TELECOM Digest Wed, 8 Jun 94 23:32:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 278 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Calling Card Suggestion (Haakon Styri) Re: Calling Card Suggestion (Andrew McLeod) Re: Calling Card Suggestion (Jeffrey W. McKeough) Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection (Jeffrey W. McKeough) Re: GSM Question: Power Controllers (Nathan N. Duehr) Re: Information Wanted on Satellite BBS? (Nathan N. Duehr) Re: Can ANI be Blocked From Call Recipient? (Ry Jones) Re: Personal 800 Number Availability (Steve Forrette) Re: Best Way to Get Many (~50) Phone Lines? (Barton F. Bruce) Re: Cost of Caller ID in PA (Steve Atlas) Re: Cellular in Emergencies (Lynne Gregg) Re: Cellular in Emergencies (Mike Borsetti) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.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: 9457-D Niles Center Road Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 708-329-0571 Fax: 708-329-0572 ** Article submission address only: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu ** Our archives are located at lcs.mit.edu and are available by using anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to use the information service, just ask. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is 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. * ************************************************************************* Additionally, 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. 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: styri@balder.nta.no Subject: Re: Calling Card Suggestion Date: Wed, 08 Jun 1994 21:00:00 GMT Bob Maccione writes (in Volume 14, Issue 274) > With all of the calling card fraud going on out there I'm curious as > to why the card companies don't issue cards that can't be used for > international calls. It should be easy enough and if the user really > needs to have access to international numbers they can add a level of > country restrictions. [...] Well, I just had visitors from the US and while helping them to place a call using their calling cards I noticed that at least one of them did have different card numbers. Quite funny in fact, because it was kind of hard for the card holder proper to realize that she had to use the _domestic_ card number to place a call from Norway to the US using a US Country Direct service. (Another thing was that she had no information about how to reach that service from other countries ...) Guess it's simple to say, cancel the international card number and only keep the domestic. Different operators have different systems, and I know there are systems allowing you to block all but a short list of phone numbers to call to. Great when you want to give your kids a card in order to make them call home every now and then. Wrt to the PIN being printed on the card, I believe that some operators don't do this, and some make it an option. I've been told so through the TELECOM Digest, so it may be the truth. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As a matter of fact, even though their > policy is not stated in writing -- they refuse to state it in writing > for obvious reasons -- AT&T routinely redlines the use of their calling > card to selected international points from payphones in inner city areas > where ethnic populations reside. [...] The call will always be rejected, > and the operator will profess an inability to put it through on the card. > [...] Now, that's probably stupid because by the time you've given up placing that call you've keyed in your card number and PIN more than once in addition to spelling out every digit to the operator. Guess anyone shoulder surfing just love this ... (Why not just block that 800 number from public phones in that area?) Anyway, things like this is done in a number of countries. Guess it's a pain when you add it to all them hotels either blocking 800 numbers or adding a surcharge on 800 calls. Haakon Styri ------------------------------ From: aj141@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew McLeod) Subject: Re: Calling Card Suggestion Organization: The National Capital FreeNet, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 02:50:44 GMT Unitel (a Canadian LD company) has a card which allows the user to request restriction on overseas calls. If this option is chosen, then the card can only be used between points in Canada and the USA. (Unitel is 20% owned by AT&T, and calls made in the US go through the AT&T network). Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jun 1994 20:40:05 -0400 From: jwm@student.umass.edu (Jeffrey W. McKeough) Subject: Re: Calling Card Suggestion Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst In article , Harbir Singh Kohli wrote: > In Norway the calling card comes with a four-digit code which makes it > a lot safer to use for both the customer and the telephone company. > Though it does produce a hell of lot of digits to dial. I feel safe > carrying it instead of my ATT, MCI and Sprint cards. I just ordered an AT&T "True Choice" calling card, which allowed me to pick my own card number. I was offered (and accepted) the option of omitting my PIN from the card. I think it's a good security measure, and I don't know why it wasn't done sooner. BTW, there was a thread a while back (I believe it was here) about Telcos using a checksum digit method to verify the authenticity of a calling card number. It would seem that this is not the case with my card, as I chose the number and PIN myself without a whole lot of thought about checksums. So is there some other lookup method? Jeffrey W. McKeough jwm@student.umass.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 08 Jun 1994 20:51:21 -0400 From: jwm@student.umass.edu (Jeffrey W. McKeough) Subject: Re: S-s-s-stuttering Dial Tone Detection Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst In article , John Harris wrote: [snip] > The telephone company must deliver a Caller ID message waiting signal as > specified by Bell Canada ID-0008. Multiple Data Message Format, paramater > code 11, status 255 to turn ON, status 0 to turn OFF. I just purchased a Radio Shack Caller ID System 320. According to the manual, it will provide message waiting notification "if you subscribe to the telephone company's message waiting service." A NYNEX rep said she hadn't heard of the feature, but that it might be included in a future software upgrade. (How she knew that if she never heard of the feature ...) Since we just got Caller-ID, Call Trace, Repeat Call and Return Call, (in 413-549 land) I don't expect an upgrade anytime soon. Does anyone else know of an area that offers message waiting? | "After going through a rather difficult time, I Jeffrey W. McKeough | consider myself comparatively sane. I am proud jwm@student.umass.edu | of that." --Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I deliberatly left Jeffrey's signature file intact ... and for my digression today I will be unusually brief: she was a wonderful lady who for most Americans including myself will remain part of our fondest memories for many years to come. After JFK was murdered in Dallas, *she* did not owe this country a damn thing; yet for all these years afterward she maintained a tremendous amount of dignity and graciousness. She was a wonderful person. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nduehr@netcom.com (Nathan N. Duehr) Subject: Re: GSM Question: Power Controllers Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 09:48:27 GMT Robert Jansen (rjansen@rc1.vub.ac.be) wrote: > After visiting several dealers of GSM phones, I finally found one with > the technical know-how about GSM. (snip) > He told me that when 8W phones are near a groundstation, the transmit > power is throttled by the groundstation, in order to allow the nearby > 2W devices to "enter" the groundstation's receiver. Actually since all the phones are using separate frequencies (I assume ...) then the presence of an 8W phone near a groundstation should have no effect at all on incoming RF from other lower-power phones, unless the receivers at the groundstation's site are very poor in selectivity. > This is what he called "GSM phones with a build-in POWER CONTROLLER" > (8W phones have this feature, so don't panic :) ) > The problem arises when a normal handheld with a car kit is fitted > (afterwards) with a normal antenna signal booster. It's a > straightforward amplifier, which HAS NO way of being power controlled > by the groundstation, nor the 2W handheld. Why not? Amplifiers only put out the other side a multiple (not always linear as far as I know) of their input wattage. If the groundstation tells your phone to switch to miliwatts, the output of the amplifier hooked to your phone reduces accordingly too. The groundstation may ask your phone to continue down to it's lowest output which *might* not be enough wattage to drive your amplifier at all, depending on design, which could cause the below-mentioned to happen. > Result: the groundstation kicks you of the net if you get to close to > the groundstation and are blasting the full 8W to it's antenna, > because you are surpressing the signals from the handheld 2W phones. > booster. (snip) > Q: And what about a handheld with a booster from the same manufacturer? > A: well ... that's the point here, I getting the idea that NOT ONE!!! > manufacturer of GSM phones (which have a booster kit for their phones) > implemented Power Control when you have your handheld in the car, > connected to it's booster. The handhelds don't have the control over the > booster. I disagree due to the reasoning above ... any manufacturer's booster is automatically a part of the power control scheme by basic RF amplifier design. If the amp is designed in a manner in which any RF input comes out at a particular level (i.e. 2w in gets 8w out and so does 150mw in get 8w out) then your comments about power control being a problem are valid, but most amplifiers (at least cost effective ones) are not built in this fashion. Disclaimer: In case I have no idea what I am talking about, ignore me! :) Regards, Nate Duehr nduehr@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: nduehr@netcom.com (Nathan N. Duehr) Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Satellite BBS? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 10:21:39 GMT Gary E. Chidester (GARYC@cc.snow.edu) wrote: > I read an article the other day about BBS via satellite and how it > would be cheaper because there would be no long distance charges > accrued. How is this possible? I can see how you could receive > information via satellite, but unless there is two-way communication > how can you request the information you want? Is there somewhere that > I can get more information? You may have read an article about the newest generation of ham-radio, packet radio, low orbit satellites. PacSat's as they are called by ham radio operators. These statellites are very small lightweight satellites that are usually launched by piggybacking them for a ride on a commercial payload. They usually contain packet radio store-and- forward BBS's. Ham's around the world can place messages in the RAM of the satellite by radio (and expensive radios, at that!) and others can retrieve them on the other side of the globe. For more info, check the ham-radio newsgroups for messages about AMSAT, PacSat, and Packet radio. Regards, Nate Duehr nduehr@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: rjones@coho.halcyon.com (Ry Jones) Subject: Re: Can ANI be Blocked From Call Recipient? Date: 8 Jun 1994 20:40:58 GMT Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. keith.knipschild@asb.com wrote: > Is it true that you can have your local telephone company BLOCK ANI, > So that when you call a 800 number they can't know who you are? > I am not talking about Caller ID. I know the difference. To which our Esteemed Moderator replied: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No it is not true. You cannot prevent the > person or company paying for your call from knowing who called. And why > would you want to force someone else to pay for your call while you > remained anonymous? If you don't see any problem with it, I have a few > calls here I need to make that I will have billed to you under the > condition telco promises not to reveal my name or number to you. PAT] Pat, Wrong. You are so dead wrong it is not even funny. To defeat ANI (everyone, now, try this, it works all over the US but your milage may vary) have your 0 operator dial 1 800 THN HAHA. (800 ANI demo). If you get your number read back, ok, it passed ANI. However, people all over the US report that ANI fails (returns the ANI of the operator) when you have the 0 operator dial it. Also, try having your 0 operator dial 1 800 COLLECT or OPERATOR or whatever. The service will generate an intercept and the operator will ask for the number you're calling from. Works for me all the time. Ry rjones@halcyon.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But you are discussing a technical and/or logistics problem. Things are *not supposed* to happen the way you describe. When placing an 800 call through the operator, your number is *supposed* to appear on the operator's console and be passed the same as usual. If your number does not appear on the operator's console then she is *supposed* to inquire about your number and bubble it in in the process of releasing the call. I think if you zero plus the 800 number it will appear on the console and in further billing records. If you simply dial zero, and pass the number verbally, she is supposed to refer you to the double-zero (or long distance carrier's) operator. Now granted, many operators do not bother to follow the rules on this. They are supposed to handle it the same way they (are supposed to) handle calls to 911 placed through the operator: take the caller's number -- if it is not already in the system for some reason -- and pass it along. For instance with 911, the operator is supposed to stay on the line until 911 answers and pass the calling party's number so the 911 dispatcher can key it in manually. So I think when you are not receiving ANI as a result of a call being placed through the operator it is the exception rather than the rule. And I believe that when you do this, many times you *just think* the ANI is not getting passed when in fact the operator bubbles or forces it into the network without specifically telling you that is what she is doing. The general rule though is correct: if you call an 800 number in the normal and usual way, with 1+800+ then there are no secrets. By the way, will zero plussing an 800 number work in your location? One person said to me once that 0+800+ always went to intercept in his switch. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Personal 800 Number Availability Date: 8 Jun 1994 00:33:49 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc. Reply-To: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) In , gmccomb@netcom.com (Glenn McComb) writes: > I've been using AT&T's 800 Starter Line service... > I needed the portability primarily because AT&T wouldn't point my 800 > number without me giving them the street address where the phone is > located. Since I wanted my personal (800) number to point to my pager > company's voicemail number, I didn't know the street address, and > neither did the pager company! Yes, AT&T is very particular about knowing the physical service address of all 800 terminations. At one point, I had my 800 ReadyLine pointed to my cellular number, and the rep didn't know what to do when I told him that there was no physical address for the service. We settled for the address of the cellular MTSO. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the new 800 service discussed here yesterday called 'My Line' from Call America is going to become very popular given that it is the only one other than Cable and Wireless which offers call-forwarding, and to three different numbers at the same time at that (priority calls, routine calls, and no answer/busy transfer). For $8.50 per month and 25 cents per minute that is not a bad deal. If you using the outbound call option (dial into your personal 800 number then dial outbound at 25 cents per minute (after 55 cent first minute) it becomes an even better bargain. If you missed yesterday's message on this you can contact Steve Betterly at betterly.callamer.com for details and to sign up. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Barton.Bruce@camb.com Subject: Re: Best Way to Get Many (~50) Phone Lines? Organization: Digital Equipment Computer Users Society Date: 8 Jun 94 21:27:09 -0400 In article , stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters) writes: > Hi. I'm new to telecom things and need help. (Lots of it ...) > I'm becoming an Internet provider -- dialup PPP/SLIP, so I need a lot > of phone lines. NYNEX says it wants a ten-year contract (with a bond) > before it will install a lot of pairs to my house. > They will gladly sell me several T1s, but even though I'm less than a > mile from my CO, this is more than twice the cost per line ... without > even including costs of the equipment to demux the T1s. Further, they > tell me that all 24 lines on a T1 must be used for voice lines ... I > can't use any of them as 56k DDS local loops ... no tariff, they say. > (I forgot to ask about 3002 leased voice lines.) You DON'T want to mix these. Well you DO, but you want them to stay working. Technically, you CAN do it. Order their NRS service (you get to juggle your own DS0s in THEIR DACS!!!). Order the T1s from wherever to ALL terminate in the DACS based NRS service, and configure as you please. You just spent more money than you saved, probably. DON'T even dream of 3002 lines. USE DDS-II. Its the same price in NY for 2.4kb or 56kb with or without secondary channel. Get cute with a QUALITY DSU/CSU that has a scrambler, and you probably can run 64kb DDS on a line ordered as 56kb w/secondary. The scrambler prevents accidentally sending codes that loop the far end! But instead, don't be that cute. Just use innexpensive CSU/DSUs (the 56kb SYNC ones I use cost WAY less that $200 wholesale), and for a few $s more you can get ones that do 38.4kb on a 56kb sync line. Ones that do 57.6kb async on 56kb sync do cost more -- for a while at least. > NYNEX would be happier about stringing lots of pairs to a real office, > but I'd have to rent the office, so the costs actually work out sort > of similar unless the demux equipment is really expensive. How expensive > is it? What is it? Use quality equipment that you don't need to visit often. Rent rack space from Met Fiber. Get local dialtone and all your IXC connections from them. Basically ignore NYNEX -- didn't they just ask you to! Then show up at DPU hearing and say the state isn't doing a very slick job of regulating. Bring your reporter buddies from the local bar with you. Buy ASCEND's MAX box and **NO** modems. have your customers use ISDN to get to you:-) The MAX replaces the modem and terminal server and costs you ~$250 a port for 56/64kb digital service. No ISDN PRI? Just use T1 Flexpath DID trunks! Will probably limit you to 56kb and, if like here in MA, limit you to free residential access in 'voice' mode rather than 64kb in data mode (which costs even from the home by the minute). > NYNEX says I need a PBX. Do I really need one if I only want to tie > each line to a modem and/or terminal server? > Finally, what am I not asking that I should be? Ask whether Met Fiber or Teleport is selling local dial tone up there yet. They certainly ARE in NYC. Ask when NYNEX's next filing is with the DPU/PUC and where the public hearings are being held. Ask which elected officials Nynex has been hosting at tropical islands. (The {Boston Globe} caught our neighborhood state senator