Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id CAA12733; Thu, 3 Apr 1997 02:58:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 02:58:08 -0500 (EST) From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Message-Id: <199704030758.CAA12733@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #82 TELECOM Digest Thu, 3 Apr 97 02:58:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 82 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: List of All *nn Features (John Gilbert) SBC / PacTel Merge - SBC Releases NPA Info (John Cropper) Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal (Al Hays) Book Review: "Comprehensive Networking Glossary & Acronym Guide" (R Slade) New Numbering For Hong Kong International Audiotex (Robert Allender) Internet Telephone: Voice Modem v. Sound Card For 486SX (Paul L. Hudson) Call Waiting and Ident-A-Call/Distingtive Ringing (Jeff Regan) Re: Answer Supervision (vances@motivity.ca) Re: Suicide, The Net and MCI (Mark Ganzer) Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago (Peter Morgan) 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 America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: johng@comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) Subject: Re: List of All *nn Features Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 18:38:23 -0600 Organization: Motorola LMPS In article , heaven!Data@uunet. uu.net wrote: > Is there a list somewhere that explains what all of the available > *nn features are on typical phone systems. For instance, I know > about *60, *67, *69, *57, *81. Is there something that lists what > *1 - *99 is? A repost from last year: These are the * codes as listed by Belcore. CODE SERVICE ASSIGNMENT ____ _____________________________________________________________ *00 INWARD VOICE ACTIVATED SERVICES (ENGLISH) *01 INWARD VOICE ACTIVATED SERVICES (FRENCH) *02 UNASSIGNED *03 UNASSIGNED *04 UNASSIGNED *05 UNASSIGNED *06 UNASSIGNED *07 UNASSIGNED *08 UNASSIGNED *09 UNASSIGNED *1X UNASSIGNED1 *2X RESERVED FOR EXPANSION TO A THREE-DIGIT NUMERIC FORMAT (*2XX) *3X RESERVED FOR EXPANSION TO A THREE-DIGIT NUMERIC FORMAT (*3XX) *40 UNASSIGNED *41 UNASSIGNED *42 UNASSIGNED *43 UNASSIGNED *44 VOICE ACTIVATED DIALING *45 VOICE DIALING EXTENDED DIAL TONE *46 UNASSIGNED *47 UNASSIGNED *48 UNASSIGNED *49 LONG DISTANCE SIGNAL *50 VOICE ACTIVATED NETWORK CONTROL *51 WHO CALLED ME? *52 SINGLE LINE VARIETY PACKAGE (SVP) - CALL HOLD *53 SINGLE LINE VARIETY PACKAGE (SVP) - DISTINCTIVE RING B *54 SINGLE LINE VARIETY PACKAGE (SVP) - DISTINCTIVE RING C *55 SINGLE LINE VARIETY PACKAGE (SVP) - DISTINCTIVE RING D *56 CHANGE FORWARD-TO NUMBER FOR ISDN CALL FORWARDING *57 CUSTOMER ORIGINATED TRACE *58 ISDN MULTI BUTTON KEY SET (MBKS) MANUAL EXCLUSION ACTIVATION *59 ISDN MULTI BUTTON KEY SET (MBKS) MANUAL EXCLUSION DEACTIVATION *60 SELECTIVE CALL REJECTION ACTIVATION *61 DISTINCTIVE RINGING/CALL WAITING ACTIVATION *62 SELECTIVE CALL WAITING *63 SELECTIVE CALL FORWARDING ACTIVATION *64 SELECTIVE CALL ACCEPTANCE ACTIVATION *65 CALLING NUMBER DELIVERY ACTIVATION *66 AUTOMATIC CALLBACK ACTIVATION *67 CALLING NUMBER DELIVERY BLOCKING/CALLING IDENTITY SUPPRESSION *68 CALL FORWARDING BUSY LINE/DON'T ANSWER ACTIVATION *69 AUTOMATIC RECALL ACTIVATION *70 CANCEL CALL WAITING *71 USAGE SENSITIVE THREE-WAY CALLING *72 CALL FORWARDING ACTIVATION *73 CALL FORWARDING DEACTIVATION *74 SPEED CALLING 8 - CHANGE LIST *75 SPEED CALLING 30 - CHANGE LIST *76 ADVANCED CALL WAITING DELUXE *77 ANONYMOUS CALL REJECTION ACTIVATION *78 DO NOT DISTURB ACTIVATION *79 DO NOT DISTURB DEACTIVATION *80 SELECTIVE CALL REJECTION DEACTIVATION *81 DISTINCTIVE RINGING/CALL WAITING DEACTIVATION *82 LINE BLOCKING DEACTIVATION *83 SELECTIVE CALL FORWARDING DEACTIVATION *84 SELECTIVE CALL ACCEPTANCE DEACTIVATION *85 CALLING NUMBER DELIVERY DEACTIVATION *86 AUTOMATIC CALLBACK DEACTIVATION *87 ANONYMOUS CALL REJECTION DEACTIVATION *88 CALL FORWARDING BUSY LINE/DON'T ANSWER DEACTIVATION *89 AUTOMATIC RECALL DEACTIVATION *90 CUSTOMER PROGRAMMABLE CALL FORWARDING BUSY LINE ACTIVATION *91 CUSTOMER PROGRAMMABLE CALL FORWARDING BUSY LINE DEACTIVATION *92 CUSTOMER PROGRAMMABLE CALL FORWARDING DON'T ANSWER ACTIVATION *93 CUSTOMER PROGRAMMABLE CALL FORWARDING DON'T ANSWER DEACTIVATION *94 RESERVED FOR LOCAL ASSIGNMENT *95 RESERVED FOR LOCAL ASSIGNMENT *96 RESERVED FOR LOCAL ASSIGNMENT *97 RESERVED FOR LOCAL ASSIGNMENT *98 RESERVED FOR LOCAL ASSIGNMENT *99 RESERVED FOR LOCAL ASSIGNMENT VERTICAL SERVICE CODES IN THE *1X RANGE WILL BE ASSIGNED ONLY AFTER ALL OTHER AVAILABLE *XX CODES HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED, I.E., *0X AND *4X THROUGH *93. Steve stevecoleman@delphi.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- | John Gilbert | Motorola Land Mobile Products Sector IL02/2523| | KA4JMC | Private Trunked Systems | |johng@comm.mot.com | 1301 East Algonquin Road, Schaumburg, IL 60196| --------------------------------------------------------------------- [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for digging up that item and sending it for reposting. I was curious, and tried all of the ones I do not have on my line; especially the ones not offered (as far as I know) by Ameritech. The results were interesting. On #01 and #02 I got an intercept saying (in these words) "Feature interaction cannot be continued. Please hang up and dial the feature code again. The following tones are for the hearing impaired ..." (followed by modem sounds). Repeated attempts to dial the #01 and #02 codes got the same message. All of the codes intended for DEactivating something resulted in an intercept 'your phone is not equipped for this service' however the associated codes to activate features resulted in either the 'feature interaction cannot be continued' message or in most cases an unusual (for this switch) ringing tone followed by a man's voice on an intercept saying 'the area code or number that you dialed is incorrect. Please check the number and dial again ... the following tones are for the hearing impaired ...' A couple of the codes such as the one for 'voice activated network control' (whatever that is) and 'who called me' just resulted in fast busy or re-order tones. By the way what is 'who called me' and how does it differ from customer activated trace? And exactly what are #01 and #02 for? Can anyone go down the list and explain the less obvious entries? Also, when I tried #49 a couple times it 'clicked' and then just went dead while other times I got the 'area code or number is incorrect' message. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: SBC / PacTel Merge - SBC Releases NPA Info Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 19:47:44 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net SBC & Pacific Telesis completed their merger April 1st, and SBC took the wraps off its new web site, including regionalized NPA information: 501/870 split* - http://www.swbell.com/Area/ark/Info/area_code.html 913/785 split* - http://www.swbell.com/Area/kcy/Info/area_code.html 817/940/254 split - http://www.swbell.com/Area/cwt/Info/area_code.html AND - http://www.swbell.com/Area/dfw/Info/817split.html Also, info on 'older' splits was updated and/or revamped: 713/281 split - http://www.swbell.com/Area/hou/Info/area_code.html 214/972 split - http://www.swbell.com/Area/dfw/Info/214split.html No information was yet released on the coming 816 split, although it received a sentence on the 913/785 page. * - indicates that prefix info is not available on the page John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: Al Hays Subject: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:54:38 -0600 Some weeks ago there was a discussion in the Digest regarding the "hidden" promotional deals that you would necessarily have to know about in advance in order to receive them. This weekend I experienced this very phenomenon and did switch from Sprint to AT&T. AT&T's latest 6 month "One Rate Promo" promotional deal is: 10 cents per minute, 24 hours daily with no monthly minimum, no monthly fees, no circles, lists, etc. Additionally, the promo gives 250 minutes free each month for 6 months and AT&T will send a certificate equal to the amount of the LEC's fee for switching LD carriers (typically $5). Therefore, if you use less than 250 minutes there would be no LD charges. After the sixth month the rate goes to their standard 15 cents per minute "One Rate" plan but by then someone else will probably have a better deal or the threat of changing carriers may be enough to hold AT&T fast ... at least to the 10 cents per minute. AT&T called me on one of their marketing sweeps and offered this deal but I balked, stating that I wanted to talk it over with my wife, and could I call back if I decided to accept. The sales agent said "no problem." So I immediately called Sprint (my current carrier) to find out what deals they had to counter with. Their only solution was to offer me $10 credit per month for five months (so if anyone decides not to switch, you might at least get $50 credit from Sprint with this information). When I called AT&T back the new agent who answered the phone had "NO IDEA" what I was talking about and offered me their two standard plans: 15 cents/24 hour or 10 cents/24 hour with $4.95 fee. I explained to her that their marketing department had done their job by getting my attention and that they would now get my business if -she- didn't drop the ball. After a short "consultation" with her manager I was afforded the six month promotional rate as outlined above. Yet another example of how "what you know" can save you, Joe Consumer, some $$$. regs, .al. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 16:54:38 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "Comprehensive Networking Glossary and Acronym Guide" BKCNGAAG.RVW 961201 "Comprehensive Networking Glossary and Acronym Guide", Gary Scott Malkin, 1995, 0-13-319955-X %A Gary Scott Malkin gmalkin@xylogics.com %C One Lake St., Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458 %D 1995 %G 0-13-319955-X %I Prentice Hall %O +1-201-236-7139 fax: +1-201-236-7131 beth_hespe@prenhall.com %P 200 %T "Comprehensive Networking Glossary and Acronym Guide" This work is a fairly basic data communications glossary. I was rather surprised at the number of terms which were *not* included, and at some very limited definitions of others. On the hand, some jargon was explained much more fully than in other, similar, works. I was glad to see that "cracker" and "hacker" were delineated properly. