TELECOM Digest Thu, 19 May 94 13:45:30 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 238 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Order on Interstate Caller-ID (Carl B. Page) Telecomworldwire Publisher Responds (Darren Ingram) Re: AT&T Major Billing Errors!! (Peter Corless) Re: 3270 Emulation (Wind (Steve Forrette) Re: Lexus Cellular Phones (John Gilbert) Re: "Howdy Mail"? Scrawl-Like Writing Device (Will Martin) Re: Footnote to A History of Underseas Cables (Ray Bruman) Re: History of Underseas Cables (David Ofsevit) Re: Government Regulates Number of Modem Redial Atttempts? (Alan Varney) Re: 'NNX' Area Codes? I Think 'NXX' is More Appropriate (Tony Harminc) Re: 'NNX' Area Codes? I Think 'NXX' is More Appropriate (Carl Moore) Re: Cellular Modems (Mike Borsetti) Re: Call For Hearings on Assured Public Access to Internet (C. McGuinness) Re: What Network Equipment is Needed to Set Up Access (A. Padgett Peterson) Re: Misdialed Numbers (Greg Abbott) 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: carlp@teleport.com (Carl B. Page) Subject: Re: FCC Order on Interstate Caller-ID Date: 19 May 1994 00:27:12 -0700 Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 >> We have already seen the question appear relating to "How do you know >> with per line blocking if it is toggled on or off ?" One answer would >> be star-six-seven on and "something else" off but the phone company only >> has 100 star numbers now. > True. Fortunately, some of them remain unassigned so it's a perfectly > workable solution. In particular, *82 seems to have been selected as the Unblock code if it is needed. Many of the 100 are assigned to stupid, rarely used, or unused applications. For example there are two codes to turn on and off CNID delivery. This is not a blocking option -- it is equivalent to unplugging your CNID display for a while. Since the telcos want to charge money to turn CNID on and off, it is unused as far as I know. Of course, just try getting your local teleco to tell you what *NN codes might be stupidly assigned. I had a lot of fun with US West on that one. How many people use any service is "confidential competitive inforformation". The real source of the reluctance is that they want to use the *NN codes for lucrative services, not a revenue neutral service like per-call unblocking. (arl carlp@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks Public Access UNIX and Internet in PDX at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 94 11:06 BST From: Darren Ingram Subject: Telecomworldwire Publisher Responds Reply-To: satnews@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: <9405180828.AA14816@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> > Subject: Re: Samples From Telecomworldwire - Part 1 > If this is the quality of detail that readers may expect, I would > suggest saving the 700 Pounds for something else. > See if you can find three errors of fact in the last sentence quoted. Telecomworldwire is designed as a management-brief overview and not a complex reporting tool for every event. The publication has to react to the news and of information which has been reported first, second or even third hand, using attributation as required. Perhaps the message was not Pro-American as much as it could have been . Anyway, our international readers and subscribers do not seem to share the same opinion as the writer. Our database revenues keep breaking targer predictions and our fax service is going very well. So we must be doing something right. Unfortunately TWW cannot, by definition, have the same extensive leadtimes as some magazines. And yes, at times, we can screw up, mix things up and the like --- all part of the fun of a pressurised timely wire-feed. > special subscription offer to the readers of Telecomworldwire and > send them a *free* subscription to this Digest. How's that for a > deal! :) Remember, TELECOM Digest is supported by the generous Nice try Pat! ------------------------------ From: pcorless@cisco.com (Peter Corless) Subject: Re: AT&T Major Billing Errors!! Date: 19 May 1994 12:25:59 GMT Organization: Cisco Systems Customer Service Patrick A. Townson (telecom@eecs.nwu.edu) wrote: > I think you may be coming down a little to hard on them demanding a written apology, etc. PAT] I second Steve Bracks's remarks on this issue. Getting poor customer service heaps on insult to injury. ( ... literally, if you are in the health care industry! ;-) Apology letters take only a little time to write, and only a stamp to mail. The biggest "cost" is in the emotional trauma of admitting that you could ever possibly have been in the wrong. Customer service today relies upon the empowerment of the person answering the phone to 1) be able to identify the problem and 2) solve the issue to the customer's satisfaction. If a customer feels completely disempowered by the process of lodging their complaint, then it is valid to escalate their issue to someone else who'll listen. A successful customer service transaction with AT&T might not necessarily have resulted in the customer "getting their way," but at least given the impression that their voice was heard. In this case, it seems that the transaction was completely unsuccessful for the customer. A kind reply might not fix the issue either, but again acknowledges the customer as a human being, and shows that AT&T cares about their individual residential users. Action taken to correct an issue at a point like this (taking a lose-lose situation to a