TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Jun 94 02:42:00 CDT Volume 14 : Issue 292 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: x.25 and Internet (Lars Poulsen) Re: More Sneaky MCI Marketing (Ry Jones) Re: More Sneaky MCI Marketing (defantom@aol.com) Re: Does MCI Have Answer Supervision? (Bob Schwartz) Re: Answering Machine Recommendations Wanted (Mark E. Daniel) Re: Centrex - Good/Bad? (rkprkp@aol.com) Re: CellularOne/Detroit Announces Rate Change (Matthew Scott Weisberg) Re: How to Get White Pages Data From GTE? (Steven Bradley) Re: Calling Card Suggestion (Gordon Burditt) Re: Four-wire to Five-wire Adapter to Use US Modem in England? (M McCrohan) Re: Privacy on Rolm Switch (Kevin Mayeux) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 00:43:42 +0200 From: lars@eskimo.CPH.RNS.COM (Lars Poulsen) Subject: Re: x.25 and Internet Organization: CMC Network Products, Copenhagen DENMARK In article of TELECOM Digest, Min Hu writes: > I am wondering if there is any free gateway between X.25 network and > Internet. Specifically speaking, a friend of mine has account in the > X.25 network -- DATAPAC, a X.25 network in Canada. I have an account > on an Internet machine. I want to transfer some files to him, but do > not know if there is a gateway between DATAPAC and the Internet so > that he can log into my system. The relationship between X.25 networks and the Internet are rather complex. The technologies overlap and intertwine in ways that make the question less obvious to us insiders than to the questioner. With the moderator's permission, I will take this opportunity to ramble a little about these relationships. X.25 is a protocol description for an interface between a (multi-user) computer system, and a network switch, allowing multiple independent sessions between the computer system and one or more other computer systems on the same network, or on another, similar network connected with the first through gateways (implemented according to the X.75 specification). Using the X.25 and X.75 specifications, a true internet (in the sense of a network of interconnected networks providing service between clients on different nets) was quickly established around the world on the 1978-1985 time frame. But what most people are referring to, when they talk about X.25 network access, is something else, technically called the PAD (Packet Assembly and Disassembly) function. One of the most common functions in any multiuser system is the establishment of a session for an interactive user at a terminal. Various computer manufacturers had come up with unique terminals that could only be used with computers from that manufacturer, but with the slow and steady spread of minicomputers, a less funtional, somewhat standardized class of asynchronous "ASCII" terminals became dominant in the market, and a set of adjuncts to X.25 (called X.3, X.28 and X.29) described how the sessions between such terminals and a networked computer system could be transported over X.25 connections in an interoperable way. Since the network transported packets, while the terminals dealt only with single characters, the interface function was defined as "the Packed Assembly and Disassembly function" and a specialized minicomputer that performed only this function was called a PAD (pronounced as a word). Many network operators installed such PADs equipped with a bank of dialup modems in conjunction with their packet switches, thereby allowing major customers operating centralized computer centers to use these modem banks as remote access points for their mainframe systems. About the same time as X.25 networks were being defined, it had become commonplace in the distributed computing environments of business, to share the use a single (modem) connection between multiple terminals using a concentrator device called a statistical multiplexer. This would allow the use of four to eight terminals running at 2400 bps over a single (leased) line running at 4800 bps. Or four to eight terminals running at 1200 bps over a dial-up line at 2400 bps. Such an arrangement would work quite well, by taking advantage of the ability to interleave traffic from one session in the pauses of another session. Thus the term "statistical" multiplexer: In the long run it evens out. So long as the same model of device was used at each end of the link, each manufacturer could -- and would -- use its own encoding scheme between them. It was a short leap to implement these multiplexers to use the X.29 protocol between them; this lowered the cost of PADs to the point where many companies built internal X.25 networks to carry their terminal traffic, which the added side benefit that they could simultaneously connect to the world-wide X.25 network. The Internet was being built at the same time, and as it was growing under the supervision of the US Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) it was decided that the initial host-computer interface (BBN-1822) was too expensive, because it was unique, it was decided to offer an X.25 interface as a connection option for hosts on ARPAnet and MILNET. During the critical period of growth between 1984 and 1986, hundreds of systems jointed the Internet; and most of the connections between the campus Local Area Networks, and the wide-area backbone were VAX-11/780 machines running Berkeley Unix and with an ACC ACP-6250 X.25 board installed. We watched with amusement as a few people from Stanford started a small company called Cisco which began building small machines that ONLY performed this interface function. The sites that were attached to the Internet, of course also had a need for dial-up access, but traditionally, they would use a different type of terminal server box: One that sported an Ethernet port on the back, instead of a synchronous modem connector. This would allow it to connect to any of the systems