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKCNGAAG.RVW 961201 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: allender@asiaonline.net (Robert Allender) Subject: New Numbering For Hong Kong International Audiotex Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 11:02:47 -0500 Dear Pat: Could I ask for help from my fellow subscribers in identifying countries which have not yet switched to the new numbering system for Hong Kong for international audiotex. A new numbering system was instituted 1/1/97, with dual access during a 6 month grace period, but many countries or international carriers are not yet set up to handle it. To help me present a case to Hong Kong Telecom, I need to identify as many of these carriers as possible. If people could dial their international access code, then 852 900 9008 0990, they should hear a greeting "Thank you for calling...". Then just hang up. But if they do not get through to this greeting, I would be very grateful to receive an e-mail (allender@asiaonline.net) letting me know the carrier. I am fairly confident that the old numbering system, 852 1729 0990, works from everywhere. In case anyone in North America is concerned by the 900 prefix, be assured that there is no charge for these calls beyond the normal cost of a call to Hong Kong. Many thanks for the help. Robert Allender RAS Marketing tel: +852 2834-4902 Suite 2, 19 Hennessy Road fax: +852 2834-2983 Hong Kong e-mail: allender@asiaonline.net ------------------------------ From: hl396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Hudson) Subject: Internet Telephone: Voice Modem v. Sound Card for 486SX Date: 2 Apr 1997 22:42:50 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) Reply-To: hl396@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul L. Hudson) Hi, I have a bit of a problem. I recently bought two computers, one for myself, and one for my parents to use. One computer is a 5x86 with 12 meg 120 Mhtz, and a 380mb HD. The other machine is an old 486SX at 25 Mhtz with 4meg and an 80 meg HD. I have a soundblaster 16 for the nice machine, but no sound card for the SX I know there are a lot of software packages out there to allow people to use the internet as a telephone. I am planning on working overseas, and I want to set myself and my parents up on the internet so we can talk to each other whenever we want to, and so that I can save myself and my parents money on phone bills. I have been told about two options: 1) Internet software that uses a soundcard and encoded logarythms sent through a regular modem; 2) A voice modem. I am not sure if 2) is an option at all. I don't know much about voice modems. Some people have told me that you cannot use them to communicate through the internet, and that you can only hear one another talk when you call each other by phone. If this is the case, that totally would defeat the purpose of my buying the two machines. I don't want to call my parents and talk while we play Duke Nukem'. If I did, I would still have to pay the high international phone bill. Does anyone know of any software compatible with windows 3.1 that will allow for sending voice through an ISP via a voice modem? 1) is a bit of a problem. I can't seem to find any software that will work on an IBM SX. The SX can use windows 3.1, and I suspect it will not run anything more sophisticated. If I could actually talk to my parents via the internet through the voice modems, then the speed of the SX should not be a problem, I have been told. But if I can't, I'll have to go with option 1). What will I need to do to this SX to soup it up enough to allow for voice transmission? I would like to do all this for under $120 spent on hardware. Would I need to add a larger harddrive? More megs?. I don't want to replace the mother board if I don't have to. If anyone knows if one can use a voice modem to communicate with a machine of such low performance, and knows the software available to do this, please email me. Also, if you know what can be done to the SX for less than $100 to allow voice transmission, please tell me. I would like full duplex transmission, though I would settle for half duplex on the slow machine if it means keeping the price low. Link Hudson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 00:33:20 GMT From: Jeff Regan Subject: Call Waiting and Ident-A-Call/Distingtive Ringing Hi Pat ... recently someone asked me for an easy way to disable call waiting on an incoming call to their data line ... so I dug up an AT command I have been using a for a while now. I might as well see if others can use it too: I have a distingtive ringing device (called a Ring Selector 2 because it will basically detect two different rings of your choice) hooked to a modem on what Bell Canada calls Ident-A-Call service. When I get a regular call with no coded ring, the modem does not answer (but the answering machine can) but when I get the distinctive ring, the modem answers. The program that answers the phone would normally send an 'ATA' command however, I replaced the 'ATA' with the following command: ats6=0x0d1!*70r Basically, the command does this: s6=0 sets the number of seconds to wait before dialing to 0; x0 says blind dial, don't wait for dialtone; d1 (or dt1) switches the modem to dial mode (in this case tone) but then dials the digit 1 (gets around a bug that appeared in my modem where if I didn't dial at least one digit it would look for dialtone even though I had sent the X0 command above. ! says to flash the hook switch; *70 says to dial *70 to the switch (where by the DMS-100 switch will disable the call waiting and reconnect the audio path); R says to go into 'Reverse dialing' or ANSWER mode. So when the computer sends the command after detecting a ring, it picks up the phone, pauses very shortly, flashes the hook switch, gets dialtone, dials *70, and then waits a short time before providing the answer tone. It adds a few seconds the setup of the call, but it means callers to either the data or voice line get a busy signal when the incoming data call is in progress. You don't need Ident-A-Call/distingtive ringing to use this, but I am not sure why someone would have call waiting on a line that it always was being disabled on ... :) METHOD #2: Bell Canada has recently started offering 'Call Waiting Auto Suppression' that basically does the same thing I just did if you are using it in an Ident-A-Call distingtive ring environment ... it does not cost anything, and basically if a call comes into the Ident-A-Call number, it disables call waiting ... interestingly enough if you have 2 Ident-A-Call numbers, one can be set to NOT disable Call Waiting, while the other can be set TO disable call waiting. Method #2 does save on call setup time, and at no additional cost, its worth while giving them a call. Jeff Regan, VE3XJR Internet: JEREGAN@SYMPATICO.CA http: WWW3.SYMPATICO.CA/JEREGAN ------------------------------ From: vances@motivity.ca Subject: Re: Answer Supervision Organization: Motivity Telecom Inc. Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 14:09:35 GMT In article , Alan Boritz wrote: > Mr. Von Alven was not entirely correct. If you have DID service, you > MUST be able to return an "invalid number" intercept recording without > answer supervision. That's configurable in the PBX and consistent > with most non-FCC tariffs. I had the opportunity to research that It is true that certain voice announcements may legally be played to a caller without answering the call. You may generally play the same announcements as the telephone companies do; "The number you have dialed is not in service", "The number ... has changed to ...", etc. There is a subtle difference in the issue described below: In article , Reggie.Ratcliff@ Sciatl.COM wrote: > ........................ Several years back after the FCC's DID answer > supervision ruling, we had to start shipping separate versions of our > small CO/PBX nationally and internationally. Bill von Alven at the FCC > insisted that any part 68 products sold in the US could not give any > information other than call progress tones without returning answer > supervision, and must not allow the customer to modify them so that > they could. Here the FCC, under pressure from AT&T, ruled that PBX manufacturers could no longer provide equipment for sale in the US which would function in the legal manner described above. It is no longer possible to purchase a PBX which will allow you to treat an incoming DID call with an announcement without supervising. Even worse, calls which are switched through TIE lines to another PBX must immediately supervise, callers pay while the destination telephone rings. This ruling was a travesty. AT&T claimed that they were losing money to fraudulent use of DID lines. The FCC buckled and agreed to punish everyone for the few abusers who AT&T were too lazy to combat individually. They must have been dreaming if they thought this would stop the abusers. You can do far more damage with a Dialogic card and a PC than with a PBX. So while it is still legal to treat an incoming call to a voice recording, it is not legal to manufacture PBX equipment which will allow it. Vance Shipley, Motivity Telecom Inc. 603-305 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 1B9 Tel: +1 519 579 5816, Fax: +1 519 579 5136, vances@motivity.ca Vance Shipley, vances@xenitec.on.ca ------------------------------ From: ganzer@dilbert.nosc.mil (Mark Ganzer) Subject: Re: Suicide, The Net and MCI Organization: NCCOSC RDT&E Division, San Diego, CA Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 05:27:24 GMT TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to John Cropper (jcropper@ lincs.net): > The media certainly has messed up this latest story. When they > broke in on the Wheel of Fortune game on ABC with the first > report, it was 'in excess of thirty young men ages 18-24, all > computer web site programmers ...' Later they decided the count > was 39 (which is, admittedly in excess of thirty) but they kept > on saying the ages were 18-24 and all of them were male and that > all were 'internet programmers on the web'. Finally on Saturday > here, they decided that actually 21 were female and 18 were male > and that the ages were middle twenties through (in one case) 72! Pat, The initial report of "in excess of thirty young men ages 18-24" was not the fault of the media, but was the initial report released by the San Diego County Sheriff's department, which was based on the reports of the initial deputies on the scene. The identical dress and short-cropped hair of all 39 victims made the deputies initially think they were dealing with all men. I have also been rather disgusted with the press coverage. The story is still front-page here on Easter Sunday, with the latest story being about one of the cult-member's attempts to recruit an 18-year-old Michigan resident. The gist of the article is that James Bolton went to an "Internet chat area" (I presume an Internet Relay Chat channel?) seeking advice for a web site he was building. A reply came from someone named Candlshot who identified that they were with a computer group called Higher Source, which was the business name of the Heaven's Gate cult. The exchange started out as a technical exchange, however the Heaven's Gate member then tried to switch the conversation from