All Panasonic HP 500's that haven't been upgraded."
> Why are these phones different from all others that make them
> incompatible?
Maybe these phones only supported 666 channels? By checking the
station class mark you can tell if your phone has extended channel
capability (832 channels). The Motorola 8000-D sounds pretty old and
may only support 666 channels. If the SCM is 00 to 07, then it only
has 666 channels, if it's 08 to 15, then its 832 channels.
Steve Kuo, N8OPH,
[email protected]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 07:51:54 -0800
From:
[email protected] (puma)
Subject: Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls
> The ACLU has no policy one way or the other on Caller ID. The ACLU
> concerns itself only with Bill of Rights issues, and more specifically
> First Amendment rights in test cases. In California where Caller ID
> is not in use, rape crisis centers were a driving force among groups
> against Caller ID. They're concerned that (as an example) a woman
> calling to order a pizza could be harrassed by unwanted calls if the
> pizza dude thought her voice was arousing.
The larger pizza chains here collect ANI data and use a database.
They usually ask if you want the same order as last time, etc., and
often call back and verify if you are a first-time customer.
The places not using ANI (caller-ID was just approved here and not yet
implemented) ask for your number and call back to verify. You don't
want to provide your number, that's fine, come in and use the counter
service.
It's not only the practical joke / unwanted pizza problem -- there's
also the crime situation. Orders need to be verified as legitimate so
they know they won't be sending delivery people to vacant houses to be
robbed by someone in the bushes. True, you could still do that, but
at least they would have a number where you were at one time, a clue
of sorts.
[email protected]
------------------------------
From: William H. Glass <
[email protected]>
Reply-To:
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Harrassing One-Ring Calls
Date: 22 Feb 94 18:51:08 CST
Organization: Management Graphics, Inc.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think what the people are saying is
> that the burden of dialing two extra digits *each time around* when
> they want to retain some privacy on their end should not fall on them
> all the time. PAT]
This is beginning to sound like the argument about whether the toilet seat
should be left up or down.
Bill Glass
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This is true, it is ... or whether one should
clean out the bathtub after one is finished using it or *before* one gets
into it. Years ago when we had boarding houses with a common bathroom for
all residents that was a subject of concern: what do you do about people
who won't clean up the bathroom after they have used it, forcing the next
person to have to clean it *before* he can use it? His sense of scruples
tells him to clean it up after he is finished also, but that way he gets
stuck cleaning it twice. Likewise, some residents would always manage to
use all the paper and never bother to leave a new roll, forcing the next
person to begin the process by rushing off to look for some. Courtesy is
no longer the default as it once was in the USA. So many times now, we
are forced into behaving like the people we dislike only from a sense of
survival. We can either do things right (and do them twice as we adjust
for what others are lacking) or we can get on the bandwagon with all the
other fools. Years ago we used to expect the best from people; now it
seems we expect the worst from people, and often that is what we get. PAT]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Don't Trust the Phone Company
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 07:46:15 GMT
In my recent posting, Pat's reformatter deleted my indentation and
left it unclear which words were quoted and which not. For the record,
Michal Jankowski wrote THIS (in comp.risks / Risks Digest):
> Another possibility is that his wife had called your wife recently and
> he actually pressed `redial' on his phone instead of activating
> `abuser-combating feature'. It's easy to misdial some keys when you
> are angry.
And I wrote THIS:
| And it's particularly easy if, as in our area, the two features are
| activated as *66 and *69 ...
> Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb,
[email protected]
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The above inserted manually in this
issue without any reformatting so as to clarify any misunderstanding. PAT]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Scott(Mac Info HQ))
Subject: Re: Get Paid For Receiving Commercial Email
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Alabama-Huntsville
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 07:47:20 GMT
Well, at $0.065/message and $200-$500/yr that menas 8-21 messages of
unknown length you have to read each day. If each message takes only
one minute to read (unlikely) that will be $3.90/hr. Personally, my free
time is worth more than that.