attached to the local area network, as well as to reach out to the whole Internet. Since most of the users were of the academic persuasion, when they were at work, they would be in an environment where they needed access the the local systems, and when they were travelling, they could usually borrow access from the people they were visiting. As the Internet spread outside the academic environment, and Internet based time-sharing computer centers like the WELL and the WORLD started to acquire a following outside of their local area, they too began linking up with the X.25 network operators to make use of the banks of PADs spread across the United States. Most of these access arrangements, however, are based on "collect calls" and the operator of the time-sharing system collects the network transport fee as a connect-time surcharge for sessions that come in over the X.25 network. So, with this background information in place, let us get back to the questions: > Is [there] any free gateway between X.25 network and Internet. No; very little in this world is free. However, it seems that your friend is in fact quite willing not only to pay for transport on the X.25 service, but also -- in some reasonable amount -- for the gateway function. One could hope that the X.25 operators would install a small set of X.29-to-Telnet protocol translator boxes. These are available from several vendors; you make an X.29 connection to them, and they prompt you for an Internet host name to connect to. You would do the world a favor if you could persuade DATAPAC to install one somewhere in their network. > I want to transfer some files to him, but do not know if there is > a gateway between DATAPAC and the Internet so that he can log into > my system. If this is something that happens often, the best solution is for your friend to open an account with one of the many Internet service operators that have connections to the X29/X.25 terminal access networks. From a place like Genie, WELL or WORLD, they can FTP and Telnet to your machine and then download to their own PC with Kermit or Zmodem. Lars Poulsen Internet E-mail: lars@RNS.COM Rockwell Network Systems Internets: designed and built while you wait Hvidovre Strandvej 72 B Phone: (011-) +45-31 49 81 08 DK-2650 Hvidovre, DENMARK Telefax: +45-31 49 83 08 or Santa Barbara, CA 93117, USA ...... Phone: +1-805-968-4262 ------------------------------ From: rjones@chinook.halcyon.com (Ry Jones) Subject: Re: More Sneaky MCI Marketing Date: 15 Jun 1994 19:32:38 GMT Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. T. Stephen Eggleston (nuance@access.digex.net) wrote: > MCI sent a "check" for 25.00, which when cashed switched my service. > Nothing unusual here, but they sent it to my teenage daughter. She > has NEVER had a phone in her name. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I doubt that MCI *knew* she is only a > child. I am sure there was a data entry error somewhere from some other > list where they obtained her name. PAT] My two year old son was offered the chance to switch his phone to MCI not to long ago. :) He did. Stupid but true: AT&T sent me a $35 check to switch back to them. The same day I was called and asked to switch. I had already deposited the check. I told the lady if she sent me a $50 check, like MCI does every other month, I would switch to them. Boom. AT&T cut me a $50 check to switch. So this month, on AT&T spendings of $0 and MCI LD of $135, AT&T gave me $85 to switch and MCI gave me $35 in free LD (for this billing period). So I only paid $15 for $135 in LD. This has been going on for some time; AT&T will send me either $35 cash and $15, $25, $35 in free ld OR $50 cash to switch, then MCI sends me $50 and $35 in free LD. Whee! rjones@halcyon.com ------------------------------ From: defantom@aol.com (DeFantom) Subject: Re: More Sneaky MCI Marketing Date: 15 Jun 1994 22:14:03 -0400 Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) In article , nuance@access.digex.net (T. Stephen Eggleston) writes: > She has NEVER had a phone! True, but has she ever subsribed to a magazine? MCI may, like other people who send ads in the mail, get names from a master list they have purchased from another company. I had a friend of mine who's DOG got a ton of junk mail when he, just for giggles, subscribed to TIME magazine in the DOG's name! defantom@aol.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Does MCI Have Answer Supervision? From: bob@bci.nbn.com (Bob Schwartz) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 12:46:03 PDT Organization: Bill Correctors, Inc., Marin County, California pjt@pelab.allied.com (Philip J. Tait) writes: > Summary: > Various people replied, with various viewpoints. An ex-MCI employee > said that MCI does have answer-supervision, whereas an "AT&T dweeb" > stated that only AT&T has it. One person claimed to have had a > substantial number of answer supervision failures with AT&T. > I plan to gather evidence of incorrectly-charged calls, and pursue the > matter. Ten years ago I made a living off of the lack of answer supervision. That was back when you could get credit for every one and two minute call on your OCC bill. I also supported the class actions back then. The problem that the FCC and the Cook County court had with the lack of answer supervision, as it related to billing for unanswered calls, was that the practice was not disclosed. The solution was in the fine print of the bill stuffers on page 4. It went something like this: "In order to avoid the possibility of being charged for unanswered calls, you may like to limit the amount of time a phone is allowed to ring before you disconnect". When Mr. Nader and I went on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather in an expose' on " The Long Distance Call that Goes Nowhere" the credits began to dry up. While the Bill Correctors decision ;) at