computers to a more personal conversation. Looks like we can add "cult recuiting" to the list of evils like pornograhy and pedophilia that "lurk" in the Internet. This Internet-thing is beginninng to look more and more like our society at large :-(. Funny that although the venue may have changed, cult-recruiting tactics stay the same. In 1980, while travelling after my college graduation, I came across a warning posted at the San Franciso Youth Hostel that warned of the recruiting tactics of one of the local groups -- I don't remember whether it was the Hare Krishna's or the Unification Church (the "Moonies"). The bait in this instance was a simple invitation from someone who looked like a fellow traveller to have dinner with them, however the purpose was mainly to get you into the door of their "temple"... Not the official opinion of: Mark Ganzer Naval Command, Control & Ocean Surveillance Center, ganzer@nosc.mil RDT&E Div (NRaD), Code D4123, San Diego, CA [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You say that 'this internet-thing is beginning to look more and more like our society at large ...' and that is just fine with me; I've been a social outcast, a drop out from society for many years now. I'll add the internet to my list of places to avoid. ... I know that some cults can be very manipulative in the way they structure things. One of their favorite tactics is love-bombing, i.e. spending a great deal of time and attention on one person; letting the new person talk and brag about themselves (while listening *very* carefully to their phraseology and syntax to find their weak points, etc). The cult member praises the newcomer for his intelligence, his physical prowress, his abilities and the decisions he has made in the past. No matter, the newcomer could be the dumbest, most screwed- up nineteen year-old kid on God's green earth; the cult member is sure to remind him that he is one tough dude who deserves a lot more respect than he is getting, and new opportunities, etc. Much time is spent caring for them, attending to their needs, making them feel they can trust you and that they are very lucky to have found a new friend who is so caring and concerned and respectful ... ... yeah, you bet. The cult person knows to never say anything which might make the newcomer feel threatened in any way and always try to structure things so the newcomer later feels that whatever happened was *his idea*; that *he* was the one who decided to try out whatever it is that is being offered. The reason it all works so well is the large and growing number of young people in America who live a rather pointless existence. No real opinion on anything, no strongly held beliefs of 'right and wrong', just living in a sort of vacuum but with a suspicion that American society has gotten a lot worse since their parents were kids and will probably get even worse before they die in sixty years or so. The cult person comes along, actually treating them with kindness and respect (or so it would seem at first blush) and the kids jump right on the bandwagon. You mention pedophila 'lurking on the net' and I will suggest that in my discussion in the above paragraphs you could substitute 'pedophile' for 'cult person' with equal results. A Radio Shack salesman once said to me that the most successful sales people never 'sell you' on anything. They let you 'sell yourself'; slowly and gradually they move things around a few degrees at a time until it would appear that 'you thought of it first' (whatever it is) and of course that makes it alright. The successful sales person lets you 'talk him in to selling to you ...' and I suspect successful cult recruiters work much the same way. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Morgan Subject: Re: 911 From Cellular Phone in Chicago Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 09:18:23 +0100 In message Pat wrote: > How is this handled in other places, and how precisely is the caller's > location known to the police? I don't drive, personally, but from reading UK.Telecom, I understand that calls were being directed (in some cases) to arbitrary locations which might have been due to lack of knowledge on behalf of the mobile telco operators knowledge of the UK. We use "999" and more recently have started support of "112" (which is being phased in over Europe). In the last couple of years we've started being able to receive caller ID info. Nowadays I can get a display of numbers of callers who rang but I missed answering, and (with display equipment) a landline can display the number of anyone calling (with some exceptions). In the UK, we still have two analogue networks (Vodafone/Cellnet) with no caller info on phone, GSM networks from the same (around 900 MHz) which have implemented CID (later than landlines) and two other networks (Orange/one2one) on 1800 MHz which use have CID. The latter networks have a higher number of cell towers as coverage is affected more by buildings etc, so they probably have a better idea of where someone is calling from. The emergency services were previously told by intercepting telco operators what the caller's number was. Quite what info they get (especially with regard to location) I don't know. Customer Services for the company I use indicated they "ask the caller". However, in her job, the lady I spoke to would not need any location details, and perhaps those staff who are ready to take emergency calls have more information available on screen. Peter Morgan. N Wales, UK. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #82 ***************************** Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #83 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 08:09:03 -0500 (EST) From: TELECOM Digest Editor To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 Apr 97 08:09:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 83 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: List of All *XX Codes (Mark J. Cuccia) The Next Toll Free Code: 877 (Greg Monti) Book Review: "World Wide Web Journal: The Web After Five Years" (Rob Slade) Re: NJ BPU Partially Reverses 201, 908 Splits (Linc Madison) Oftel and Further UK Numbering Changes (Mark J. Cuccia) IRC Transcript of Interest (Eric Florack) IRS Raids a Cypherpunk (Monty Solomon) 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 America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 13:16:40 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Re: List of All *XX Codes A list of *XX codes was recently posted to the Digest. Earlier this year, I was emailed a list of the *XX codes, which had a few extra *XX codes on it. I was told that the list emailed to me was the most recent *XX code assignment listing from Bellcore NANPA. The following *XX codes were _not_ on the list which recently appeared in the TELECOM Digest: *02 DEACTIVATION/ACTIVATION OF IN-SESSION ACTIVATION (ISA) ON A PER LINE BASIS *03 DEACTIVATION OF IN-SESSION ACTIVATION (ISA) ON A PER CALL BASIS *40 CHANGE FORWARD-TO NUMBER FOR CUSTOMER PROGRAMMABLE CALL FORWARDING BUSY-LINE *41 SIX-WAY CONFERENCE CALLING ACTIVATION *42 CHANGE FORWARD-TO NUMBER FOR CUSTOMER PROGRAMMABLE CALL FORWARDING DON'T ANSWER *43 DROP LAST MEMBER OF SIX-WAY CONFERENCE CALL *46 FRENCH VOICE ACTIVATED NETWORK CONTROL *47 OVERRIDE FEATURE AUTHORIZATION *48 OVERRIDE DO NOT DISTURB Please remember that these are the Bellcore NANPA recommended standards. It is up to each local telco or service provider to activate individual services, usually under regulatory tariff. Not all telcos use the same codes. Some services must be activated/deactivated by NX('#') rather than *XX. Some telcos might use different numericals than the ones indicated here, but for the same feature. Rotary dial customers (or older ten-button touchtone phones) can replace the '*' button with the digits '1-1'. Some of the 'less obvious' features might be individual features offered by a Canadian telco, or ISDN-type features. The Bellcore LERG (Local Exchange Routing Guide) has a list of the *XX codes and a definition or brief description in its general front section. However, to more fully comprehend some of the capabilities or operations of the 'less obvious' features, it might be necessary to purchase individual Bellcore (or Nortel or Lucent, etc) technical specs. Also, remember that individual cellular systems (as well as PBX and Centrex systems) do use their own */# codes. And private payphones or other 'super' public phones (as well as AOSlime) might have their own */# type codes. Long distance carrier networks also use some */# codes. AT&T uses #123 for "True Messages" and *234 for "International Redial". An interesting code which _might_ still work in some areas is *0 (or 11-0). This was used for 'operator recall on lines with 3-way'. If a line with (monthly) 3-way calling initiated a 0+ (or dial-0) type call, after the called party had answered and 'suped', flashing the switch-hook did _not_ bring back a live operator into the connection, but rather caused the originating local central office to initiate a 3-way dialtone. Lines which did _not_ have 3-way calling would bring a live operator back into the connection upon flashing in the middle of a 0+ (or dial-0) type call. Upon the originating customer flashing on their local loop, the local central office would then send a 'flash' over the trunk to the TSPS/TOPS/OSPS. So, for monthly 3-way customers to 'operator recall flash', when they flashed in the middle of a 0+ type call and heard 3-way dialtone, they could then dial 110 or enter *0, which would cause the central office to 'operator recall flash' over the trunk to the TSPS/TOPS/OSPS. However, 'operator recall flashing' is being discontinued between most local central offices and operator systems - in general - whether or not the line has 3-way. Therefore, *0/110 might not work anymore from all areas. Also, remember that calling _use_ of Speed-Dialing-8 is by entering a single digit 'N' (N= any possible digit '2' through '9'), and then either timing out after 3-to-5 seconds, or 'cancelling' the wait for time-out by entering the touchtone '#'. For _use_ of Speed-Dialing-30, a two-digit code from 20 through 49 would be entered followed by either a '#' or waiting for the time-out. But there were some locations which used '*' or '11' before the Speed-8 single digit 'N' code or Speed-30 two-digit 'NX' (20->49) code. And some local telcos have additional *X(X(X)) codes for 'multi-line' services, such as BellSouth's "Prestige" (TM) service. There is call-hold, call-park, call-pickup, etc. Some of these "Prestige" codes are *X(X/'#'), while others are #X#. Bellcore also has some standards for #XX codes. These are known as "Facility Codes". The only two which I am aware of with a 'universal' assignment or reservation are #56 and #64. The name "Facility" indicates that they are used to indicate the type of bandwidth needed - #56 indicates a 56 KBps data call, and #64 indicates a 64KBps data call. This #XX facility code _must_ be dialed at the very beginning of a call which needed a 'special facility or bandwidth', prior to _any_ other prefixes such as *XX/11XX, 10(1X)XXX, 1/0/01(1)+. As for activation for customer use of facility codes, that would probably depend on a pre-arranged service order. This use of #XX for "facility" is an extension of what was proposed in the 1960's for Bell System "Picturephone" service. If a call was 'audio' telephone _only_, the number was dialed in the usual manner. But if the call were to include _video_ via the special Picturephone network, the number dialed was to be prefixed with the pound (#) button. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 01:08:55 -0500 From: gmonti@mindspring.com (Greg Monti) Subject: The Next Toll Free Code: 877 A brief piece on page A1 of the {Wall Street Journal} on April 3, 1997, notes that North America's third toll-free code will go into effect in Spring 1998. It will be 877. Greg Monti Jersey City, New Jersey, USA gmonti@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 11:02:52 EST From: Rob Slade Subject: Book Review: "World Wide Web Journal: The Web After Five Years" BKW3JI13.RVW 961126 "World Wide Web Journal: The Web After Five Years", Rohit Khare, 1996, 1-56592-210-7, U$24.95/C$35.95 %E Rohit Khare khare@w3.org %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 1996 %G 1-56592-210-7 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$24.95/C$35.95 800-998-9938 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %P 226 %T "World Wide Web Journal: The Web After Five Years" This issue combines a retrospective of the Web over the five years of its existence with papers from the 5th International WWW Conference and reports on work in progress. A number of papers look technically at performance and traffic, but there is a strong emphasis on assessment and polling. There are surveys of use, and surveys of surveys. Work in progress reports on objects, lexical analysis of HTML and SGML, and extended log file formats. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1996 BKW3JI13.RVW 961126 roberts@decus.ca rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@vanisl.decus.ca ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: NJ BPU Partially Reverses 201, 908 Splits Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 07:42:33 -0800 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs. net wrote: > April 2: > The NJ BPU has partially reversed portions of the 201 and 908 NPA > splits, allowing cellular users to retain their 201/908 NXXs. While > this will prove more convenient for cellular users, it is expected to > shave 3-6 months of the life of the reconfigured 201 & 908 NPA, and > will create discontiguous pockets of 908 and 201 NXXs within certain > 732 and 973 cities. > Should 609 end up being a split, expect cellular phones to be > grandfathered in as well with THAT split ... Oh, we couldn't POSSIBLY have a "wireless only" overlay, because that would discriminate AGAINST cellular users, but it's perfectly fine to discriminate against everyone else to the ADVANTAGE of cellular users. Just great. This also means that you'll have exactly the situation that cell companies claim they've wanted to AVOID -- all numbers in Xtown are in area code XXX, except the cellular numbers, which are in some other area code. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:16:12 -0600 From: Mark J. Cuccia Subject: Oftel and Further UK Numbering Changes Oftel, the UK's regulatory agency, which is also telecom standards body and telecom numbering administrator, has a new URL for its homepage: http://www.oftel.gov.uk I found this while looking for Oftel's latest Numbering Bulletin (from their homepage), which is No.30, dated January 1997. http://www.oftel.gov.uk/numbers/bul30.htm Oftel also has two updated numbering documents available, both dated in January: The National Numbering Scheme http://www.oftel.gov.uk/nnsjan97/numsch97.htm National Numbering Conventions - Consultation on Revisions http://www.oftel.gov.uk/nnconv97/nnconv1.htm (Part A) http://www.oftel.gov.uk/nnconv97/nnconv2.htm (Part B) In the National Numbering Scheme document, there are links to _maps_ of the current and proposed area code numbering for: London, Belfast and Northern Ireland, Cardiff and Wales, Portsmouth and Southampton. It appears that in the year 2000, London _will_ merge its (0)171 and (0)181 area codes into a single (0)20 area code. The local numbers will expand from seven to _eight_ digits. Current seven-digit numbers will have a '7' or '8' tacked on to the front of the existing seven-digit number, the digit being matched with the existing (0)171 or (0)181, while also changing the area code to (0)20. Similar plans and other proposals are being made for the other UK cities or regions listed above. More details are available from Oftel's webpages. MARK_J._CUCCIA__PHONE/WRITE/WIRE/CABLE:__HOME:__(USA)__Tel:_CHestnut-1-2497 WORK:__mcuccia@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu|4710-Wright-Road|__(+1-504-241-2497) Tel:UNiversity-5-5954(+1-504-865-5954)|New-Orleans-28__|fwds-on-no-answr-to Fax:UNiversity-5-5917(+1-504-865-5917)|Louisiana(70128)|cellular/voicemail- ------------------------------ From: Eric_Florack@xn.xerox.com Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 06:19:14 PST Subject: IRC Transcript of Interest ganzer@dilbert.nosc.mil (Mark Ganzer) says in #82 ------------&<--------------Snip > I have also been rather disgusted with the press coverage. The > story is still front-page here on Easter Sunday, with the latest story > being about one of the cult-member's attempts to recruit an 18-year-old > Michigan resident. The gist of the article is that James Bolton went to > an "Internet chat area" (I presume an Internet Relay Chat channel?) <<<< Yes, it was IRC. Here's a copy of a note I got in one of my newsgroups (I forget which) a few days ago. Apparently, this conversation occurred on an IRC server he is a regular on. CabdlShot is/was a member of the Heaven's Gate group ... "HigherSource' was their contracting org. Session Start: Mon Dec 16 00:23:04 1996 Hello Hi. I think I might be able to help you Really? What's better? Animated Gifs or Shockwave ? Both have their attributes which mak them good for use, but if we had our pick we would choose AGifs Why? Simply put, cost. Shockwave requires running software on a server machine, and it is expensive. AGifs, though, are simply downloaded and treated like a graphic. Much, much cheaper. Thanks...I guess that answers my question. No problem. Do you have a web site? If you do, I would like to look at it. Are you there? Sorry, I'm here...I was talking on another channel. Oh, that's okay. I thought I lost you though. No, I don't have a site up for view yet, only a start of one. If you want to, you can check it out...it is home1.gte.net/giovanni Just a moment. That is a very impressive start. Are you self taught? Yeah, mostly. I use web editors here and there, but it's the creativity, right? That's a good attitude. Do you like working with computers? Hello? Sorry...I got caught up again. No problem. How old are you? Like the nick implies, I'm 18 years of age. ;) Ah, I see. Sorry if I'm fairly inadept at this, but we normally use IRC for business. We all start somewhere.Heh heh Yes, we do. Do you like working with computers and the Internet? Yes, I do...I've been playing on the computer with basic and HTML since I was 5 or 6. Gosh, I'm old! ;) Age is nothing. I guess...I wish EVERYONE thought that way. Are you looking for work? Always! Why, you got any? Well, we are always looking for associates. Who is we? You have a company, too? Yes. We use the name Higher Source Contract Enterprises for our busines purposes What is the url? Sorry about that. It's www.cris.com/~font. Do you like what you see? Holy crap...the graphics on here alone are worth money...did you go to school for this? Not exactly. As I was saying, if you're interested in work, we may be able to accomodate. Where are you located? California. Whoa...that is kinda far. Well, if you agreed to work with us, we would like to have you here with us, but we could accomodate you where you live. Where do you live? In the COLD state of Michigan. ;) Actually, if you could no relocate, we are looking for associates in that area. Well, I couldn't relocate. That is understandable. However, you can still meet our needs. Do you live with family or friends? Actually, this is a conversation we should be having over the telephone. May I have your number so I may call you? Um...well...no. You know how it is...you don't give out your number over the Net, besides... I just met you. You will not succedd unless you trust. Do you trust me enough to give me a set of numbers? No, i'm afraid I don't. Sorry...how about this...I'll call you? I couldn't talk long, but we could get something done No, I'm afraid that we cannot really have calls coming in at this time. Well, you can email me That would be feasable. Your address? xxxxxxxx@xxx.net Thank you. I'm sorry that you are not more trusting. If we have need of you, we will send you mail. I'm trusting, I just know the rules on here If you must follow rules.. Dude, I don't have time for this. If you were serious, you'd understand my reluctance. Beside it seems as if you guys do far better work than I. we would teach you what you would need to know, and make you far more productive than you expect yourself to be. but I'm afraid I must go. It has been a pleasure. Take care. Session Close: Mon Dec 16 03:01:34 1996 Pat responds: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You say that 'this internet-thing is > beginning to look more and more like our society at large ...' and > that is just fine with me; I've been a social outcast, a drop out from > society for many years now. I'll add the internet to my list of places > to avoid. ... Uh-oh ... > You mention pedophila 'lurking on the net' and I will suggest that in > my discussion in the above paragraphs you could substitute 'pedophile' > for 'cult person' with equal results. A Radio Shack salesman once > said to me that the most successful sales people never 'sell you' on > anything. They let you 'sell yourself'; slowly and gradually they > move things around a few degrees at a time until it would appear that > 'you thought of it first' (whatever it is) and of course that makes > it alright. The successful sales person lets you 'talk him in to > selling to you ...' and I suspect successful cult recruiters work > much the same way. PAT] Which, of course raises an interesting question: Who was their computer salesman? All this aside, I'm going to go off-topic for a second. Soapbox mode=On I've become quite disturbed by the hangers on to this case. If you watch the UU traffic, and some of the activity on my BBS, you should see the number of people who are attaching the deaths to their