TELECOM Digest Mon, 4 Apr 94 10:40:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 161 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson CID Modem Inits and Result Codes (Cid Technologies) STU 3 Secure Phones (Mark Kelly) Centrex - Disaster Recovery and Remote Access (Keith Luca) Question About MIN and ESN (Sathyadev Uppala) Satellite Seminar on Convergence of Computing, Telecom and TV (R. Layman) AT&T Screws up, Over and Over (Scott D. Green) Telco MUX to Home? (Roger Marquis) Information Wanted on Univ of Florida, Gainesville (Steven Glinberg) Bornstein, Cooper & Associates (Jeffrey Bornstein) Information Wanted on ATM (Apurva Shrivastava) New Use of ANI (Rob Boudrie) Help! Big Problem With Phone Company (smolko@che.ncsu.edu) Last Laugh! Dennis the Menace (Carl Moore) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and GEnie. Subscriptions are available at no charge to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu * The Digest is compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson Associates of Skokie, Illinois USA. We provide telecom consultation services and long distance resale services including calling cards and 800 numbers. To reach us: Post Office Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690 or by phone at 708-329-0571 and fax at 708-329-0572. Email: ptownson@townson.com. ** 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 gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom. It has no connection with the unmoderated Usenet newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.tech whose mailing list "Telecom-Tech Digest" shares archives resources at lcs.mit.edu for the convenience of users. Please *DO NOT* cross post articles between the groups. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dreuben@netcom.com (Cid Technologies) Subject: CID Modem Inits and Result Codes Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 03:15:37 PDT I've recently been made aware that Caller ID decoding modems do NOT all use the same init string and/or now display the CID information on a terminal the same way. For example, I *thought* that the standard CID Init to enable Caller ID detection was: "AT#CID=1" (alternately you can use AT#CID=2 for the "raw data" output format). However, a ZyXEL modem user has told me that the Init string for him is something like "ATS40=4" (or something like that, ie, not the same as above). Moreover, I had come to believe that the standard output format for the CID data was as follows: TIME: 0900 DATE: 0401 NMBR: 6175551212 (I assume all modems with Rockwell chips look like this ... am I correct in this assumption?) However, it seems the ZyXEL outputs the info differently, and this doesn't even take into account Canadian CID or CNID (with the name somewhere in the string). So, if anyone has a Caller ID modem whose Init string is different from "AT#CID=1" to enable Caller ID detection, and/or whose output string differs from the above example (including people with CNID and CID in Canada), could you please drop me a note with what Init string you use, or a copy of a typical CID output from a call? (You don't need to use real numbers or anything, just so I'll know what the format looks like ...) Thanks in advance for any help! Doug dreuben@netcom.com (Since there will hopefully be a number of responses, please reply to netcom instead of my usual Wesleyan address - thanks!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 16:23:23 EDT From: Mark Kelly Subject: STU 3 Secure Phones Can anyone point me to (or provide me with) information about STU 3 phones. Based on a brief conversation I had with a potential customer, I believe it is a portable phone that can be plugged into an standard telephone jack to allow secure (scrambled) telephone calls. The customer asked me if he could hold multi-party conference calls using the STU phone through our service. We have direct T1 feeds from our local telco into our digial conference bridge. DSPs in the bridge mix the voice signals to do multi-point conferencing. I suspect that the STU phone scrambles the voice signal and the DSPs will just end up mixing a bunch of garbage. If this is true, does anyone know of H/W that can be connected to T1s to unscramble the incoming voice before it hits the conference bridge and then rescramble it on its way back out the T1. E-mail to mkelly@resudox.net would be appreciated. Thanks. Mark Kelly Advanced Multi-Point Conferencing Kanata, Ontario, Canada ------------------------------ From: kluca@pipeline.com (Keith Luca) Subject: Centrex - Disaster Recovery and Remote Access Date: 3 Apr 1994 10:57:01 -0400 Organization: The Pipeline My company has recently switched to NYNEX Intelepath Centrex service. We were given several disaster recovery options which were all very expensive. If you use Intelepath or any other Centrex service, preferably on an AT&T 5ESS switch, what kind of offsite disaster recovery plan are you using? Also, I would like to provide my users with remote access to the switch but I'm very concered about the security issue. I have not initiated this with NYNEX yet, but would appreciate any comments about opening up you switch. ------------------------------ From: sathya@uw-isdl.ee.washington.edu (Sathyadev Uppala) Subject: Question About MIN and ESN Date: 3 Apr 1994 22:53:10 GMT Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle What is the difference between MIN and ESN? Each mobile unit in a celllular system has a unique ESN, so what is the need to have a MIN? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 08:46:38 EDT From: Richard Layman Subject: Satellite Seminar on Convergence of Computing, Telecom and TV The Public Broadcasting Service's Adult Learning Satellite Service/The Business Channel, the Computer Television Network, and the Data Processing Management Association have joined together to produce a series of programs on information technology (IT) and telecommunications. {NetworkWorld} magazine is a promotional sponsor. (Previous programs in this year's series were "Deploying New Computer Technology Successfully" and "Solving Local and Wide Area Network Challenges.") "Bandwidth and Public Policy: The Data Highway Debate and Its Impact on Businesses" (4/14/94 - two hours) covers the convergence of television, computing, and telecommunications, and explores what this may mean for organizations. It features Robert Heldman, director of technical strategies for US WEST and author of {Future Telecommunications}, {Information Telecommunications}, and {Global Telecommunications} all published by McGraw-Hill and Richard Wiley, former chair of the Federal Communications Commission and the leading telecommunications attorney in Washington, D.C. The program features filmed Q&A with George Gilder, one of the leading "futurists" about convergence, and author of {Life After Television} and {Microcosm}. It will also feature filmed pieces with VP Gore, Rep. Rick Boucher of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, and others. Mr. Heldman is well-known in the telephone industry for trying to figure out what their future may be -- his normal audience is made up of the presidents of the local telephone companies. Mr. Wiley will discuss how the federal government and regulation will respond to bring that future about. George Gilder has provocative ideas about how the computing industry will be in the drivers seat -- and how the laws of the microcosm and telecosm are driving much faster than 55 mph! (He has other provocative ideas too! -- for example, that cable companies and telephone companies ought to be able to work together TODAY, even in monopolistic situations, provided there are no barriers to unaffiliated content-providers.) Audience/Objectives: Everyone is talking about "video-on-demand" and the information highway. Most of the discussion has focused on the home consumer. This program focuses on the "enterprise" -- be it a profit-making or non-profit organization. The target audience is IT and telecommunications managers. How to receive this program: This program is distributed by the Public Broadcasting Service's Adult Learning Satellite Service, by satellite, direct to a site equipped with satellite-receive (TVRO) equipment. The license fee is based on the type of organization receiving the program. Affiliates of PBS-ALSS and Data Processing Management Association chapters pay $175. Other nonprofits pay $275. Businesses are charged $375. University Downlink Tips: Many of the college and universities that license the ITS programs do so through a continuing education division. (This may be in collaboration with a local chapter of the Data Processing Management Association and/or computing departments within the university, or with academic or administrative computing divisions.) Most charge non- University attendees a fee for the seminar. You may wish to explore this as a way to keep costs down. Downlink Tips for Businesses and other organizations: If your organization doesn't have satellite-receive equipment it is possible to identify a site in your area which does (colleges, PBS television stations, and K-12 school districts, etc., to name a few). PBS account representatives can provide suggestions about sites in your area. It is also possible that there is a site within your community which has already licensed the program, and is making it available to others within your area. We can help you identify such sites as well (send an e-mail request to rllayman@netcom.com). For More Information: For questions about downlinking, licensing, etc., please contact PBS's Adult Learning Satellite Service at 1-800-257-2578 or by fax at 1-703-739-8495. You may also send additional queries by e-mail to: rllayman@netcom.com Thank you for your time and interest. Richard Layman Marketing Director Computer Television Network East Coast Office 825 6th St. N.E. Washington, DC 20002-4325 202-544-5722 (voice) 202-543-6730 (fax) rllayman@netcom.com (email) ------------------------------ From: green@whrepro1.wharton.upenn.edu (Scott D. Green) Subject: AT&T Screws up, Over and Over Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 16:36:40 Here's a tale of AT&T Corporate Card/ProWATS hell that I've been going thru since 11/93. I share it with you to see if there are other battle-scarred veterans out there. My company, thru the Travel office and Telecom, got AT&T calling cards hooked up with our AMEX statements to provide single-statement "convenience" for submitting vouchers for reimbursement. Our rate schedule is on some sort of ProWATS plan, and provides a 10% discount of the total. So I get my 11/93 statement with a few calls between TX and PA listed. They were all made during night or weekend periods, yet the Rate Code listed is E(vening) or U (no rate - pretty strange for domestic calls). I also notice that calls made between the same CO's during the same rate period were costed differently: three one-minute calls at $.90, $.96, and $1.00. I call their "customer service" line and, shockingly, my next statement appears with a total of $5.43 in credit, against original