TELECOM Digest Wed, 18 May 94 02:43:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 234 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telephone Number Syntax Question (Rich Greenberg) Re: Telephone Number Syntax Question (K. M. Peterson) Re: Telephone Number Syntax Question (Fred Goldstein) Re: Bellcore NANP Seminars Coming (Paul A. Lee) Re: Telecoms Training (Dave Ptasnik) Re: Cellular Privacy (Sam Spens Clason) Re: GSM and Airbags (Kaita Seikku) Re: Radio Frequency Interference on Residential (Dale R. Worley) Re: "Private" Message on CID Box (James Taranto) Re: Loop to Ground Start converters (Jay Hennigan) Re: Palestinian Country Code (Dik T. Winter) Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator? (Robert Bonomi) Re: New (Lame) Directory Assistance From GTE Mobilnet (David Josephson) Re: 800 Number Billback (Jonathan Loo) Re: 800 Number Billback (John R. Levine) Re: Reach Out and Pay Someone (Peter M. Weiss) Re: Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number (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. 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: richgr@netcom.com (Rich Greenberg) Subject: Re: Telephone Number Syntax Question Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 00:39:59 GMT In article shirriff@allspice.Berkeley. EDU (Ken Shirriff) writes: > It used to be that phone numbers had the syntax 123-456-7890 or (123) > 456-7890. Now I see lots of numbers of the form +1 123 456-7890. When > did this new trend occur, and what does the "+" signify? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The +1 indicates the country code for the > USA and Canada along with countries using the 809 area code. By coincidence > '1' is also the access code we dial when placing a long distance number, > but in this instance it represents the country code. PAT] Pat, you are correct as far as you went, but you only answered part of the question. The "+" in this context means "dial the international access code here". 01 or 011 here in country 1, 00 in some other countries. Rich Greenberg Work: ETi Solutions, Oceanside & L.A. CA 310-348-7677 N6LRT TinselTown, USA Play: richgr@netcom.com 310-649-0238 ------------------------------ From: kmp@tiac.net (K. M. Peterson) Subject: Re: Telephone Number Syntax Question Date: 17 May 1994 22:04:25 GMT Organization: KMPeterson/Boston In article shirriff@allspice.Berkeley. EDU (Ken Shirriff) writes: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The +1 indicates the country code for the > USA and Canada along with countries using the 809 area code. By coincidence > '1' is also the access code we dial when placing a long distance number, > but in this instance it represents the country code. PAT] Also, as I understand the recommendation (E.123), the "+" is the only punctuation permitted ... so, the number should really be +1 213 456 7890 (no hyphen). K. M. Peterson email: KMP@TIAC.NET phone: +1 617 731 6177 voice +1 617 730 5969 fax ------------------------------ From: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred Goldstein [k1io; FN42jk]) Subject: Re: Telephone Number Syntax Question Date: 17 May 1994 21:39:37 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA Reply-To: goldstein@carafe.enet.dec.com (Fred Goldstein [k1io; FN42jk]) In article , shirriff@allspice.Berkeley. EDU (Ken Shirriff) writes: > It used to be that phone numbers had the syntax 123-456-7890 or (123) > 456-7890. Now I see lots of numbers of the form +1 123 456-7890. When > did this new trend occur, and what does the "+" signify? It signifies "when dialing from another country, insert your local international direct dialing prefix, followed by this country code". Thus +1 when dialed from most European countries means "001", while from the US it means "1" (generally), and from some countries it could be practically anything, followed by a 1. Likewise +44 for calls to the UK, which from the US or Canada means "01144". Fred R. Goldstein goldstein@carafe.tay2.dec.com k1io or goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice:+1 508 952 3274 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 12:29:46 -0400 Subject: Re: Bellcore NANP Seminars Coming From: Paul A. Lee Organization: Woolworth Corporation Regarding the Bellcore NANP Information Series Seminars mentioned in TELECOM Digest V 14 #229: For those whose interest may be determined by the cost of the seminar, I quote from the Bellcore TEC brochure describing the seminar series: "The $765.00 fee includes all seminar materials, lunch on Day 1, and refreshments." Based on the locations and hotels cited in the brochure, I would expect a room charge of $100-$150 per night, in addition to the seminar and other costs. Paul A. Lee Voice 414 357-1409 Telecommunications Analyst FAX 414 357-1450 Woolworth Corporation CompuServe 70353,566 INTERNET ------------------------------ From: davep@u.washington.edu (Dave Ptasnik) Subject: Re: Telecoms Training Date: 17 May 1994 18:45:44 GMT Organization: University of Washington aa744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Andrew Hartridge) writes: > We are just about to expand into a new building and I find myself > faced with the problem of hooking up 1000 phone sets and many data > ports. I have not had any experience with doing a new installation. > I've always just had to make do with what I have inherited. Get some help. This does not sound like a project for a do-it-yourself'er . > Question: Are there any training organizations out there, or reference > materials on 'How to set up and configure telecomms systems' ... e.g. > pros and cons of different wiring closet configurations? Call 1-800 LIBRARY and ask for the current Teleconnect book catalog. It is chock full of just the kind of thing you will need, should you decide to proceed on your own. Dave Ptasnik davep@u.