particular personal crusade. Examples include anti-religion types are blaming it all on the idea that they were (supposedly) religious. (Given the translation of 'Cult', from the Latin 'Cultus', I wish we would find some other word to describe such groups.) Homosexuals, meanwhile, are suggesting that the leader was a homosexual and all this is because of bigotry against homosexuals. Etc etc etc. What kind of society have we built where everything that occurrs to anyone, is the fault of someone else? At what point do we say: 'It's their own damn fault'? Soapbox mode= Off. /E ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 00:13:42 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: IRS Raids a Cypherpunk Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:39:21 -0500 From: Declan McCullagh Subject: IRS raids a cypherpunk [I've attached some excerpts from the article. Check out the URL below for the whole thing. --Declan] ******** http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,800,00.html The Netly News Network April 3, 1997 IRS raids a cypherpunk by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) Jim Bell's first mistake was publishing an essay describing how disgruntled citizens could kill off Federal government agents by using anonymous betting pools and digital cash. His second mistake was informing the IRS that the agency had no legal authority to tax him. About twenty armed IRS agents and other Federal police swarmed into Bell's home in Washington state on Tuesday morning, hunting for evidence that Bell's "Assassination Politics" essay had come to fruition. They expropriated Bell's three computer systems, two guns and even a solitary mouse cable. The Feds were taking no chances: Since Bell's voluminous Net postings mentioned tax collectors, agents from the BATF, FBI, DEA, and local police forces joined the raid. [...] The raid stemmed from a six-month tussle between Bell and the IRS, which began in November 1996 when the 38-year old computer engineer demanded a hefty tax refund and threatened to convene his own "common-law court" if it was refused. That grabbed the Feds' attention. (So did the actions of the "Multnomah County Common Law Court," which apparently met in January to convict IRS agents and Attorney General Janet Reno of "theft by deception.") In February, IRS agents seized Bell's 1986 Honda as payment for back taxes -- and found inside it a printout of his "Assassination Politics" essay. " [...] And it was, ultimately, a Federal magistrate who signed the search warrant on 9:02 am on March 28 at the request of the IRS. Jeffrey Gordon, an inspector in the IRS' Internal Security Division, details in an 10-page affidavit how he traced Bell's use of allegedly fraudulent Social Security Numbers, how he learned that Bell had been arrested in 1989 for "manufacturing a controlled substance," how he found out that Bell possessed the home addresses of a handful of IRS agents. Gordon's conclusion: Bell planned "to overthrow the government." The IRS investigator says in his affidavit that Bell's "essay details an illegal scheme by Bell which involves plans to assassinate IRS and other government officals... I believe that Bell has begun taking steps to carry out his Assassination Politics plan." [...] Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #83 ***************************** Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #84 Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 08:47:23 -0500 (EST) From: TELECOM Digest Editor TELECOM Digest Sat, 5 Apr 97 08:47:00 EST Volume 17 : Issue 84 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: NJ BPU Partially Reverses 201, 908 Splits (Michael Keen) Re: Modem to Modem Flow Control (Jeffrey Rhodes) Rep. Rick White to Hold Online Town Hall Meeting on 4/10 (Monty Solomon) Re: Call Waiting and Ident-A-Call/Distingtive Ringing (Rene Hollan) Carribean/Pacific Area Codes Spammers Might Use (David Richardson) CPUC Changes One NPA, Delays Another (John Cropper) Virginia SCC Set Hearing Date For 703 Relief (John Cropper) Re: Slammed by American Business Alliance (Steve Smith) 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 America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Keen Subject: Re: NJ BPU Partially Reverses 201, 908 Splits Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 16:00:56 -0500 Organization: Repeat-O-Type Mfg. Corp. Reply-To: mkeen@repeatotype.com John Cropper wrote: > The NJ BPU has partially reversed portions of the 201 and 908 NPA > splits, allowing cellular users to retain their 201/908 NXXs. Does anyone else see the incredible irony here? When the BPU was asked over and over why couldn't the cell phones get the new area and the landlines be left in their existing codes, they claimed that the FCC rules prevented them from doing a "technology split". "The Record" of Hackensack cites 1,000,000 as the number of cell phones in the 201 area. There are probably at least another million pagers. Separating these two services alone would've given a couple of extra years to the existing area codes. Sincerely, Michael Keen mkeen@repeatotype.com Repeat-O-Type Mfg. Corp. Phone: (201) 696-3330 665 State Highway 23 Fax: (201) 694-7287 Wayne, NJ 07470-6892 http://www.repeatotype.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 16:36:01 -0800 From: Jeffrey Rhodes Subject: Re: Modem to Modem Flow Control > Can someone explain how modems implement flow control between each > other? For example, let's say I have modem A with a serial port speed > of 115200 which dials into modem B with a serial port speed of 19200 > and connects with a carrier of 28800. The system connected to modem A > starts blasting data to modem A at 115200, modem A starts sending data > to modem B at 28800, modem B starts sending data to the system > connected to modem B at 19200. Soon system B stops data flow (either > via hardware or XON/XOFF). How does modem B tell modem A to stop > sending data and later tell it to start sending again? I saw some posts on this subject, but I don't think I saw a good answer. I was hoping someone could explain flow control alot better than I can, but I'll take a try. I think the answer to the question lies in the fact that when the modems initially connect and negotiate what speed they will use, modem B will force the connection to 19,200 or less. If this is correct, there is no need for modem-to-modem flow control. If the modems are both V.34 modems, the connection rate could be 28,800 because V.34 uses some kind of HDLC protocol where information is encoded in packets or frames (I think). This provides flow control since only so many packets or frames can be sent without being acknowledged. Again, there is no need for any kind of XON/XOFF thing between modems. I think I read that PPP protocol connections to an Internet Service Provider are better if you turn off the flow control and error correction of ARQ, since this only thrashes with the same PPP functions at a higher layer? Maybe someone will correct my misconceptions, but in general, I think today's protocols and modems provide modem-to-modem flow control without XON/XOFFs. Of course, hardware RTS/CTS flow control between each PC and its modem is needed to run 115,200 into a modem in the first place, and this is needed to deliver data at a higher DTE rate than the transmission rate so that compression techniques will offer any benefit. Theoretically, V.42 can give >28,800 bps with compression, but only when much >28,800 bps are delivered by the DTE. Jeffrey Rhodes ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:34:47 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Rep. Rick White to Hold Online Town Hall Meeting on 4/10 Reply-To: monty@roscom.COM Begin forwarded message: From: shabbir@democracy.net Subject: Rep. Rick White to hold online town hall meeting on 4/10! Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 23:44:05 -0500 Reply-To: vtw-announce@vtw.org ========================================================================= _ _ __| | ___ _ __ ___ ___ ___ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ ___| |_ / _` |/ _ \ '_ ` _ \ / _ \ / __| '__/ _` |/ __| | | | | '_ \ / _ \ __| | (_| | __/ | | | | | (_) | (__| | | (_| | (__| |_| |_| | | | __/ |_ \__,_|\___|_| |_| |_|\___/ \___|_| \__,_|\___|\__, (_)_| |_|\___|\__| |___/ Government Without Walls _________________________________________________________________________ Update No.3 http:/www.democracy.net/ April 3 1997 _________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents - Join Internet Caucus Co-Founder Rick White (R-WA) Live Online April 10. - Background on Rep. White - Upcoming Events - About democracy.net ___________________________________________________________________________ JOIN INTERNET CAUCUS-CO FOUNDER REP. RICK WHITE (R-WA) LIVE ONLINE! Representative Rick White (R-WA), co-founder of the Congressional Internet Caucus and leader on Internet policy issues, will be the guest at democracy.net's first live, interactive 'town hall meeting' on Thursday April 10 at 8:30 pm ET (5:30 pm PST). The town hall meeting, moderated by Wired Magazine's Todd Lappin, will be completely virtual. The discussion will be cybercast live via RealAudio, and listeners can join a simultaneous interactive chat discussion and pose questions to Rep. White. This is a unique opportunity for Internet users to discuss current Internet issues, including efforts to reform US Encryption policy, the future of the Communications Decency Act, the activities of the Congressional Internet Caucus, and others. Details on the event, including instructions on how you can submit questions in advance, are attached below. INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE * Interactive Town Hall Meeting with Rep. Rick White (R-WA) * DATE: Thursday, April 10, 1997 TIME: 5:30 pm PST / 8:30 pm EST LOCATION: http://www.democracy.net In advance of the town hall meeting, please visit http://www.democracy.net and fill out the form to ask Rep. White a question. We will collect the questions and forward them to the moderator on the day of the event, and will make every effort to ensure that questions from constituents are asked first. 