INTERNET:
[email protected]
AT&TNET : +1 205 533 0400 (24hr voicemail)
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Except as I read the original message,
they are giving a free internet connection and email account as part of
the deal, so the value of those has to be factored in as well. PAT]
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Martin McCormick)
Subject: Re: Internet Costs and Software Are Free
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 15:43:21 GMT
In article <
[email protected]>
[email protected]
(Brian Behlendorf) writes:
> email ads, which don't happen much anyways and probably won't.
That's for darn sure. For a while, I was getting a pretty
regular pounding from a vendor who was always wanting to sell us
software we couldn't use and wouldn't do much about the stuff that we
had bought that didn't work right. I just put a line in my .forward
file to route anything with certain key subject or address information
into a folder called Junk.
Every so often, I would look at the subject lines of all those
messages to be sure that nothing important was being trashed and then
just zap the whole thing. It was good for a little smile, anyway.
Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Dale Worley)
Subject: Re: History of Numbers in UK
Date: 23 Feb 1994 04:33:18 -0500
Organization: Village of Cambridge, Public-Access Internet
Richard Cox (
[email protected]) wrote:
> With all that effort to reduce register holding times, it's a bit
> odd that telcos still charge *extra* for tone dialing!
That's because the rate system is not designed to reflect costs, or
even to promote "economically rational" behavior in some grand
collectivist fashion, but rather to provide ways that business and
high-volume residential users can subsidize low-volume residential
users. (Most voters are low-volume residential users.) This is known
as "Keeping Grandma's phone bill down." Since tone dialing is "new"
and since Grandma doesn't have a tone-dial phone, tone dialing is
extra.
Dale
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 17:25:25 EST
From: Carl Moore <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RBOC Names
And similarly, I am seeing publicity about the name change to Bell
Atlantic here on the east coast.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 02:58:14 CST
From: Will Martin <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Says That They Can't Resolve my Calls' Origin
[email protected] (John R Levine) wrote:
> Does your office have a PBX with direct inward dialing? If so, it's
> true, the billing number that AT&T sees is the ANI billing number for
> the trunk on which the call happens to be sent, which as you've
> discovered bears no relationship to the number of the phone on your desk.
As a matter of fact, not even the local telco operator can resolve the
correct number in this circumstance.
Last week, here in 314-land, at the government office building where I
work, we had what turned out to be a "database error" in the PBX
servicing us, which made a lot of the local phone numbers in St.
Louis, including my home number, appear to be "busy" when we tried to
call them. (It was a fast busy instead of a regular busy, so I
suspected an internal problem, which is what it turned out to be.)
While diagnosing the bug, I tried going thru the local SW Bell
operator and, when I told her I was calling from a number in the 331
exchange, she said "No, you're not." Luckily, from TELECOM Digest
experience, I knew what the problem was, and asked her, "You're
showing 421-XXXX, right?" She said "Yes" and I told her that it was
the billing number. She accepted that and tried dialing a couple
numbers for me. (The problem got fixed shortly afterwards.)
I would think this would cause a problem for the telco. It sure sounds
like a security hole when it comes to tracing annoying or threatening
calls. Identifying a culprit within a really big organization if
someone is using one of its phones to make such calls could be nearly
impossible. Will digital telephony change this, perhaps by forcing
any PBX connected to the telco after some future date pass the real
calling number on to the telco switch via some side-channel digital
pathway? Or is this situation an un-correctable arrangement mandated
by deregulation?
Will
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Do government bureaucrats make obscene
phone calls? I know university presidents do occassionally (remember
American University in Washington DC a couple years ago?). PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 00:10:34 GMT
Organization: Cyclops
From: Donald Campbell <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Percentage of DTMF Circuits
In article <
[email protected]>
[email protected] writes:
> What percentage of the world's telephone voice circuits are DTMF?
> What percentage of the telephone instruments are DTMF? The reason I
> ask, is one of the proposals for routing inbound fax uses additonal
> digits after the # to provide routing information and it occured to me
> this solution would only work on DTMF capable circuits.
Surely the DTMF tones are just transmitted as any other sound on the
voice channel?
Here in NZ, well over 99.x percent of lines are connected to NEC NEAX
61 series electronic switches, and most of all the other older
switches are DTMF capable.
