Received: by bu-cs.BU.EDU (5.58/4.7) id AA12299; Wed, 1 Feb 89 02:17:14 EST Message-Id: <8902010717.AA12299@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 89 1:15:31 EST From: The Moderator Reply-To: TELECOM@bu-cs.BU.EDU Subject: TELECOM Digest V9 #40 To: TELECOM@bu-cs.bu.edu TELECOM Digest Wed, 1 Feb 89 1:15:31 EST Volume 9 : Issue 40 Today's Topics: General purpose, programmable phone switch Re: Alternative Operator Services? Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Re: Cellular Setup Re: 1+areacode Ringback-a-rama [Moderator's Note: Yesterday I mentioned that 'dockmaster' seems to be history. I'd like to reconnect with those users if anyone knows how to reach them otherwise. Now today I find via half a dozen mail-daemons (automated postmaster replies) that 'decwrl.dec.com' is troubled. That is the location of long-time user Mr. Covert and the distribution list he carries. Let's hope they will be back on line soon! P. Townson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon 30 Jan 89 18:07:05-CST From: Clive Dawson Subject: General purpose, programmable phone switch To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu More and more often over the last several months, we have seen messages to TELECOM inquiring whether or not a box exists which will do "x", where x is some function dealing with counting the number of rings on a line, connecting two lines together in various configurations, automatically answering, automatically dialing, etc. It seems clear that a good market exists for a general purpose, programmable phone system which would allow the user to implement custom versions of all the "x"es mentioned above. Consider a system which you could connect to two or more phone lines, together with a processor and a programming language which would direct the system to perform various "primitive" actions such as: . pickup line n . hangup line n . wait for line n to ring k times . wait for k rings on line n . connect line m to line n . input a tone sequence from line n . output a tone sequence to line n . wait for dialtone on line n and possibly even: . input sound-bite a from line n . output sound-bite a to line n etc. Such a system would allow you to implement various customized call screening functions, call forwarding functions, call-back functions, etc. Here are some brief sketches of sample tasks, leaving out most of the gory details: Call screening: Silence bell; Wait for line 1 to ring 5 times; pickup line 1; input tone sequence; if tone sequence equals xxxxxxx, activate bell with ring pattern y. Remote calling function (insecure version): Wait for line 1 to ring 1 time; pickup line 1; pickup line 2; wait for dialtone on line 2; connect line 2 to line 1. Remote calling function (more secure): Wait for line 1 to ring 1 time; pickup line 1; input tone sequence from line 1; if tone sequence = yyyyyyy then: pickup line 2; wait for dialtone on line 2; connect line 2 to line 1. Remote calling function (very secure, with call-back): Wait for line 1 to ring 1 time; pickup line 1; input tone sequence from line 1; if tone sequence = yyyyyyy then: hangup line 1; pickup line 2; wait for dialtone on line 2; send tone sequence abcdefg to line 2; wait for 3 rings on line 2; pickup line 1; wait for dialtone on line 1; connect line 1 to line 2. The above examples are very sloppy, but you get the idea. There would have to be mechanisms to detect busy signals, etc. (One thing I'm not sure about is how to detect when a remote phone hangs up; is there an in-band signal for this?) I suspect that all of this functionality exists in one form or another in various answering machines, automatic dialers, call screening boxes, etc. The question is, has anybody thought of putting it all into a single box and making it programmable by the user? There. Now I've added my own "Is there a box which will do x?" question to the list! :-) Clive Dawson ------- ------------------------------ To: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu From: usenet@bbx.UUCP (USENET manager) Subject: Re: Alternative Operator Services? Date: 30 Jan 89 15:54:21 GMT In article <1363@moscom.UUCP> jgp@moscom.UUCP (Jim Prescott) writes: >The problem at hotels isn't that you might get routed though some bozo LD >company but that the hotel is a reseller of telephone communications and >can thus charge whatever they want to. One of the more obnoxious setups >that I know of is charging customers 175% of the AT&T day rates for all >guest calls while placing the call with the hotel's low-cost WATS lines. >Even calls that don't cost the hotel anything (locals, credit card, reverse >charged etc.) can get a surcharge tacked on. > The problem that I have had is that even the lobby phone might be passed through one of the dippy LD companies. The only clue that you might get is that the 'thank you' message doesn't say the whole string of 'thank you for using AT&T' - just the thank you part. The only technique I've found is to wait after the tone and force a human operator to come on the line - at that point I can usually insist on getting an AT&T operator. At least the call is only billed at operator assisted rates and not the horrible surcharge some of the LD resellers will apply. BTW - if you want to see some *really* horrible phone charges I've got some old hotel bills from a trip 2 years aro in Germany. The room charge was about $100.00 a night - my 40 minute call to the U.S. cost $400.00. I fought it and won back the hotel charge - all $350.00 of it. I think that the German PTT has modified some of its rules since then - but I seldom call from a hotel - and only long enough to pass a message and have the other end call back. -- Russ Kepler - system admininstrator for bbx - Basis International SNAILMAIL: 5901 Jefferson NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109 UUCP: {backboneishsite}!unmvax!bbx!russ PHONE: 505-345-5232 ------------------------------ To: ulysses!comp-dcom-telecom From: jbh@mibte.UUCP (James Harvey) Subject: Re: Victims of Wrong Numbers Date: 31 Jan 89 17:46:55 GMT In article , cucstud!wb8foz@uunet.UU.NET (David Lesher) writes: > The classic had to be Mike Royko, columnist for the [Chicago Tribune]. > AT&T had new 800-xxxxxxx customer service number. Alas, Mike's home phone > was 312-xxxxxxx. He wrote a nice piece about how he was going to tell all the > people calling they didn't deserve service and he would see to it they were > disconnected, and various other threats. Seems to me Ma ended up taking out > an ad in his paper, next to his space to beg forgiveness. > > > [Moderator's Note: Actually, it was his office phone. The [Chicago Tribune] > centrex is 312-222. His private number 312-222-3xxx was commonly dialed by > people wanting AT&T at 1-800-222-3xxx. These were people who failed to dial > the 1-800 first. AT&T frequently advertises in the Chicago papers, but their > ad in this instance was to remind people to 'dial 1-800 first, when calling a > toll-free number.' I think the easiest telephone number to remember in the > world must be the Tribune classified ad-takers: 312-222-2222. P. Townson] > > ----------------------------- > I thought this number was disconnected in most areas. The reason I heard was that there is a defective dialer chip that is/was very popular in cordless phones with automatic redial function, memory etc. The defective chip would fail in such a way that it would take the phone off hook and start dialing twos all by itself. -- Jim Harvey | "Ask not for whom the bell Michigan Bell Telephone | tolls and you will only pay 29777 Telegraph | Station-to-Station rates." Southfield, Mich. 48034 | ulysses!gamma!mibte!jbh [Moderator's Note: It is still listed in large, colorful bold print on the front page of the advertising tabloid they insert in the paper each day. "Dial 222-2222 to place your ad now!" The number and whatever it hunts to terminates in an ACD in the Classified Ads Department. 3000-4000 phone calls are received daily at 35 'advertising counselor' positions, so it is possible they would not recognize a wrong number if they got one. PT] ------------------------------ To: comp-dcom-telecom@rutgers.edu From: ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) Subject: Re: Cellular Setup Date: 31 Jan 89 21:01:57 GMT Because the EPCA is a crock, that's why. Just because they pass a law doesn't mean people will stop doing it. Actually, in all likely hood if you are probing the police bands what you probably detected is the cheapo cordless phone frequencies in the 46 and 49 MHz range. Real Cellular calls are in the 800 MHz range. Very few scanners actually cover this. A few have had this range specifically blanked out (like the Radio Shack, but it's just a matter of pulling a diode out to get them back). You don't even need a scanner, just tune an old UHF TV set up to Channel 81-83. -Ron [Moderator's Note: An old UHF TV with those channels won't work as well as one of the radios which play television audio only. In this country you can buy them for the VHF channels, but I beleive they are illegal per FCC rules where UHF is concerned. A company in Toronto makes the kind which cover the UHF band, and specifically covering channels 80-83 or thereabouts. But their mail order advertising clearly states 'not for sale in the United States. We cannot fill orders to the USA'. They were selling them here like hotcakes for awhile, until Uncle Sugar put the heat on the Canadian govern- ment to help enforce FCC rules down here. PT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 12:04:14 EST From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Re: 1+areacode To answer Tanner: To reach the 201-615 prefix from anywhere in the 201 area (even if long distance), you would dial only 615-xxxx. This is not confused with calling area 615 in Tennessee, because that requires 1-615-xxx-xxxx. On direct dial calls, you apparently NEVER depend on timeout. In some areas, you dial (or used to dial) 1+number to call long distance within your areacode. This held for Maryland (also in 703 area in Va.) outside the DC area, but now there are N0X/N1X prefixes in the Washington DC area, so that usage of 1+number was changed to 1+areacode+number, using your own areacode. (DC and suburbs had used areacode+number for long distance, even within 301 or 703, but this also changed to 1+areacode+number.) In areas NOT having 1+number usage, the leading 1 means that what follows is an area code. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Jan 89 09:49:23 EST From: Jerry Glomph Black To: telecom@bu-cs.bu.edu Subject: Ringback-a-rama May I politely request that the moderator suspend the discussion on ringback codes (or at least excise references to specific numbers). The number in the following message (Jan 31 digest) is a working exchange in Suburban Boston. I know that, because it's mine! With that complaint, my childhood ringback in Philadelphia (20 yrs ago!) was 579-(wait for dialtone)-6-(hang up). >>From: eli@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM (Steve Elias) >Subject: Ringback that just won't quit > >10 or 15 years ago, in a suburban boston exchange, a friend and >i discovered ringback codes... 981-xxxx worked in our area... >here's where things get strange: >sometimes the ringback just would not stop. you could pick up >the phone, leave it offhook for a minute, hang up -- and the >ringback would start again... >and even stranger: sometimes, the ringback would be a continous >ring -- not the normal intermittent bell. this didn't happen very often... [Moderator's Note: You're right. It has really been milked enough. PT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest *********************