1. Attend and ask Rep. White a question! Please mark this date in your calendar: Thursday April 10, 5:30PM PST at http://democracy.net/ 2. Get your friends and co-workers to join the discussion Members of Congress love to hear from their constituents. If you have friends that live in the district, please forward this invitation and encourage them to attend. BACKGROUND Congressman Rick White, 43, is serving his second term representing the people of the First Congressional District of Washington state, which includes parts of Seattle, Redmond, and surrounding areas. In 1995, White gained national attention through his work on the Internet and high-technology issues. He was one of a handful of members selected to develop the final Telecommunications Act of 1996. As the founder of the Congressional Internet Caucus, he has worked to educate members of Congress about the Internet and to create a more open, participatory government through the use of technology. Additional Information can be found at the following locations: * Rep. Rick White's Home Page -- http://www.house.gov/white/ * democracy.net Page -- http://www.democracy.net/ UPCOMING EVENTS Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Internet policy leader from Silicon Valley, will be the guest at democracy.net's interactive 'town hall meeting' on Wednesday April 16 at 8:30 pm ET (5:30 pm PST). Visit http://www.democracy.net for more details. ABOUT DEMOCRACY.NET The democracy.net is a joint project of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) to explore ways of enhancing citizen participation in the democratic process via the Internet. To this end, democracy.net will host live, interactive cybercasts of Congressional Hearings and online town hall meetings with key policy makers. democracy.net is made possible through the generous support of WebActive, Public Access Networks, the Democracy Network, and DIGEX Internet. More information about the project and its sponsors can be found at http://www.democracy.net/about/ To receive democracy.net announcements automatically, please visit our signup form at http://www.democracy.net/ End update no.3 04/03/1997 ------------------------------ From: Rene & Quinn Hollan Subject: Re: Call Waiting and Ident-A-Call/Distingtive Ringing Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 20:46:41 -0500 Organization: Hollan Consulting Jeff Regan wrote: [description of disabling call waiting for INCOMING data calls snipped] Good idea. I always wondered about the utility of call waiting on a distinctive ringing-enabled line where one of the distinctive ringing patterns signalled data or FAX calls. > Bell Canada has recently started offering 'Call Waiting Auto Suppression' > that basically does the same thing I just did if you are using it in an > Ident-A-Call distingtive ring environment ... it does not cost anything, > and basically if a call comes into the Ident-A-Call number, it disables > call waiting ... interestingly enough if you have 2 Ident-A-Call numbers, > one can be set to NOT disable Call Waiting, while the other can be set TO > disable call waiting. Figures that there would be a telco solution to the problem. However, it is incomplete. Consider incoming FAX calls that go through a FAX switch on a line that isn't enabled with distinctive ringing. The FAX switch answers all calls, looks for FAX CNG "beep-beep" tones, and either rings its FAX port, or phone port depending on whether the CNG tones are heard. How can the FAX disable call waiting? Looks like there's a market for a box that (1) answers, (2) flashes, (3) disables call waiting, and (4) connects through (or an excuse to add yet another "feature" to FAX machines). Of course, the utility of a call-waiting "beep" for an incoming FAX call is, itself, questionable ("Oh wait, I've got another call... CLICK... Damn, another FAX trying to barge in"). This brings up an idea for another telco-provided feature: distinctive ringing numbers that appear BUSY if the main number is in use, so FAX or data calls (for example), don't interrupt voice calls, but still get routed based on ringing pattern. In Liberty, Rene S. Hollan, Hollan Consulting Liberty, Property, Reciprocity ------------------------------ From: David Richardson Subject: Carribean/Pacific Area Codes Spammers Might Use Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:27:08 -0600 Organization: No junk email allowed, particularly commercial/"adult" material. Reply-To: davidwr_at_geocities.com@127.0.0.1 Posted to three newsgroups related to net-abuse to help abuse-recipients spot international-call schemes like the one that came from Montserrat earlier this year (see news.admin.net-abuse.email). Followups to comp.dcom.telecom. Taken from http://www.bellcore.com/NANP/newarea.html#all on 4/3/97. These area codes came from the 809 split. 264 : Anguilla 268 : Antigua and Barbuda 242 : Bahamas 246 : Barbados 441 : Bermuda 284 : British Virgin Islands 345 : Cayman Islands 767 : Dominica 473 : Grenada 876 : Jamaica 664 : Montserrat 787 : Puerto Rico 869 : St. Kitts and Nevis 758 : St. Lucia 784 : St. Vincent/Grenadines 868 : Trinidad and Tobago 649 : Turks & Caicos 340 : US Virgin Islands And some new ones: 670 : CNMI (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, formerly country code 670) 671 : Guam (formerly country code 671) Background: Some unscrupulous businesses ask customers to call an international number, usually a +011 number but sometimes a non-US/Canada number in the North American Numbering Plan (until recently, 809). They put the customer on hold and run up high toll charges. The kicker is that the phone company gives part of the phone charges back to the unscrupulous business, in much the same way 1-900 numbers work in North America. Generally, the calling party is unaware of the high costs involved. There has been at least one case of a bulk-email ad using the new Carribean area codes. David = davidwr = Austin = Unsolicited email Richardson = @ geocities.com = TX USA = prohibited *** From: and Reply-To: MAY BE BOGUS TO PREVENT UNWANTED EMAIL *** ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: CPUC Changes One NPA, Delays Another Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 19:14:05 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net From the California PUC: CPUC CHANGES DIXON'S AREA CODE AND DELAYS 415 CODE SPLIT The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today approved a request by Pacific Bell to change the City of Dixon's area code from the newly assigned 530 code to the 707 code. The Commission also approved a one day delay of the 415/650 area code split from Friday, August 1, to Saturday, August 2 so that the change would not disrupt phone service during a work day if there are complications with phone companies' equipment. Currently Dixon is in the 916 area code. It was slated to be changed to the 530 code when 916 splits in November. Changing Dixon's code to 707, which will happen on October 4, permits the city to be in the same area code as the county Dixon is in - Solano County. The CPUC approved the change because Dixon has stronger ties with Solano County than communities which will be in the 530 code. The two prefixes in the Dixon exchange are not duplicated in the 707 area code which means consumers will not have to change their numbers when placed in that code. Also the Dixon exchange is very small so changing it to 707 will not shorten the life of that area code. The change of Dixon's code is one of three requests Pacific Bell has made regarding the 916/530 split. The other two - to move El Dorado Hills from 530 to 916, and to move Lincoln, Newcastle, and Pleasant Grove from 530 to 916 - will be decided by the Commission in the near future. -###- John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Virginia SCC Set Hearing Date For 703 Relief Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 19:31:12 -0500 Organization: lincs.net Reply-To: jcropper@NOSPAM.lincs.net SCC SETS HEARINGS REGARDING NEW NORTHERN VIRGINIA AREA CODE RICHMOND -- Northern Virginians in the 703 area code will have an opportunity to tell the State Corporation Commission (SCC) how they would prefer to have a new area code installed by 1999. The SCC will hold two public hearings in Annandale on Monday, June 23. It is estimated the supply of available telephone numbers in the 703 area code will run out by late 1999. The SCC has been asked to consider two area code relief plans because the various telecommunications companies could not reach consensus on a plan. One plan divides the current 703 area code region in half. Generally, the Arlington and Alexandria exchanges would keep the 703 area code. All other exchanges would switch to a new, yet to be assigned, area code. The other plan is called an "overlay," meaning the same geographic area would have two area codes. All existing phone numbers would keep the 703 area code. All new requests for telephone numbers would be assigned to the new area code. The "overlay" method would require 10-digit dialing for all calls. SCC Senior Hearing Examiner Glenn P. Richardson will receive public comments at two sessions, one at 3:30 p.m. and the other at 7 p.m. Both sessions will be at the Ernst Community Cultural Center Building on the Annandale Campus of Northern Virginia Community College. The address is 8333 Little River Turnpike. Anyone wishing to comment should arrive early and sign in with the Commission bailiff. Written comments may be submitted to the Clerk of the Commission, Document Control Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, VA 23218. All correspondence must be received by June 23, 1997 and refer to case number PUC960161. ### John Cropper, Webmaster voice: 888.NPA.NFO2 Legacy IS, Networking & Comm. Solutions 609.637.9434 P.O. Box 277 fax: 609.637.9430 Pennington, NJ 08534-0277 Unsolicited commercial e-mail is subject mailto:jcropper@lincs.net to a fee as outlined in the agreement at http://www.lincs.net/ http://www.lincs.net/spamoff.htm ------------------------------ From: sgs@access.digex.net (Steve Smith) Subject: Re: Slammed by American Business Alliance Date: Fri, 04 Apr 97 00:10:19 GMT Organization: Agincourt Computing In article , J. DeBert wrote: > About a month ago, someone claiming to be "ATT" called to ask about > how well I liked ATT, then passed me off to a person to get some > personal information. I declined to give it, because it was too > personal, like birthdate, SSN, etc., and because ATT should already > have all the info they needed from me. The person was rather > determined to get all this information but I firmly declined, so they > gave me a number to call to prove that they were indeed who they said > they were, and all, and it was not the published ATT service number. > I think it was a scam, whether or not these people were associated > with ATT. I think the intention was to slam me. With such a lengthy > call, they could have recorded it and then cut-and-pasted their own > version of me authorizing a switch. About once a week, I get a call on my business line from someone at "AT&T ". The first time it happened, I strung along for quite a while until I realized it was a scam. Since then, when I get a call from "AT&T ", I ask "Are you, personally, an employee of AT&T?" When the answer comes back "No, but ..." I give the caller a brief ethics lecture and hang up. AT&T people have called a couple of times. They don't mumble. Steve Smith sgs@access.digex.net Agincourt Computing +1 (301) 681 7395 "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #84 ***************************** Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #85 Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 09:13:28 -0400 (EDT) From: TELECOM Digest Editor TELECOM Digest Sun, 6 Apr 97 09:13:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 85 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Anti-Trust and the Advanced Intelligent Network (Marty Tennant) Alltel Blocks 1+10D Dialing (Stan Schwartz) Re: New Numbering For Hong Kong International Audiotex (Richard Cox) Re: List of All *nn Features (Dave Luscher) Re: List of All *XX Codes (Stan Schwartz) Re: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal (B.J. Guillot) Re: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal (Al Hays) Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split (Joseph Singer) 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 America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-329-0571 Fax: 847-329-0572 ** Article submission address: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Our archives are located at hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu. The URL is: http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to tel-archives@massis.lcs.mit.edu to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 17:55:36 -0800 From: Marty Tennant Reply-To: marty@sccoast.net Organization: low tech designs, inc.