on one of their junkets). Ask which tariffs apply for ANYTHING they say that seems unreasonable. As an IAP, much of what your order (at least under the leased line stuff), can and should be ordered under FCC not DPU/PUC tariffs. DON'T order through NYNEX DROIDS. Find one of their 'authorised agents' (aka $profitable$ businesses started by former NYNEX brass 'retired' to making $S$S beyond regulatory or union clutches). Don't get me wrong! These **ARE** the folks you need! They are 'wired' into NYNEX, but are quite independant. We sell Internet access using Nynex frame relay, and DEFINITELY use an authorised agent. Get as far past the local business offices as you can. Get product management folks names. Use the 'executive-appeals' consumer complaint hotline Nynex offers. Join the just starting Internet trade association. And last but not least, don't totally give up on NYNEX. It is getting a LOT better. They are learning and adapting. There is some very good young blood in management. They old is slowly retiring. Find the right folks (not in the local business office!) and you can get excellent support without most of the hassles you are seeing. ------------------------------ From: atlas@newshost.pictel.com (Steve Atlas) Subject: Re: Cost of Caller ID in PA Organization: PictureTel Corporation Date: Wed, 8 Jun 1994 03:13:33 GMT In article gvaeth@netcom.com (Greg Vaeth at Jerrold Communications) writes: > An insert in my latest bill contained a notice that Bell Atlantic will > offer Caller ID in Pennsylvania in August. The cost for residential > customers is $6.50/month, business is $8.50. Call blocking and > anonymous call rejection are free. This charge seem outrageous > considering that the equipment to do it is already there, right? How > else does return call, repeat call and all that stuff work. How does > this rate compare to other states? That does seem a bit high. In the Boston area (NyNex) it's $4.95/month. Call blocking is free, but I don't think that anonymous call rejection is available. It's ironic that call waiting, call forwarding, three-way calling, and voice mail ("Call Answering" in NyNex-speak) are all available free (except for airtime charges) from Cellular One in this area. You can get a free-night-and-weekend plan for $29. I may throw away my home phone ;-). Unfortunately, Caller-ID is not available on cellular, although it doesn't seem as though it would be a major technical hurdle to provide it. Steve Atlas atlas@pictel.com ------------------------------ From: Lynne Gregg Subject: Re: Cellular in Emergencies Date: Wed, 08 Jun 94 16:35:00 PDT In response to harding@wombat.cig.mot.com (Thomas N. Harding) > Some systems can invoke emergency priority calling which prioritizes > fire and police calls. In an emergency, an emergency call is an emergency call. I'm unaware of any U.S. carrier's "prioritizing" calls. > As far as system stability goes I believe that cellular holds its > own in emergencies due to backup power systems which are not feasible > for distributed land line systems. San Francisco cellular service was > the only thing up after their big quake. You are correct, the L.A. Cellular system ran without a hiccup during the recent (big) quake. Cellular can be used to carry voice and data (as well as fax) communication during emergencies and ANY time wireline service is unavailable or inaccess- ible. Regards, Lynne ------------------------------ From: Mike Borsetti Subject: Re: Cellular in Emergencies Reply-To: mike.borsetti@bactc.com Date: Wed, 08 Jun 1994 12:50:21 PDT In TELECOM Digest V14 #268 harding@wombat.cig.mot.com (Thomas N. Harding) writes: > As far as system stability goes I believe that cellular holds its > own in emergencies due to backup power systems which are not feasible > for distributed land line systems. San Francisco cellular service was > the only thing up after their big quake. Correct. We spend quite a lot of money to guarantee that the system survives any major disaster as intact as possible. Besides power backup, we: * operate a backup microwave system to provide redundant double-feed to many cellsites; * perform maintenance on cellsites no longer in use, so that they can quickly be recomissioned in case of need; * operate a private SONET ring between switches to provide redundant interconnection; * configure the system so that we can operate even if a switch is lost; * have multiple redundant interconnection sites with PacBell's tandems and with IXCs; * have detailed emergency plans; Given the proven reliability of cellular, and our efforts in making sure that the system survives any major disaster, it would be very difficult for any telecom manager to justify NOT to have any cellular backup (for example using rack-mounted trunk-simulating cellular equipment in the PBX room). Mike.Borsetti@bactc.com Cellular One/San Francisco ++++ oO)) Digital Network ++++ ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #278 ******************************