TELECOM Digest Mon, 15 Feb 93

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:32:00 CST    Volume 13 : Issue 98

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Programs to Send Messages to Pagers Using IXO Protocol (TELECOM Moderator)

    Curious Local Exchange Problem (Daniel Burstein)

    Internet Access from Qatar? Anyone? (Bindy P. James)

    Searching For PPP Pointer RFC (Sam Houston)

    Procedure to Use 800-321-0ATT? (Curtis E. Reid)

    Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany (Christian Weisgerber)

    Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany (Wolfgang Zenker)

    Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted? (Daniel Burstein)

    Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE (Steven H. Lichter)

    Re: GTE On the "Move" (Steven H. Lichter)

    Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State (Jack Decker)

    Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones (Ken Thompson)

    Re: Standard Dialing Plan (Al Varney)

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 10:41:16 -0600

From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>

Subject: Programs to Send Messages to Pagers Using IXO Protocol

Monty Solomon has kindly provided the archives with a large file of

programs which can be executed on your computer if you send a lot of

alphanumeric messages to pagers. This file should complement the

discussion going on here over the weekend regarding IXO protocol.

Look for it in the Telecom Archives, using anonymous ftp lcs.mit.edu

under the title 'ixo.program.scripts'

Patrick Townson

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

From: dannyb@Panix.Com (Daniel Burstein)

Subject: Curious Local Exchange Problem

Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 11:13:30 GMT

All these postings about impossible phone problems reminded me of an

episode I sufferred through about three years ago.

At the time, I had a single phone in the 212-663 exchange.  One day,

when I started to dial a phone number, I got an IMMEDiATE busy after

the first digit.

On further experimentation, I discoverd that I only the numbers "6"

and "8" would get through the first digit - all others, INCLUDING "0"

and "9" (as in "911") immediately busied out.

After a bit of thought and experimentation, I realized that I could

only dial out to phone numbers in my physical central office (which

was composed of three different numerical exchanges).

Since these exchanges were 663, 666, and 865, any first digit other

than 6 or 8, and then any second other than 6, etc., etc. got me a

busy.

Oh, yes, I couldn't call repair service either (611). As soon as I

hit the secoond digit ("1") whoops, there went the busy.

I -could-, however, make calls to any number in the three exchanges.

So what I did: I called one of the telco test numbers in my exchange

(xxx-99xx). I got a semi-literate person, and explaiend to them that I

needed a call back from repair service.  So far so good.

BUT, for the next four or five days guess what happened. The techies

would get a very abridged trouble report (i.e. unable to dial out),

would grab my line in the CO, get a dial tone, call out to one of

their test numbers (which, of course, was in the same exchange), and

clear out the trouble report.

FINALLY, after a LOT of screaming, ranting and raving (and being told,

of course, that this whole problem was IMPOSSIBLE), I got a real

techie to call back.  He actually listened, and (after a bit of

prodding) got someone to look up the routing and authorization tables

assigned to my account.

Yep, someone, somehow, had put that most curious restriction on my

service.

It was fixed shortly afterwards, but NY Tel still claims that this

sort of thing just can't be done.

Hmm, sounds like it would be an EXCELLENT service offering: A

restriction on your line to ONLY let the person make calls to the CO

itself (let's add in a "911" option for safety.

dannyb@panix.com

[Moderator's Note: The phones for inmate use at the Cook County Jail

have many restrictions on them. The curious part of it to me is that

they are all on the 312-890 centrex serving the entire circuit court

and correctional center complex at 28th and California Avenues here.

But the inmate phones can receive incoming calls only from another

extension on the centrex (no incoming calls from outside the premises);

they cannot call other extensions on the centrex; they can only make

zero-plus calls on a collect basis anywhere. No third number billing,

no credit card billing, no 700/800/900 numbers, etc. They cannot dial

411, 611 or 911. They cannot dial the operator inside or outside. All

calls from those phones must be of the form 0 + AC + 7D, even for the

local calling area. The IBT operator knows the calls are from the jail

and announces them in this way, "I have a collect call from <name>, an

inmate at the Cook County Jail, will you accept charges?" None of the

automated operator service on these lines.  PAT]

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

From: bpj2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BINOY P JAMES)

Subject: Internet Access from Qatar? Anyone?