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: d92-sam@nada.kth.se (Sam Spens Clason) Subject: Re: Cellular Privacy Date: 17 May 1994 18:14:50 GMT Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden In article , Mike Borsetti, Cellular One/San Francisco writes: > Additionally, the TDMA digital standard supports encription, which > will be available sometime in the near future. Today's phones will > only need a simple reprogramming to take advantage of encryption. GSM has always been encrypted, setting up a call is based on encryption. Sam Spens Clason, Web ------------------------------ From: spk@proffa.cc.tut.fi (Kaita Seikku) Subject: Re: GSM and Airbags Date: 17 May 1994 12:46:04 GMT Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre David Breneman (daveb@jaws) wrote: > This story is indeed bogus. The only way ABS could "disable" the > brakes would be if it took out a wrench and unbolted the pedal. The > infamous unintended accelleration legend is entirely the result of [ bull cut ] C'mon, you should know better: when ever there's software, ther's a chance ... (which doesn't imply that this would have ever happened). Seikku internet : spk@proffa.cc.tut.fi answering machine->pager : +358 -43 498 0297 real life: Seikku P. Kaita phone (or FAX) : +358 -31 265 6865 visit at : Saastajankuja 4b32 TAMPERE On The Air : OH3NYB ^^ ^ ^ ..these four a's should have double dots above them, since they are front vowels (as in word 'that'). Isn't it a pity that in English the word GHOTI can be pronounced like word FISH. ------------------------------ From: drw@severi.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) Subject: Re: Radio Frequency Interference on Residential Line Date: 17 May 94 19:51:59 Organization: National Institute for Lameness, Cambridge, MA, USA In article bkobb@newsignals.com (Bennett Z. Kobb) writes: > The FCC has been very clear on its position about telephone interference. > The agency says that "filters cannot be relied upon to eliminate tele- > phone interference." Though I've had luck trying to get rid of interference on my line by using a filter. However, it was a strange sort of interference: It was only present when my modem was off-hook. It turns out that the problem was a strong local radio station was coupling RF into the line, which went into the modem (when it was off-hook), was *rectified into audio*, and sent back out the line. Really ugly. People have asked me about this before, and only now have I found the information I wanted to tell them: The filter I used was from K-COM. They have 1-line (RJ-11, $14.95) and 2-line (RJ-12, I think, 19.95) models. Their phone number is 216-325-2110. Dale Worley Dept. of Math., MIT drw@math.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: taranto@panix.com (James Taranto) Subject: Re: "Private" Message on CID Box Date: 18 May 1994 01:16:37 GMT Organization: The Bad Taranto In article , mwolf@marcie.wellesley.edu (MUR) wrote: > Some of the calls I receive from areas that don't yet have Caller ID > service are picked up by my CID boxes as "private" (blocked) rather > that "out-of-area", even though the calling parties haven't blocked > thier numbers. This will be a problem when I install a blocked call > rejecting CID box. Have others found this to happen? Solutions? From what I've been able to tell, calls form central offices that are Caller ID-ready but where Caller ID has not yet been activated come up "private." You might ask someone calling you from one of these areas to try dialing *67 first and see if his number comes up. If it still comes up "private," then there is probably no fix except to wait until Caller ID is online throughout your area -- but even then, when Caller ID goes nationwide, there will probably be central offices making the transition for a long time to come, so the blocking box might prove impracticable. Cheers, James Taranto taranto@panix.com ------------------------------ From: jay@coyote.rain.org (Jay Hennigan) Subject: Re: Loop to Ground Start Converters Date: 17 May 1994 15:50:42 -0700 Organization: Regional Access Information Network (RAIN) Our Illustrious Editor noted: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It has never been clear to me why, if a > person or company wants mostly ground-start lines with an occassional > line operating on a loop-start basis they simply do not order those > lines from telco in that fashion rather than going to the trouble of > purchasing equipment specifically to convert one to the other. After > all, isn't the default from telco loop-start lines? They certainly do > not charge any extra to send them from the CO that way. PAT] A common use for such items is power-failure phones. A company will have ground start lines installed for a PBX, but wants a backup phone to work in case the PBX fails. Emergency phones, elevator phones and alarm dialers designed for loop-start only need such a converter when used in an environment where the only phone service is ground-start and a station off of the PBX is not practical or desirable. Jay ------------------------------ From: Dik.Winter@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) Subject: Re: Palestinian Country Code Organization: CWI, Amsterdam Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 22:55:06 GMT In article goudreau@dg-rtp.dg.com (Bob Goudreau) writes: > (I can't find any listing for Gaza in the current Israel listing.) Gaza is 51. dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924098 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: dik@cwi.nl ------------------------------ From: bonomi@eecs.nwu.edu (Robert Bonomi) Subject: Re: What is a Synchronous Modem Eliminator? Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 23:37:21 GMT In article , Victoria Matho wrote: > Does anyone know what an SME or synchronous modem eliminator does?? I can't resist answering the question -exactly- as posed! so: Yes, I do. Now, for a -serious- explaination, A 'sync' data circuit is different from a standard 'async' serial circuit, in two ways -- 1) no start/stop 'framing bits', and 2) it doesn't operate at any specific 'baud rate' -- instead, a 'clock' signal is present on another wire, defining when the 'data' wire is to be sampled/driven. Now, the question rises, "where does this 'clock' signal come from. 'sync' devices may use "internal" (meaning -they- provide the clock) or "external" (meaning that it comes from an outside-the-box source) clocking. A normal serial circuit consists of a DTE at one end, and a DCE at the other. By convention, the DCE is the 'clock' source (i.e. DCE uses "internal" clocking, and the DTE uses 'external' clocking [from the DCE]). Side-note, there are -two- separate clocks, one for the data going in each direction. The DCE provides -both- signals. These contortions are necessary for those situations where the circuit is time-division- multiplexed into a higher-speed digital circuit -- when the data (each individual bit, that is) is assured of arriving at -exactly- the right time, it can be simply 'interleaved' into the composite data-stream, without need for buffering. Simplifies the h/w design considerably. SO, to connect to -sync- DTE together, you need, not only a 'null modem' (to invert the TX/RX and signaling leads), but -something- to supply the 'clock' to -both- DTE. *That* is a SME's function -- null-modem plus clock generator. Robert Bonomi ------------------------------ From: davidj@rahul.net (David Josephson) Subject: Re: New (Lame) Directory Assistance From GTE Mobilnet (Bay Area) Organization: a2i network Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 23:50:50 GMT In Henry Mensch writes: > Moral of the story: to use GTE's new gimmicky directory assistance dial 411 > or 555 1212 ... to get the real stuff dial *6543. Your mileage may vary, > especially outside the Bay Area. And Pat wrote, > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Henry, a question and a comment: exactly > what does this *6543 hook get you into? You said 'new, gimmicky directory > assistance' which leads me to wonder, did not GTE offer directory assist- > ance like any other telco until recently, i.e. 'new'?. Is the cellular > division of the company offering a new service and intercepting calls to > 411 or 555-1212 which formerly had gone to a full directory bureau and > providing some limited sub-set of the directory? Note that GTE Mobilnet has almost no connection with a GTE operating co. except the same corporate parent. Indeed they are intercepting calls to 411, offering, for sixty cents plus airtime, to flip through a paper phonebook and then connect you to the number without your having to dial it yourself. The oprs were so lame that they needed a supervisor to find the number for a newsstand at a hotel. Formerly 411 was just routed to normal telco 411 from a trunk in the subscriber's home area code; the DA opr had no idea it was a cell call. *6543 seems to do that, still, and probably carries the same 25 cent surcharge that it did before. David Josephson - Josephson Engineering - San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 14:20:15 -0400 From: Jonathan Subject: Re: 800 Number Billback Pat Townson wrote: > The 'way they can charge you for calling an 800 number' is the same > way AT&T can charge for it. For example you can call AT&T's 800 number > to put through a collect call to someone or to charge a call to your > credit card. Merely because you originated it via an 800 number does > not mean charges cannot be incurred for the call as a result. In the > case of the Information Providers who use an 800 number in this way, > *someone* in your firm called the 800 number and gave the answering > operator permission to place the charges on your line. > Although you can request a block on the line against future charges of > this sort, you cannot legally refuse to pay the charges already incurred > since tariffs plainly state you are responsible for the use of your > instruments. How does AT&T charge for 800 calls? Either they charge it to a credit card or to somebody who accepts the charges, but if you call 800 CALL-ATT then they do not normally allow you to charge the call to the number that you are on. They can charge collect and third-number calls because they are a telephone company. Most information providers are not operator services providers, and not even AT&T charges calls placed through its 800 number, to the originating number. Also, I do not understand that "you cannot legally refuse to pay the charges already incurred since tariffs plainly state your are responsible for the use of your instruments." Where in the tariffs does it state that there can be a charge ON YOUR TELEPHONE BILL for making calls TO an 800 number? I thought that the very idea of an 800 number is for calls to that number to be toll-free. Jonathan D. Loo [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are not being charged for the call to the 800 number. That part is free to you the caller with the recipient paying for the carriage. You are being charged for the return collect call the Information Provider makes to you, which the AOS operator asked if you would accept the charges for. Admittedly sometimes they do not bother to call back but simply continue the conversation with you on the same connection, but none the less the AOS operator at some point asked if you would accept the charges for the call; when accepted, it then is like any other collect call. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 May 94 11:14 EDT From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: 800 Number Billback Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge, Mass. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The 'way they can charge you for calling > an 800 number' is the same way AT&T can charge for it. ... > In the case of the Information Providers who use an 800 > number in this way, *someone* in your firm called the 800 number and > gave the answering operator permission to place the charges on your line. Aw, come on. Dollars to donuts these crooks put through a charge on every call that comes in to their 800 number, permission or no permission, and they never, ever make an actual collect callback. (Consider Kath Mulholland's frequent messages about these charges on trunks at UNH that can't even receive incoming calls.) Also, as was hashed out in Telecom a while ago, there's no reason to believe that the person making an 800 call, or any other kind of call, has the authority to charge anything at all other than that direct dialed outgoing call to the ANI number. Consider PBX trunks, for example. Any business that bills based on 800 ANI is basically committing fraud, and the sooner they're put out of business the better. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, jlevine@delphi.com, 1037498@mcimail.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, I am not sure I disagree with you John. They are sleaze from the beginning ... rotten to the core. But, they do (via their AOS) have the right to place collect calls at the rate charged for same by the AOS, and they do claim they can back up their authority for the collect call by documenting that someone at the 'called number' (although as pointed out they rarely return the call, they merely continue the conversation on the existing connection) accepted the charge and authorized the billing. Often times as Kath has pointed out, the person authorizing the charge had no authority to do so. This then gets down to the legal question of whether or not a company which normally requires purchase orders for all purchases is obligated to pay for a purchase made without authority (or purchase order) by an employee. Maybe they do, and maybe they don't. Under telco tariffs and tradition, verbal authorization for a collect call is the norm, and the AOS people -- unfortunatly I might add -- have full rights in this regard. I agree they should be put out of business however. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 16:03:26 EDT From: Peter M. Weiss Subject: Re: Reach Out and Pay Someone Organization: Penn State University In article , VANTEK@aol.com says: > AMERITECH GIVING MONEY TO PAY PHONE, CALLING CARD USERS > CHICAGO, May 10 /PRNewswire/ -- > Ameritech representatives will be incognito at hundreds of its ^^^^^^^^^ > publicly accessible pay phones on certain dates through the end of > July, on the prowl for the first person to make a coin call during > predetermined time periods. The lucky caller will be asked to scratch > off an instant-win ticket that will tell them how much they won. Any > of Ameritech's publicly accessible pay phones in the Midwest could be > selected. So you won't be able to tell them apart from the Shoulder Surfers? I'm not sure I'd want to interact with any one hanging out by a public phone. Thank you very little. Pete-Weiss@psu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 94 00:08:16 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: Need Criteria for Choosing a Phone Number Many years ago (and I wrote to the Digest then) my office and others had extensions of the form 66ab, and got a rash of calls intended for extensions of the form 6abc. A call intended for me from an AT&T office went to the wrong number for that reason. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I have also pointed out in the past, years ago when I worked at the credit card billing office my extension on the centrex system was 7265. The bar and grill downstairs where many employees went for lunch (or to idle away the afternoon hiding from their supervisor) had the phone number 726-5xxx. I could set my watch by it: everyday at 11:30 -- the start of the first lunch hour -- my phone would ring. I would answer; a voice on the other end would say 'damn' (or worse or more crude, depending on who) and click off. They were calling down- stairs to get their lunch order started and had forgotten to dial '9' for an outside line. Then at 12:30, the start of the second lunch hour, the process would be repeated with one or two more calls like that. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #234 ******************************