charges of $10.13! Unfortunately on that (12/93) statement, I also had a bunch of new calls, but our AT&T/ProWATS page turned into an AT&T/Corporate page, and didn't have our 10% discount. So another round with customer service, only this time it has to go to the Corporate Card Center in Charleston, WV. Turns out that the entire university was billed incorrectly. They admitted it. Of course, most folks who use calling cards, and get reimbursed, have no incentive at all to analyze their charges and/or discounts, so this is pretty much a ripoff, even though AT&T pledged to credit back the differences. So the next statement (1/94) comes in, with no adjustments. AT&T said that they're still working on it. 2/94 rolls in, and AT&T's fix was to credit back every call from 12/93, and then re-bill it. This one is pretty interesting, because virtually all the calls were re-billed at a higher rate (under ProWATS) than under "Corporate", *even after the 10% discount*. And on top of that, there are several pairs of identical calls (CO's, rate period, length) that are again billed inconsistently. First thing I do here is call AMEX and explain to them that I have a dispute with a vendor (AT&T) and would they kindly not mark my account delinquent while this is being resolved. AMEX says they can't do that, I have to call AT&T. OK, I've got to call them anyway. :) AT&T can't explain to me the billing inconsistencies; they can't even tell me what the calling card surcharge is for the calls! What follows is a long series of phone calls to the Corporate Card Center, our local AT&T AE, and the folks at this university in Travel and Telecom, who are supposed to be watchdogging their vendor. It was a frustrating month, because most of it was spent trying to convince the aforementioned Bozos of the existence of a problem. The kicker came on my 3/94 statement. I had one new call listed, placed on a Saturday afternoon. The rate code listed was E(vening). Honest. And, AMEX placed a polite "your account is delinquent" message on my statement. Another round of calls to my new-found extended family: AMEX still says they can't deal with the AT&T dispute (why not? they handle it with every other vendor whose charges appear on their statement); AT&T said I need to contact AMEX about the dispute. AT&T finally got the three of us on a conference call to fix that. My "personal" AT&T CSR tried to foist some of the blame onto *their* "billing vendor," Cincinatti Bell. So, while we're waiting for corrected charges, the university is finally wondering how much we got ripped off for, and whether this program is really worth it. Meanwhile, AT&T, which has presumably been in the business of providing toll-call service longer than anybody, has not provided me an accurate billing since November, for calls made in October. That's six months, with no resolution in sight. How the mighty have fallen ... ------------------------------ From: marquis@netcom.com (Roger Marquis) Subject: Telco MUX to Home? Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 01:37:19 GMT When Pac Bell recently installed a second line into my (1940s) apartment building they didn't run any new wire but instead installed a new demark/ junction box. When I opened this box to connect my second line I was surprised to find only the one original line going in, and _two_ lines coming out! Could it be my lines are MUXed to the local switch? I've tested the quality of both lines by making a voice call on one and a data call on the other (while executing 'sz /dev/zero' at 14.4+) without finding any measurable degradation. The alleged MUX measures 2*3*3 in. and is fully sealed except for the contacts. Does anyone know what I have here? Roger Marquis ------------------------------ From: sjg@cs.wisc.edu (Steven Glinberg) Subject: Information Wanted on Univ of Florida, Gainesville Date: 3 Apr 1994 22:57:58 GMT Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Sorry for the intrusion, but I was wondering if anyone could email input on the University of Florida, in Gainesville. I read this group all the time and I figured I could reach a lot of people quickly this way. I have an opportunity to study there this summer, particularly in the psych dept, and I would like input from anyone who studied/lived there, to help me make my decision. (what the campus is like, how big the school is, how close the campus is to the real world, about the city, Gainesville, anything about the campus would be helpful) I will be unable to read this newsgroup this week, but I will have access to my email, so please email any responses to sjg@yar.cs.wisc.edu Thanks much for your help. Steve Glinberg E mail: BEST ADDRESS sjg@yar.cs.wisc.edu 2nd best address glinberg@students.wisc.edu 3rd best glinberg@macc.wisc.edu ------------------------------ From: nteractive@aol.com Date: Sun, 03 Apr 94 20:10:12 EDT Subject: Bornstein, Cooper & Associates BORNSTEIN, COOPER & ASSOCIATES functions as a Broker and "Clearing House" for Agents and Marketing Companies that are already active, or wish to become involved in the RESALE OF LONG DISTANCE SERVICES, PRODUCTS, AND ANCILLARY ITEMS. BC&A Principals have been active in the Telecommunications Industry for over 40 years! Our Support Staff is located in all geographic areas of the United States. BC&A represents only reputable and proven PROVIDERS, RESELLERS, AND CARRIERS who in most cases, are members of TRA (Telecommunications Resellers Association). However, in all instances, each has been carefully screened and researched by our company, it's legal