(tm) Subject: Anti-Trust and the Advanced Intelligent Network The Advanced Intelligent Network advances the concept of the public switched network as a computer, raising anti-trust issues, as you will see below. I am attaching a copy of my objections to the BellSouth MCI interconnection agreement. Since the items in question were part of their negotiated agreement, and not an arbitrated item, my objections are valid. I urge all network activists to review interconnection agreements that have not yet been approved by your state PSC's. Most of them will have provisions like this. You can object and ask that these provisions be removed. If you are an individual, you need to state that these provisions are not in the public interest. If you are a telecommunications carrier, you can use the discriminatory and public interest arguments. I will be glad to share more information with those prepared to take on these industry giants as they prepare to create a new cozy club for monopolists. ++++++++++++++ BEFORE THE GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION MCI METRO PETITION FOR ) ARBITRATION UNDER THE ) DOCKET NO. 6865-U TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996) OBJECTION OF LOW TECH DESIGNS, INC. TO PROVISIONS IN MCI AND BELLSOUTH INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT Low Tech Designs, Inc. ("LTD") hereby states it's objection to portions of the agreement between MCI Metro (MCIm) and BellSouth Telecommunications Inc. (BST). LTD contends that this agreement discriminates against LTD, a new entrant telecommunications carrier under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and that the agreement is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity of telecommunications subscribers in the State of Georgia. Sec 252(e)(2) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides for State commission rejection of portions of an interconnection agreement: Quoting below: GROUNDS FOR REJECTION- The State commission may only reject-- (A) an agreement (or any portion thereof) adopted by negotiation under subsection (a) if it finds that -- (i) the agreement (or portion thereof) discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement or portion is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity; or (B) an agreement (or any portion thereof) adopted by arbitration under subsection (b) if it finds that the agreement does not meet the requirements of section 251, including the regulations prescribed by the Commission pursuant to section 251, or the standards set forth in subsection (d) of this section. Specifically, LTD objects to certain provisions contained within Attachment III, Section 7., Local Switching, that provide MCIm all AIN triggers as part of an unbundled local switching port. In that section, on page 18, Sec.7.2.1.15, the agreement states: "BellSouth shall offer all Local Switching features that are Technically Feasible and provide feature offerings at parity to those provided to itself or any other party. Such feature offerings shall include but are not limited to: (page 19) 7.2.1.15.6 Advanced intelligent network triggers supporting MCIm and BellSouth service applications, in BellSouth's SCPs. BellSouth shall offer to MCIm all AIN triggers currently available to BellSouth for offering AIN-based services in accordance with applicable Bellcore technical references: 7.2.1.15.6.1 thru 7.2.1.15.6 Off-Hook Immediate, Off-Hook Delay, Termination Attempt, 3/6/10, Feature Code Dialing, Custom Dialing Plan(s) including 555 services; and; 72.1.15.7 When the following triggers are supported by BellSouth, BellSouth shall make said triggers available to MCIm: 7.2.1.15.7.1 thru 7.2.1.15.7.4 Private EAMF Trunk, Shared Interoffice Trunk (EAMF, SS7), N11, Automatic Route Selection." LTD believes that this "all AIN triggers to the unbundled switching port or dialtone provider" provision of this agreement raises serious anti-trust tying issues, is not in the public interest, discriminatory to other telecommunications carriers and should be rejected. LTD believes that this provision will have the same negative effect that would result from consumers being restricted to obtaining computer software solely from their personal computer hardware supplier. Consumer choice will be restricted to those AIN applications that current dominant industry participants deem appropriate, stifling innovation and the opportunity to obtain Advanced Intelligent Network solutions from a variety of sources. LTD has raised this same issue in Ga. PSC Docket 7270-U, LTD Petition for Arbitration with BST, and has produced evidence from the Tennessee Attorney General's Consumer Advocate Division that addresses the same anti-trust and public interest issues raised by LTD. A copy of the evidence from the Tennessee Attorney General's Office is provided as part of this filing as Attachment "A". Not only would this portion of the agreement not be in the public interest, but it would discriminate against LTD, a new entrant telecommunications carrier which is not a party to this agreement. LTD, and any other potential competitor to MCI, would be placed in a situation where it would be required to duplicate all MCIm AIN applications provided to MCIm customers before it would be able to compete against MCIm in the provisioning of dialtone and AIN services to those same customers. This would be the equivalent of requiring a small software company to duplicate all of IBM's application software installed on a users IBM PC before being able to offer a complementary or competitive software application to IBM PC users. This is clearly discriminatory to other telecommunications carriers and not in the public interest. For these reasons, this portion of the agreement between MCIm and BST should be rejected. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, THIS 3rd DAY OF APRIL, 1997. ________________________ James M. Tennant - President 1204 Saville St. Low Tech Designs, Inc. Georgetown, SC 29440 (803) 527-4485 ---------------- marty tennant, president, low tech designs, inc.(tm), "Bringing Technology Down to Earth"(sm), 1204 Saville St., Georgetown, SC 29440 (803) 527-4485 voice, (803) 527-7783 fax ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Alltel Blocks 1+10D Dialing Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:55:38 -0500 I moved from a BellSouth area into an Alltel Carolinas service area about two months ago, and I'm slowly learning how to deal with the non-RBOC world. One thing I've discussed in the Digest before is that the Charlotte, NC local calling area includes (among other things) the area in NPA 803 served by the Fort Mill Telephone Company of Fort Mill, SC. This is home to the former Heritage USA complex, as well as the former home of Jim and Tammy Bakker. When I lived in BellSouth-land (about a mile from where I live now), I could dial 1-803-54X-XXXX or 803-54X-XXXX to reach Fort Mill, and either would be included in my flat rate Charlotte service. In Alltel (which seems to lease some services from BellSouth), if I dial 1-803-54X-XXXX, I am greeted by a recording (by Jane Barbie (sp.?), the pre-divestiture AT&T recording lady) telling me that the number I'm trying to call is part of Alltel's regional calling plan and does not require a '1'. I'm then told to hang up and dial again without the '1', and while I'm at it, why not call customer service and ask them about signing up for the expanded regional calling plan. Jeez! They know where I'm calling, why not just connect the call??!! As far as leasing services from BellSouth, when I dial 0 or 411 I am greeted by a BellSouth operator. In the case of 411, I get the same BellSouth automated attendant, but I don't get the automated call completion option (which I don't miss). Alltel is also using the same Octel voice mail system that I used with BellSouth, although Alltel's seems to have enabled a few more features than BellSouth did. One thing I AM missing is the Complete Choice plan, where I could have every service BellSouth offered for $28 including local service. Ah well. More on my non-RBOC user status as the months pass. Stan (stan@vnet.net) All spam will be returned in kind. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: When the Bakker's and Heritage USA were in business, the complex was sufficiently large enough that it was mostly in BellSouth territory but extended partly over into Fort Mill Telephone Company territory. Bakker wanted service entirely from Bell South on a centrex, however the Fort Mill Telephone Company sued to force that portion of Heritage USA which was in their territory to be serviced by Fort Mill. I think the one large hotel was involved. The way it wound up was BellSouth did have a centrex there for everything and several centrex extensions terminated on the switchboard of the hotel, however Fort Mill also terminated several direct lines on the hotel switchboard as well. When calling someone staying at the hotel it was possible to either dial the main listed number for Heritage USA and ask the operator for the hotel (and in turn, the hotel oper- ator for the desired room number) or you could dial the BellSouth centrex extension number for the hotel (and then ask the hotel oper- ator for the desired room number) or you could dial the Fort Mill number for the hotel which landed directly on the switchboard. For the sake of convenience, I seem to recall that all gateways into the hotel switchboard were '5000'. That is, it was extension 5000 (as the start of a hunt group on the Heritage USA centrex) and it was xxx-5000 as the start of a hunt group from Fort Mill. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 15:01:59 EST From: richard@mandarin.com (Richard D.G. Cox) Subject: Re: New Numbering For Hong Kong International Audiotex allender@asiaonline.net (Robert Allender) said: > A new numbering system was instituted 1/1/97, with dual access during > a 6 month grace period, but many countries or international carriers > are not yet set up to handle it. It's not just a question of being "set up" to handle it. First off, the numbers are 14 (internationally-significant) digits long which is 2 more than the limit that applied up to Time-T (31-12-1996). Not all countries have updated their systems to handle the longer numbers: but furthermore, because so few parts of the world are using numbers with 12+ (I-S) digits, very many countries will take the view that there is no economic case for the expenditure involved. And the same goes for private switchboards (generically known as "CPE"). As I understand it *, only Finland and Hong Kong have planned to increase their digit length, although Germany/Austria/Luxembourg were already slightly over the limit (at 13 I-S digits) for their DDI numbers, before the rules were changed. Until there is a cogent case for countries to upgrade, it will be a brave man^H^H person that extends their numbering length past 12 I-S digits, where a viable alternative exists. In Hong Kong, the only number ranges that appear to be in use are 1x, 2x, 30, 7, 8x, and 9x. Why, therefore, the need for longer numbers in the Colony? But there are other issues to consider. If, currently, there is sufficient headroom in the accounting rate for the audiotex service providers to be paid for the services they provide, all well and good. But if there is the possibility that there will at any time be a higher payment required, then international telcos will want to understand the implications of this before they open access to those ranges on their switches. Not least of which is the question of FRAUD! Here in the UK, as well as in several other countries, there is a major problem with telecomms fraud ... and Hong Kong audiotex services have been identified as a frequent destination of the fraudulent calls. The German phone company, Deutsche Telekom, has already blocked direct-dial access to several audiotex number ranges, and other countries may well follow suit! The present position in the UK for the number quoted, is that calls over BT succeed, while calls over Mercury are consistently failing. There are a number of other carriers, and it has not been possible to test them all. Richard D G Cox Mandarin Technology, P.O. Box 111, PENARTH, South Glamorgan CF64 3YG, UK Telephone: +44 97 3311 1111; Fax: +44 97 3311 1100 ------------------------------ From: luscher@dcsnet.com (Dave Luscher) Subject: Re: List of All *nn Features Organization: Daac Systems - Internet Access Date: 5 Apr 97 17:34:36 GMT > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for digging up that item and > sending it for reposting. I was curious, and tried all of the ones > I do not have on my line; especially the ones not offered (as far as > I know) by Ameritech. The results were interesting. On #01 and #02 > I got an intercept saying (in these words) "Feature interaction cannot > be continued. Please hang up and dial the feature code again. The > following tones are for the hearing impaired ..." (followed by modem > sounds). Repeated attempts to dial the #01 and #02 codes got the > same message. All of the codes intended for DEactivating something > resulted in an intercept 'your phone is not equipped for this service' > however the associated codes to activate features resulted in either > the 'feature interaction cannot be continued' message or in most > cases an unusual (for this switch) ringing tone followed by a man's > voice on an intercept saying 'the area code or number that you dialed > is incorrect. Please check the number and dial again ... the following > tones are for the hearing impaired ...' A couple of the codes such > as the one for 'voice activated network control' (whatever that is) > and 'who called me' just resulted in fast busy or re-order tones. By > the way what is 'who called me' and how does it differ from customer > activated trace? And exactly what are #01 and #02 for? Can anyone > go down the list and explain the less obvious entries? Also, when > I tried #49 a couple times it 'clicked' and then just went dead while > other times I got the 'area code or number is incorrect' message. PAT] Pat: Here in Bell Canada land the phone book has the following to say about *57 (Customer Originated Call Trace): "Call Trace should ONLY be used in serious situations when you wish to take legal action against the caller. If you are receiving many harassing or threatening calls and use Call Trace, you should be ready to contact the police and have the caller charged. Bell Canada will release the traced number ONLY on presentation of proper legal authorization and ONLY TO THE POLICE." ($5 bucks a shot $10 monthly price cap). Apparently it will trace through a call blocked number. Who Called Me is a new feature here that will (I believe) read back the number of the last person who called you - assuming it wasn't blocked. I could be totaly wrong on this one. *49 here turns off Bell's annoying feature of changing the ringing pattern if the call is a long distance call. *49 will permanently disabled it until re-enabled. They introduced this "feature" without much notice to the public. It really screwed up a call director box I have that works on the distinctive ring feature (Ident-A-Call) until I figure out what they had done. Cheers! Dave Luscher email: luscher@dcsnet.com Daac Systems phone: (905) 841-4147 ext. 10 Aurora, Ontario, Canada http://www.dcsnet.com ------------------------------ From: Stan Schwartz Subject: Re: List of All *nn Codes Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 17:37:28 -0500 Just to add my two cents into the mix, when I was with BellSouth, I was able to use *47 in order to vary the number of seconds (or number of rings, depending on the central office) before my incoming calls were NAT to voice mail. Stan (stan@vnet.net) All spam will be returned in kind. ------------------------------ From: bgfax@blkbox.com (B.J. Guillot) Subject: Re: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal Date: 5 Apr 1997 10:20:55 GMT Organization: Tranquility Base Reply-To: bgfax@blkbox.com (B.J. Guillot) In , Al Hays writes: > latest 6 month "One Rate Promo" promotional deal is: 10 cents per > minute, 24 hours daily with no monthly minimum, no monthly fees, no > circles, lists, etc. Additionally, the promo gives 250 minutes free > When I called AT&T back the new agent who answered the phone had "NO > IDEA" what I was talking about and offered me their two standard > plans: 15 cents/24 hour or 10 cents/24 hour with $4.95 fee. I > explained to her that their marketing department had done their job by > getting my attention and that they would now get my business if -she- > didn't drop the ball. After a short "consultation" with her manager I > was afforded the six month promotional rate as outlined above. AT&T did something similar to me. A few months ago, I switched to Sprint. AT&T called me back, offered the 10 cents 24/hours a day, no monthly fees. I get my first bill and I'm on some kind of 15 cent/minute fee. I call AT&T to complain, and they say, oh yeah, we have a 10 cent/minute 24 hour/day program, but it costs $4.95 a month. "There is absolutely so such program without a monthly fee." They said the best they could do for me was to waive the $4.95 fee for the first two months. After reading your message, I'm going to call them back tomorrow and demand to talk to a supervisor, since know I know for sure that I was not "making it up" about no monthly fee. Command line driven fax software http://www.blkbox.com/~bgfax/ Regards, B.J. Guillot ... Houston, Texas USA I don't believe in coffee ------------------------------ From: Al Hays Subject: Re: Latest AT&T Residential "Promotional" Deal Date: Sat, 5 Apr 1997 11:13:24 -0600 >> Some weeks ago there was a discussion in the Digest regarding the >> "hidden" promotional deals that you would necessarily have to know >> about in advance in order to receive them. This weekend I experienced >> this very phenomenon and did switch from Sprint to AT&T. AT&T's >> latest 6 month "One Rate Promo" promotional deal is: 10 cents per >> minute, 24 hours daily with no monthly minimum, no monthly fees, no >> circles, lists, etc. Additionally, the promo gives 250 minutes free >> each month for 6 months and AT&T will send a certificate equal to the >> amount of the LEC's fee for switching LD carriers (typically $5). >> Re your heads up on that new AT&T promotion: >> I called the usual AT&T customer service number on my bill & they >> couldn't give me the 250 min free on their system. Do you still have the >> callback number for the AT&T telemarketing department? Their system >> should allow the 250 min/mo. The number given to me was 800-225-7466. The strange thing was that the operator who answered asked me "what extension?" Ofcourse I didn't have an extension number and I simply explained that this was the number that the telemarketer gave me to call back to change my LD carrier to AT&T. Subsequently, I've had two close friends who have called this number and switched to the same plan. Hope this helps. regs, .al. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 09:19:57 -0800 From: Joseph Singer Subject: Re: Florida PSC to Revisit 904 Split John Cropper quoted an article: > BellSouth Telecommunications wanted a new area code selected for North > Florida last year. But disputes over which region would receive the > new code forced the issue before commissioners. While most phone > companies favored keeping 904 for Jacksonville and switching the > Panhandle, state officials predicted changing Tallahassee's area code > would cost taxpayers $2.48 million. This begs the question why so many places are absolutely opposed to putting an overlay into an area rather than continuing to do a geographical split to give numbering relief. Using an overlay there is no expense (that I can see) to the people involved i.e. businesses, cell phone customers, re-programming, stationery, etc. You have to of course modify how you refer to your phone number rather than just saying the phone number is XXX-XXXX you have to say the phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX. Eventually we're all going to have to have even more numbers than we do even with the "relief" that we're getting and eventually you're not going to be able to make any kind of rational split of an area so why not just accept the inevitable and use overlays? Joseph Singer Seattle, Washington, USA mailto:dov@oz.net http://oz.net/~dov http://www.mirabilis.com/460262 [www ICQ pager] PO Box 23135, Seattle, WA 98102 USA +1 206 325 5862 FAX ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #85 *****************************