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 15:34:50 GMT

Organization: Lehigh University

Anybody know if I could access Internet from Qatar, in the Middle

East?  How about Bitnet at least?

I'm heading back in a few months and I really want to stay on Internet

and send e-mail to folks back in the States.

Thanks in advance.

Binoy P. James    bpj2@ns3.cc.lehigh.edu

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

From: houston@eso.mc.xerox.com (Sam)

Subject: Searching For PPP Pointer RFC

Reply-To: houston@eso.mc.xerox.com

Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 16:39:49 GMT

Does anyone know if an RFC has been published for Point to Point

Protocol, the updated synchronous/asynchronous SLIP?

Thanks in advance.

"sam" houston    Xerox, Rochester, N.Y.

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

Date: 15 Feb 1993 09:32:21 -0400 (EDT)

From: Curtis E. Reid <CER2520@ritvax.isc.rit.edu>

Subject: Procedure to use 800-321-0ATT

Can someone give us the procedure for using the AT&T's Switch at

800/321-0288?

I'd like to know what steps is required to make the call go through?

Thanks!

Curtis E. Reid CER2520@ritvax.isc.rit.edu

Rochester Institute of Technology/NTID REID@DECUS.org (DECUS)

P.O. Box 9887 716.475.6089 TDD/TT 475.6895 Voice

Rochester, NY 14623-0887  U.S.A. 716.475.6500 Fax (Business Use Only)

[Moderator's Note: After dialing 800-321-0288, you hear the AT&T

tones, and the robot operator announces, "AT&T ... please enter the

number you are calling, or zero for an operator."  After entering the

number you are asked to enter your card number. It is basically the

same as any other credit card call.  Persons who have experiences with

this are requested to write.   PAT]

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

Organization: My Individual Private Site

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 01:58:06 +0100

From: naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org (Christian Weisgerber)

Reply-To: naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org

Subject: Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany

Steve Pershing writes:

> ZyXEL modems are approved for use in Germany, and are sold there.  We

Indeed, ZyXEL modems are sold over here and actually they've become

rather popular. However, they are NOT APPROVED by any means.

I'm very concerned about the fact that a commercial vendor of these

modems provides such blatant disinformation.

Christian "naddy" Weisgerber, Germany       naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org

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

From: wolfgang@lyxys.ka.sub.org (Wolfgang Zenker)

Subject: Re: Modems For LEGAL Use in Germany

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 12:54:54 +0100

sp@questor.org (Steve Pershing) writes:

> ZyXEL modems are approved for use in Germany, and are sold there.  We

> will also sell them to almost anyone anywhere in the world, at about a

> 10% profit. (The profit goes to support the free aspects of the

> Questor site.)

Sorry, but ZyXEL modems are NOT approved by the German BZT. But they

work very reliable on the German phone system and almost nobody cares

about an approval anymore.

Wolfgang

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

From: dannyb@Panix.Com (Daniel Burstein)

Subject: Re: Second Line Non-Pub/Unlisted?

Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 10:44:47 GMT

In <telecom13.79.5@eecs.nwu.edu> ddl@burrhus.harvard.edu (Dan

Lanciani) writes:

> I recently ordered a second line in my name and at the same

> address as my existing line.  For some reason I thought one could get

> non-published or unlisted (I forget) status at no extra charge for

> each line beyond the first.  Did I imagine this?  The business office

> was quite certain that I would have to pay extra.  I suppose the

> answer is specific to NET land ...

In New York, if you order it as a SECOND (i.e., if busy then transfer)

line on the MAIN account, then it is not listed.  For example, think

of your local dry cleaner - hoe many of phone numbers do they have

listed?