staff, and Dun & Bradstreet. BC&A CONTRACTS Agents and Marketing Companies DIRECTLY with the Providers, Resellers and Carriers that we represent. There are NO "MIDDLEMEN" involved with you and your COMMISSIONS! However, we are licensed to discuss all contractual issues so that you can achieve a proper match and fit. Nondisclosure Forms ARE NOT REQUIRED, since BC&A guarantees you can not secure a better deal, even if you negotiate directly with our service providers. If you are involved in Long Distance and desire: higher commissions, better and more accurate reporting, and a safer environment to market in, or ... if you are simply excited about becoming a part of a growing ($60 BILLION MARKET) and dynamic industry ... look to the experience and expertise of BC&A. Our PRODUCT LINE consists of the following: * OUTBOUND & INBOUND: AT&T, SPRINT, WILTEL, ALLNET, LDDS-METROMEDIA, LCI & WCT * DEDICATED (T-1) ACCESS * CALLING CARDS * DEBIT (PREPAID) CALLING CARDS * INTERNATIONAL CALLBACK * OTHER SMALL BUSINESS DISCOUNT PRODUCTS & SERVICES * QUALIFIED CUSTOMER/END-USER LEADS For more information, please contact Jeffrey Bornstein (nteractive@aol.com) or feel free to FAX/write or call for more information: Jeffrey Bornstein BORNSTEIN, COOPER & ASSOCIATES 1001 Village Road Orwigsburg, PA 17961 (800) 754-4411 (717) 366-1699 (717) 366-1827 FAX Jeff Bornstein Bornstein, Cooper & Associates nteractive@aol.com ------------------------------ From: ashrivas@st6000.sct.edu (Apurva Shrivastava) Subject: Information Wanted on ATM Date: Sun, 3 Apr 94 22:26:29 EDT People, I am looking for material on doing my thesis on routing problems in ATM as this this is an open issue. It has been suggested by my guide, Dr. Doreen Erickson, to ask companies like Bellcore etc for material and also volunteer to do research on their behalf. Of course all confidentiality papers etc. would be signed by the entire committee. I have knocked one door after another but have been very unsuccessful as yet. (My confidence level seems to be decaying exponentially). All articles and material that I have read seem to say 'ROUTING IS AN OPEN ISSUE', but nobody elaborates (proprietory problems?). I know that this forum is very well and widely subscribed to and hence would like to take the great opportunity offered by this medium to request for help from all sympathetic souls. ADVthanksANCE, Apurva ------------------------------ From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) Subject: New Use of ANI Date: 4 Apr 1994 06:37:38 GMT Organization: Ctr for High Performance Computing, Marlboro Ma. Reply-To: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) 800-WHY-GUNS is an 800 number set up by a gun control proponent to accumulate messages from people wanting to recieve literature on their cause. Interesting points : - Some users report that the message changes after the third call from the same number, stating that calls from a single number are limited to three because of harassment from opponents [note: I wonder if they still pay for a call to their computers to identify the caller and leave this message?] - The voice repsonse unit appears to do some checking on the zip code spoken into the system -- it replies invalid entry if you read in a nine digit zip (with a spoken dash in it). Robert Boudrie Center for High Performance Computing rboudrie@chpc.org 293 Boston Post Rd West (508) 624-7400 x635 Marlboro, MA 01752 ------------------------------ From: smolko@che.ncsu.edu Subject: HELP! Big Problem With Phone Company Date: 4 Apr 1994 02:21:40 -0600 Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway I have a big problem with the phone company, and I'm not sure how to deal with it. This "friend" of mine who lives at the university is forced to use a single long-distance carrier that charges top dollar for long- distance calls. Somehow he got MCI to set up an account that would allow him to make calls on my phone, using a special code, and have the bill for the calls sent to his address. This seemed rather unusual and so I called MCI to inquire about it. I was told that this is not really unusual and that I would not be responsible for the charges if this guy doesn't pay the bills. The impression I was given was that the special code that he would use is something like a calling card. That being the case, I told him he could use my phone. For several months he has been using this arrangement with MCI to make numerous, lengthy calls to a foreign country (he is not a U.S. citizen). However, on my latest phone bill there was listed nearly $700 worth of calls that this guy made using my phone. When I called MCI to try to rectify the situation I was told that his account had been closed by the fraud department. Apparently, he racked up between $3000 and $4000 worth of charges on that account, paid some of it, and then disputed the rest of the charges. I was told by MCI that I am responsible for the $700 bill since this guy used the phone with my permission. I was also told that they will probably come after me for the other charges as well. Apparently, they may try to use the same excuse -- that he used the phone with my permission. However, as I see it, there's a big difference between "Can I make a toll call on your phone?" and "Can I make a toll call on your phone and have it charged to my account?". What are my legal responsibilities in a situation like this? What is the best way to handle this predicament? I suppose I'll have to try to collect the $700 from this guy so I can pay my recent phone bill. As for the