win-win) is the kind of thing that service heroes try to do, and are the kind of experiences that win customers for life. To bounce back to the original issue -- misbillings -- if AT&T has problems getting billing done through the local carriers, then it is paramount that they identify the cause of the misbillings and take appropriate action. You would think that they'd *want* to know if customers are getting the great service "as seen on TV," and if not, why not? Otherwise they'll lose not just the customers that their new service plan was trying to attract, but they may also risk losing existing customers! (As many studies show, complaints travel faster than praise, and are often more believed as well!) BTW: Thank you Pat, for pointing out the possiblity of billing through the local carrier as the possible cause of the issue. Issue escalation to Usenet once again came to the rescue! I'll be interested to hear if and how the issue is ever resolved. (You see, I am an AT&T customer myself ... :-) Peter Corless Cisco Systems, Inc. Senior Customer Service Representative email: pcorless@cisco.com toll-free: (800) 553-NETS fax: (415) 903-5007 direct: (415) 903-8723 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think time and again the main reason for many/most of AT&T's billing errors comes as a result of billing through the local telcos. ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: 3270 Emulation (Wind Date: 19 May 1994 12:48:37 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc. Reply-To: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) In , Roger Fajman writes: >> I'm looking for a good Shareware 3270 Emulator for Windows. I do a >> great deal of work in the VAX/VMS environment and use WRQ's Reflection >> 2 for Windows, however, this is not suited for the IBM mainframe >> environment. If you know of any 3270 Emulators for Windows, could you >> please provide me with the information I need to obtain them. > P.S. - WRQ sells a version of Reflection with TN3270 capability. "Reflection 3270" is the product which does this. In addition to the base terminal emulation features, it supports file transfer, EEHLLAPI, DDE, OLE 2.0 Automation, and comes with a Visual Basic - like scripting language. It runs with our TCP/IP stack, or can use third-party Winsock- compliant stacks. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: johng@ecs.comm.mot.com (John Gilbert) Subject: Re: Lexus Cellular Phones Organization: Motorola, LMPS Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 12:45:49 -0500 From Motorola Cellular Service Bulletin #179 4/92 Motorola designs and manufactures cellular telephones for several OEM's. In such cases the OEM manufacturer has contracted Motorola to design a unique telephone system to fit their particular requirements. Standard Motorola equipment will not operate properly if installed into unique OEM cables. Motorola strongly discourages any attempt to install a standard Motorola cellular telephone into unique OEM cables. Custom features designed into OEM phones are not operaable with standard Motorola equipment, and standard Motorola telephones do not operate properly on OEM-designed cables. Motorola is under contract to OEM manufacturers in these cases and cannot provide technical details on equipment specially-designed for any customer, nor can Motorola sell unique OEM equipment directly to anyone other than the OEM under contract. Customers are urged to contact their car dealer for information on purchasing the unit which is designed for their application. John Gilbert johng@ecs.comm.mot.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 94 7:54:45 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Re: "Howdy Mail"? Scrawl-Like Writing Device >> Has anyone heard of a digital writing device presumably using >> lightpens or something equivalent, that has two "terminals" for >> people to use to communicate over the phone as if by writing? ... We used these here at this agency before we moved over to the then- advanced-technology Western Electric "Electronic Blackboard" for audio teleconferencing. (That was an actual blackboard in a metal frame/stand, about 4' X 5' or so, in which the blackboard area was a double-layer pressure sensitive region. As you wrote on it with chalk, the layers touched and sent a signal which was displayed on a video monitor at the remote site. It used modem-like tones for transmitting the data down the phone line. Erasing was neat -- in the absence of an eraser, cutting off a light-path between two sensors in the eraser tray caused the pressure on the board to be interpreted as an erasure instead of a solid line. Or you could hit a switch and just kill the whole video image at once.) This device went away when video teleconferencing came in. I wonder when WE last sold/leased these, or if they're still around? I just checked with our A/V person on the name of those earlier writing devices we used, and he says they were "Telenotes" -- he's pretty sure that was the name of the company, too, but I guess they could have been made by the previously-referenced "Telautograph" company and "Telenotes" might have been a model name. Anyone out there recall if these were competing brands or just company and model names? I never saw them in actual use -- by the time I got involved in our tele- conferencing work the Telenotes had been relegated to a box on the shelf in the back of the conference area ... they used ordinary ball-point pens writing on plain paper strips. The