And ... for good measure, you DON't have to put in the "switch when busy";

(technically this is called a "hunt group").

dannyb@panix.com

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

From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter)

Subject: Re: Pacific Bell, Caller ID, and PRIVATE

Date: 15 Feb 1993 14:36:56 GMT

Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)

I would guess that if the return call is Toll or L/D it would appear

as would any other one of that type. I had thought that PacBell was

not even going offer those two services as they felt they could not

make any money on it. Sure hope the Assembly and State Senate get

going on those bills that over rule the PUC and I think the PUC should

have the people vote on there appointments as we do for the State

Surpreme Court, makes them more to what we want.

Steven H. Lichter    GTE Calif COEI

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

From: co057@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven H. Lichter)

Subject: Re: GTE On the "Move"

Date: 15 Feb 1993 14:40:31 GMT

Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)

There is a big shakeup in Telops. Some of it is good, but some will

cause problems later on. But that is just my view as a 25+ year GTE

employee who will have to try and do my job after the dust settles.

Steven H. Lichter    GTE Calif COEI

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 10:12:34 EST

From: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org (Jack Decker)

Subject: Re: California Versus CLID Versus Out-of-State

In message <telecom13.80.5@eecs.nwu.edu>, rlm@indigo2.hac.com (Robert

L. McMillin) wrote:

> kgdykes@Thinkage.On.CA (Ken Dykes) writes:

>> Recently I received a call from the Glendale area of Los Angeles.  I

>> live in southern Ontario CANADA.  My Caller-ID box instead of showing

>> out-of-area showed PRIVACY.  The call to me was made (and answered)

>> twice in the same night; both times PRIVACY ... some sort of

>> call-blocking was enabled by PacBell.

> Which probably means that the switch was SS7-connected, but thanks to

> the California Public fUtilities Commission, EVERYBODY's phone number

> will show up as PRIVACY-enabled.  After all, privacy is the same thing

> as anonymity ... NOT!

>> PacBell is being far too kind to the zealots :-)

> It's not Pac*Hell's fault, really.

I think I would take issue with both of these statements.  First of

all, it would seem that Pac*Bell would have the choice of not sending

the number at all, rather than sending the number with a "privacy"

flag attached.  If Caller ID is not being offered in California, then

there is no reason they should be sending the number out of state,

particularly when they're sending it with the "private" flag, which

means that Caller ID subscribers can't read it anyway.

And in the second place, as I recall the discussion here, the

California PUC did NOT say that Pac*Bell could not offer Caller ID.

Rather, they imposed what I feel were quite reasonable restrictions to

help protect the privacy of those who might not realize that their

number was being made available to all and sundry.  In particular,

they said that per-line blocking was to be the default for anyone who

is paying for an unlisted number.  Is that so unreasonable?  I think

not ... after all, if a person is paying an extra monthly charge to

keep their number from appearing in the directory, or being given out

by directory asistance, then it's not unreasonable to assume that they

are concerned enough about protecting the privacy of their phone

number that they don't want it automatically going out to anyone who

calls.

Yet to hear Pac*Bell tell it, this was sufficient justification for

NOT offering Caller ID.  I'll tell you what, if I were on the

California PUC and I were getting complaints about the lack of

availability of Caller ID, I wouldn't cave in quite yet ... instead,

I'd tell Pac*Bell "Don't even THINK about coming to us for another

rate increase until you have at least test-marketed Caller ID under

the terms we set forth!"  I'd be real surprised if Pac*Bell could

PROVE that there is strong customer resistance to Caller ID simply

because potential users can't get unlisted numbers automatically.

The fact remains that the California PUC set forth terms under which

Caller ID could be offered, and Pac*Bell said, in effect, "I don't

like your rules so I'm going to take my ball and go home!"  Apparently

the Caller ID software is already installed, so all they have to do is

turn it on, yet apparently they'd rather do without the extra income

from Caller ID than to even try it the way the PUC allowed it.  That,

to me, seems like a case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's

face.

So if there is fault to be found, I think it rests SQUARELY on the

shoulders of Pac*Bell.  And yes, I realize that a few readers of this

conference don't like the idea of Caller ID blocking at all, but some

of us do see incoming telephone calls as (generally speaking) more of

an intrusion than a benefit, particularly on our home phone lines, and

would like to retain some control over who gets our phone number.