other charges, I guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens. Unfortunately, I don't expect it to be easy to get any money from this guy. I'll probably have to put a lot of pressure on him, and even then I may never collect a penny. I hope someone out there can provide me with some helpful advice, as this whole thing is starting to make me feel rather ill. Dan smolko@che.ncsu.edu [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The long-standing rule in telephony has always been that each subscriber is responsible for the (physical) use of his instruments. That is, if someone uses your phone with your per- mission, then telco will as a courtesy attempt to bill the call however the party wants; but as a worst-case scenario, if the billing falls through then it comes back to the subscriber as a last recourse. The called party could agree to accept your collect call for example, and if later they change their mind, you get billed. When you, or someone you allow uses your phone, the tariff says you agree -- if no other billing is workable (third party, collect, credit card, whatever) to pay. If your phone is used, billing and collection is your problem. Now in your case, there seems to be no physical use of your phone, thus no liability on your part in that way. However, there is a credit issue involved: did you agree to allow your credit standing with telco to be used as the basis for an extension of credit to your friend? If the answer is yes, that you told telco they could rely upon you for payment of your friend's bills, then indeed you are now responsible for payment. Consider it like co-signing a note for an automobile purchase or any other credit purchase. On his own merits, he could not get credit, but you agreed to help, and as a good customer, telco accepted your guarentee. As 'they' say, now it is payback time. But did you really give this guarentee or permission to telco? Your first paragraph seems to imply otherwise. You say he 'somehow' got MCI to set up a credit account using your phone number as the basis for credit. Were you aware that he got MCI to make these arrangements prior to him making them? If so, then now this is your problem. You say you called MCI and were told this was not 'unusual'. No, it is not; telcos will issue credit cards to 'friends' or roomates or whatever, but they do it on the basis of someone, somewhere having a good credit standing and agreeing to pay. Your account with the local telco sufficed for this purpose. You say you were told by the MCI rep (orally I am sure, not in writing) that you would not be responsible for charges. That amounts to the same thing as a used-car salesman telling you that if you co-sign for some kid to buy a car, you won't be held responsible if the kid defaults on the payments ... of course you will be responsible! And needless to say, MCI will deny ever making such a statement in the first place; maybe they did and maybe they didn't. They'll help chase him, but its your problem. Most likely if you do not pay, one of two things will happen. If the charges are billed to you via your local telco, then failing to pay, you will get cut until you do. Telco may require a deposit to turn you back on. If the charges were billed direct by MCI on a separate statement, then if you fail to pay MCI will place you with an agency and probably auth- orize the agency to sue you. If at that point you can convince MCI or the court that you did not initially know of the billing arrangements and that the guarentee was not authorized by you, then you will be off the hook. If you knew about the arrangement from its onset, it is unlikely the court will accept your word that MCI told you 'that you would not be responsible if party did not pay ...'. If you can convince the court (should you get sued, although MCI may simply write you off as a bad debt) that you did not initially know of the arrangements; that they were made without your knowledge or permission and that you attempted to void the arrangements, then you will get off the hook. The catch is, what did you know and how soon did you know it and what efforts did you take to mitigate creditor's losses and your own? Only you and your friend know the answer to that, and should this go to the wall, a judge will decide who owes what. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Apr 94 7:53:07 EST From: Carl Moore Subject: Last Laugh! Dennis the Menace I have just seen an episode of the "Dennis the Menace" TV series, made in 1959. It always opens with some mischievous incident; this morning, Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell were saying how someone "fixed" their phone so they could dial long distance without having to go through an operator, and Dennis then talks about dialing and hearing the ringing sound (he used nonsense syllables to describe it) and saying that "Aunt ___ was surprised to hear my voice". At that, Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell have astonished looks; left unspoken is "Dennis, did YOU make a long distance call?". (In case anyone is interested, Dennis was played by Jay North; Henry and Alice Mitchell, his parents, by Herbert Anderson and Gloria Henry; Mr. Wilson, by Joseph Kearns. It was based on Hank Ketcham's comic strip.) That reminds me that the Nancy comic strip had Aunt Fritzie holding a $98 phone bill and saying "NANCY, DID YOU MAKE ANY LONG DISTANCE CALLS?". ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #161 ****************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------