And we have never charged extra for it (Tone Dialing), and I still
can't understand how they could do that in the US.
[email protected] (Donald Campbell)
Christchurch, New Zealand. 43 35's 172 44'e
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (Terry Gilson)
Subject: Re: AirTouch Communications
Date: 23 Feb 1994 02:33:37 GMT
Organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
> Is there anybody who likes the name of PacTel's new spin-off
> communications division: AirTouch Communications? I was reading an
> article regarding the name decision and they brought up the fact that
> UAL's name change to Allegis failed because the name itself was not
> popular. Does anybody else see this happening to Airtouch?
To me, after dealing with this very tough, competitive, professional
(relatively speaking) company for nine years, I find this new name a
little ... how shall we say ... anemic.
Terry
------------------------------
From:
[email protected] (A. Padgett Peterson)
Subject: Re: Clipper Debate
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1993 10:00:00 CST
> If I don't care who reads it, I'll just send it. If I want privacy, I
> will encrypt it. The fact that it goes through the Clipper afterwards
> makes little difference to me.
Finally people are starting to understand what I have been saying for
the last year 8*). The *big* difference is that people will no longer
be able to easily tell what you encypted and what you haven't.
Am coming to the conclusion that the "debate" is not about technical
considerations at all, it is about power and money. The fact is that
if the government can deliver Clipper phones for a $25 surcharge and
Capstone modems/ethernet cards for $75, they will have filled a void
(and in a year, if anyone else had an equivalent product, it should be
available by now).
Heard the same yammerheads bleating about Caller-ID but it is *very*
effective in keeping unwanteds off dial-ups and can limit the need for
tokens to the truely mobile. Like what the government has promised
with C/C, for the authorized users it is invisible but a solid layer
of protection (I do not trust *anything* 100%) against intrusion.
I just want some to play with. *Then* I'll make a technical assessment.
Warmly,
Padgett
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is like the 'war on drugs' and the
jerry-rigging of the phones to not accept coins or have rotary dials.
Nothing is one-hundred percent foolproof, but it is the *preponderance*
of difficulties and obstacles which cause some people inclined to get
involved (in whatever; drugs, phone phreaking, etc) to decide it just
is not worth the extra hassles involved. Ditto with Clipper; just add
a little more confusion and uncertainty to the process; make things a
bit harder, etc. Quite effective, really. After all, most Americans
are not geniuses ... far from it. :) PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 10:56:44 EST
From: Carl Moore <
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Vermont Gets Ready For NNX Area Codes
Responding to
[email protected]:
> A flyer in my latest phone bill reveals that Vermont's new toll
> dialing plan is 1-802-NNX-XXXX, the same as will be implemented in
> Massachusetts. Permissive dialing starts on February 18 and ends May
> 18.
They'd send that to you in Massachusetts? (Delaware phone bills have
been getting notices about area 610 in Pennsylvania, however.) Did
you hear anything about Rhode Island? Would New York state be excluded
from the "region"? (I take it New York state would be using seven-digit
dialing within area code.)
> Personally, I find the new plan to be a big pain in the neck, since,
> due to a peculiarity of exchange boundaries, it'll require that I dial
> most free local calls within our town with 11 digits.
You're near an area code boundary? Local within area code should be
just seven digits. What are the circumstances here?
Here is the latest I have for the New England areas, based on what you
have written about Vermont and New Hampshire. What about Maine? What
about pay phones in New Hampshire?
207, Maine; 413,508,617, Massachusetts; 603, New Hampshire (17 July
1993); 401, Rhode Island; 802, Vermont; 1993-1994
(all New England areas except Connecticut)
(in 413: Feb-June 1993; full cutover 21 Sept 1993; 1+NPA+7D for
local calls to another area code permissive 1 Mar to 8 Apr 1993)
(7D on all calls within area code, except for the following usage
of 1+NPA+7D for all toll calls:
ordered in Oct 1993 for Massachusetts;
announced Jan 1994 for Rhode Island;
permissive 18 Feb 1994, mandatory 18 May 1994 in Vermont;
optional for New Hampshire, with per-line option to block 7D for
toll within area code)
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V14 #100
******************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