And, as has been pointed out numerous times here, there are ways other

than Caller ID to catch harassment callers (e.g. "Call Trace").

(Which brings up one other thought ... why don't states pass laws

requiring harassment callers to compensate their victims and/or the

telco for the actual costs involved in trapping and tracing them?  It

doesn't really seem fair that the VICTIM should have to pay for the

trace feature, which seems to be the primary objection to the use of

Call Trace ... maybe this one needs some more thought at the

legislative level, so that the perpetrator pays, not the victim!).

Jack Decker | Internet: jack.decker@f8.n154.z1.fidonet.org | Fidonet: 1:154/8

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

From: Ken Thompson <kthompso@donald.wichitaks.NCR.COM>

Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Ruling on Scanners That Receive Cellphones

Date: 15 Feb 93 15:22:02 GMT

Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS

This ruling appears to make even cell phones illegal.  They scan the

phone frequencies.  It also will effect many amateur UHF receivers and

transcievers.  Our ability to experiment with transverters will be

hindered too.

Ken Thompson    N0ITL

NCR Corp.  Peripheral Products Division   Disk Array Development

3718 N. Rock Road  Wichita KS 67226   (316)636-8783

Ken.Thompson@wichitaks.ncr.com

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

Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 11:18:32 CST

From: varney@ihlpl.att.com

Subject: Re: Standard Dialing Plan

Organization: AT&T

In article <telecom13.97.9@eecs.nwu.edu> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)

writes:

>> There's nothing more annoying than a telco switch that says "It is

>> not necessary to dial 1 and the area code for this number".  If telco

>> knows what number is intended, why doesn't it just go ahead and

>> complete the call?!

> It doesn't know what number is intended.  It knows what number you

> dialed.

   Sorry, I disagree.  How can you dial 1 + ten-digits and not have

intended to dial a ten-digit number.  How often do people really dial

all ten digits and intend to only dial seven digits?  And if they do

dial ten digits by mistake, how often was the incorrect NPA dialed?

> The message is a polite way of saying "You were about to reach a wrong

> number!  But luckily we noticed that the number you dialed would be a

> local (or in-area) call, while you dialed in a manner requesting a

> long-distance (or out-of-area) call.  Since everyone knows the extent

> of their local calling area (or area code), you must have been calling

> the wrong number.  Please try again and dial the right number now."

   Everyone doesn't know this info -- that's why UNIVERSAL ten-digit

dialing is a favor for them, and almost no inconvenience to others.

> Obviously there are people for whom this trap is a disservice, but

> there are others for whom it's a service.

   Please name an instance of someone grateful to receive that

intercept ...

> Maybe it would be a good compromise if this trap was retained, but

> 011-1-npa-xxx-xxxx was allowed for all calls within the NANP, even

> local ones, with the charging as if you'd dialed them the usual way.

> Nobody's likely to dial 011-1 by accident, are they?

   Some switches would have problems not routing such calls to an IXC,

and they (and you) might not prefer the costs if the destination is

fairly local to the caller.  Other switches would have problems

routing such a call to a local line without routing via a tandem,

which adds expense to the TELCO.  Why not just allow 1 + ten-digit

regardless of NPA??

   That's my humble opinion.  Here's Bellcore's:

(From "North American Numbering Plan Administrator's Proposal On The

Future of Numbering In World Zone 1", Jan. 6, 1992 (draft for comment))

 "... Failure to place a call in the appropriate format is now

 seen as a cause for call rejection in areas using toll alerting

 [that's "1+ means toll" areas -- ALV].  It follows that 7-digit

 dialing will be encountered both with and without toll alerting.

 Numbering planners have long considered it good practice for

 switches to accept and attempt to complete any call originated

 with a valid 10-digit address, INCLUDING HOME NPA CALLS FOR WHICH

 7-DIGIT DIALING COULD SUFFICE. [Caps mine -- ALV]"

   Again, who is hurt by removal of this announcement?  Note that the

announcement is still appropriate for other circumstances, such as 1 +

seven-digit where inappropriate.

Al Varney - just my opinion, of course

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

End of TELECOM Digest V13 #98

*****************************