receiving box's pen was slaved to the sender's, whose writing motions were duplicated at the remote site. I have the vague recollection that there were separate sending and receiving units; the same device didn't switch back and forth from being a sender to being a receiver. In that case, I guess the conferences required two separate phone calls, one for each connection. Anyone recall if that is the case or if I'm wrong about that? (I also dimly recall acoustic-coupling muffs on them ...) I don't know if these could be set up so that multiple receivers could be slaved to a single master. It seems like that would be necessary in many circumstances. Will ------------------------------ From: rbruman@raynet.com (Ray Bruman) Subject: Re: Footnote to A History of Underseas Cables Date: 18 May 1994 22:18:18 GMT Organization: Raynet Corp, Menlo Park, CA Reply-To: rbruman@raynet.com In article 3@eecs.nwu.edu, haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (James H. Haynes) writes: > Another interesting facet of history, also from George Oslin's book, > is the relation between transatlantic cables and the U.S. purchase of > Alaska. > Other figures mentioned in connection with this event are Leo Tolstoy, > who was made a count in recognition of his work promoting telegraphy > in Russia, and a U.S. diplomat named George Kennan. Oslin doesn't say > so, but I would presume the latter is an ancestor of the living > diplomat with the same name. Yes, he is an ancestor, and he was only a 20-year old adventurer when he set out in 1864. In 1870 he published an amazing account of the trip: "Tent Life in Siberia." It was reissued in paperback about 5-10 years ago. Unfortunately it is by now out of print (according to the publisher) but my friend got hers through the Quality Paperback club and I hope to get a copy myself some day. As noted in the forward, it is so much like Mark Twain's "Roughing It" that you could jumble the titles and it would make sense. It is hair-raising, hilarious, and completely engrossing. Ray Bruman Raynet Corp. rbruman@raynet.com 415-688-2325 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 09:01:52 -0400 From: ofsevit@nac.lkg.dec.com Subject: Re: History of Underseas Cables I was surprised that in the excellent series of articles on telegraph and telephone cables there was no mention of Arthur C. Clarke's fine book "Voice Across the Sea" (Harper, 1958). I don't know whether it's in print anymore, but it is very well written and worth finding. It gives the full history of the early cables, and proceeds through early radio telephone connections through the first AT&T voice cables in the 1950s. David Ofsevit Digital Equipment Corp. (for identification only) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Perhaps our resident historian on these things, Don Kimberlin will respond to your comment. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alan.Leon.Varney@att.com Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 08:02:51 +0500 Subject: Re: Government Regulates Number of Modem Redial Atttempts? Organization: AT&T Network Systems In article mark@legend.akron.oh.us (Mark E Daniel) writes: > In article is written: > Do you have a limit on the number telephone IDs :) that you are allow > to block calls from? Or do they charge you on a byte-used deal? :) > Like I always say, I'd rather have a list of allowed numbers and > forget the rest. :) The latter capability is known as "computer access restriction" or some such title. Basically, it blocks calls unless from a small (say ten) set of numbers. Those not on the list can be forwarded to an alternate number or to a TELCo "not accepting calls from this number" announcement. The list sizes are small, each TELCo sets their own limit on size. They will never substitute for a large CPE-based screening system. On the other hand, the Call Block list can have "private" numbers added to it -- something CPE can't do. Al Varney ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 94 13:11:20 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: 'NNX' Area Codes? I Think 'NXX' is More Appropriate dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) wrote: > Speaking of NNX and NXX, is there a letter for the set {0,1}? I > haven't seen one used. If (strangely) there isn't a convention, how > about B for Bit, so old-style area codes are NBX? The letter Y has been used since the earliest days in this context. Old style numbers are NYX NNX-XXXX. They've always been in upper case, which is not in keeping with mathematical use. Tony H. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 94 12:03:31 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: Re: 'NNX' Area Codes? I Think 'NXX' is More Appropriate I am not 100% sure; I remember Z used for "0 or 1 only". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 00:34:53 PDT From: Mike Borsetti Subject: Re: Cellular Modems > Anyone out there with experience or recommendations regarding cellular > modems. Yes. As a matter of fact I am the author of a comprehensive yet brief informational paper on how to do data transmissions over cellular (AMPS) entitled -- very creatively -- "Primer on Transmitting Data over Cellular". It currently isn't available on the Internet, but I'd be glad to e-mail it to you on request. If you have a CompuServe account, you will find it posted in the Wireless Data library of the TELECOM forum. The primer contains a discussion of the modem protocols that work well over cellular and of the hardware needed to make it all work. It also lists phone numbers for all manufacturers (known to me) in the field. mike.borsetti@bactc.com Business Development Manager, Wireless Data Cellular One/San Francisco ------------------------------ From: marks!charles@jyacc.jyacc.com (Charles McGuinness) Date: Mon, 16 May 94 11:05:56 EDT Subject: Re: Call For Hearings on Assured Public Access to InterNet I hate to let politics intrude in a otherwise valuable discussion of the technical and business aspects of the telecommunications industry, but I find it hard to let the above referenced article pass by without commenting. The notion of "Assured Public Access to InterNet" strikes me as being pure BS. It seems more like this coalition wants to assure themselves of subsidized telecommunications in the future. On the other hand, I'm glad TELECOM Digest published the letter. Now I can write my representatives to tell them not to waste their time with the demands of this pompous coalition! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 94 08:21:28 -0400 From: padgett@tccslr.dnet.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson) Subject: Re: What Network Equipment is Needed to Set up Access Point > It sounds like you're about to get into the wonderful world of Unix. > The addresses we have on the internet don't seem to want to let people > telnet into our site. This is because we have a network with only DOS > machines on it. I have heard that we are going to have to get a Unix > box and a fully qualified domain name if we want to be fully on the 'net. We have a similiar situation but it is the result of a corporate firewall many miles from here that blocks inward FTP and TELNET. DOS has nothing to do with it. I have a nice little obsolete 386SX-16 in my office which is running three concurrent Novell DOS 7.0 TASKMGR sessions -- one FTP server, one SMTP server, and a DOS box in case I want to look at things or send E-Mail. The Ethernet package is FTP Software's PCTCP (lots o' plugs). Really just a matter of the right software, an IP address and being registered with a Domain Name Server (DNS). Nice thing about PCTCP is that it gives you the whole header and lets me experiment with features like Telnet 25 (do-it-yourself E-Mail) plus lots of other things that only a fanatic who uses both VAXen and 3090s would notice. Could do the same thing with Windoze I suppose, but TASKMGR, like DESQVIEW, has much less performance overhead on this machine and I'm just lazy. I have another 386DX-25 at home that can do the same thing and was built from the parts left over when I upgraded my main hobby machine to a 486 (at son's urging; 7th Guest ran too slow). Only cost was $39.95 mini tower case with power supply since old CGA monitor and other leftovers are just fine for the purpose. Originally, I set it up to examine E-Mail headers (you can't trust them) and capture entire packets (you can trust those but you have to know what you are looking at) after a friend was the subject of some viciously forged E-Mail but it has proved handy since. Warmly, Padgett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 10:28:22 CST From: "Greg Abbott" Reply-To: gabbott@uiuc.edu Subject: Re: Misdialed Numbers In message Wed, 18 May 94 02:43:08 CDT, telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) noted: > [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: > every day 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] Pat, you should have taken a few orders from the callers ... I bet they'd pay closer attention to what number they were dialing! GREG ABBOTT INTERNET: GABBOTT@UIUC.EDU 9-1-1 COORDINATOR COMPUSERVE: 76046,3107 VOICE: 217/333-4348 METCAD FAX: 217/384-7003 1905 E. MAIN ST. URBANA, IL 61801 PAGER: 800/222-6651 PIN # 9541 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A couple times when I was not distracted with my own work and was expecting such calls to arrive I did not take any orders but I did offer suggestions of my own for their dining pleasure. After all, it was the Diner's Club ... I'd answer and the ones who were listening at that point would respond angrily and hang up; they knew they had dialed wrong. For the ones who were not listening when I answered, their first question often as not was 'what kinda soup?' meaning what kind of soup do you have today? I grew quite creative in my responses, most of which cannot be printed in a family digest like this one. If they asked about the luncheon special, I had an answer for that also. Suffice to say my answers were often scatalogical in nature. Then about the same time -- late sixties -- my home phone number somehow wound up on a list of the names/phone numbers of janitors for some real estate company here. I'd get these calls at all hours from crabby tenants wanting to know such things as why wasn't there any heat in their apartment (my answer: for the rent you pay, you are not entitled to any hot water or heat in the winter); when would the garbage be taken away (my answer: if it were not for filthy pigs like you, there would not be so much garbage); or similar. That was only after three or four calls to the real estate company asking them to please correct the typographical error in their list. As I recall, John Higdon once said he had to take hotel reservations for quite awhile on his 800 number; other Digest readers have reported equally creative solutions to persistent wrong number callers. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #238 ******************************