the FCC said that IXC's must have refund policies on file I've never seen the file. It was *impossible to get* . Now, keep in mind that the only problem that the regulators and courts had with the lack of answer supervision, which allowed some IXC's to build their networks i.e. profits for expansion (IMHO), was the lack of disclosure. Also keep in mind that disclosure is now made. At any rate, when you *prove* this allegation go to your District attorney and Attorney General. You'll soon see if anyone cares enough to lift a finger. Good luck. Bob Schwartz bob@bci.nbn.com Bill Correctors, Inc. +1 415 488 9000 Marin County, California ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 17:34:53 EST From: mark@legend.akron.oh.us (Mark E Daniel) Subject: Re: Answering Machine Recommendations Wanted Regarding the Raido Shack answering machine which does TIME/DATE stap, that would be the Duophone TAD-450. It does VOX with a toggleable message length of thirty seconds or three minutes. Each message is stamped in the following way "Message 1. Five twenty-nine PM. Saturday June eleven." It will also destinguish between memos and two-way (conversation) recordings. It has remote access with a voice menu and a user selectable three digit code. The remote also has a room monitor. It uses leaderless tapes for the greeting and the largest one of these I've seen is three Min, which would give you a maximum length of one minute thirty seconds. Longer might be nicer for Answer Only mode. :) I suppose you could use a leaderless "message" tape in there. :) It will talk you through set-up when you plug it in. All you do is hit SET. It also has battery backup for message count, remote code, time etc. :) I believe it first appeared in 1988. It is far ahead of its time even today. :) You can tell it's old because the cord is hard-wired into it and you'll need to buy a two-in-one jack adapter from Raido Shack. But I've had several of these on my line and had no problem. :) Mark E Daniel (Loving SysOp of The Legend BBS) Inet: mark@legend.akron.oh.us medaniel@delphi.com (Direct INet) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes indeed, this is one of the better quality answering machines available today, even six years after its first appearance. Check it out at your local Radio Shack store. But I beg to differ with you on the tape length: a three minute Mobius Loop (or endless loop) tape will allow three minutes of recording time. I have used these when operating 'announcement lines' in the past. And the leader has to be on the tape when it is an endless loop since it is the contact of the metalic foil which makes up the 'leader' between the tape head and ground which shuts down the outgoing tape once it has played out (regardless of its length). When the leader gets dirty or loses its continuity that's when you'll occassionally have to sit through the outgoing announcement two (or three or four) times before it finally is able to trip the connection and shut itself off. Remember in the real old days of answering machines when you could purchase a little roll of the metalic foil and stick it carefully over the old leader which had worn out after several dozen cycles? PAT] ------------------------------ From: rkprkp@aol.com Subject: Re: Centrex - Good/Bad? Date: 16 Jun 1994 02:01:03 GMT Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) In article , dbryant@netcom.com (David K. Bryant) writes: > 1. ANYTHING is better than a Fujitsu 960. They may provide basic > voice services but it is a WEAK pbx when compared to Northern or AT&T. > 2. Centrex comes in many flavors. Analog Plexar is basically like a 1970's version of a PBX with only 2500 type (single line) station ports. Any enhanced voice services require key systems to be installed behind the centrex, and finding a good console is the pits. Also, data will be limited to analog modem speeds. A slightly better enhancement is to get Centrex off a DMS-100 switch. This allows you to use P-phones. These are programmable multi-button sets from Northern that work directly off the switch and provide comparable voice services to most PBXs. Even better, but more pricey, is ISDN centrex. This is good if you have voice and data requirements and can offer some good enhanced services. Other questions to ask: How will you handle voice mail, call accounting, system administration, and ACD (Automatic Call Distribution)? ------------------------------ From: moodyblu@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Matthew Scott Weisberg) Subject: Re: CellularOne/Detroit Announces Rate Change Date: 15 Jun 1994 22:34:43 -0400 Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI moodyblu@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Matthew Scott Weisberg) writes: > I wonder if Ameritech, the RBOC here and CellOne's competition here, > is doing the same thing? > Also, is this being done specifically because of people doing the "Call > Forwarding Scam?" In a followup to my own note ... There was an article in the Saturday, June 11th {Detroit News/Free Press} about how the cellular phone companies in Detroit are losing lots of money on the "Call Fowarding Scam." It stated that Ameritech will be charging for all forwarded calls by the minute before the end of the year. HOWEVER, unlike Cellular One which charges a fee just to have the call forwarding service, Ameritech WILL NOT charge a monthly fee for it. The article stated that people would make calls of two hours and more and Cell One would have to pay the local phone company by the minute for them! It sure was nice while it lasted! :) Matt Weisberg, CNE MILLIWAYS - Computer and Network Consulting PP-ASEL 21650 West Eleven Mile Road #202 Amateur Radio: KF8OH Southfield, MI 48076 Internet: moodyblu@umcc.umich.edu (810)350-0503 Fax:(810)350-0504 ------------------------------ From: steven@sgb.oau.org (Steven Bradley) Subject: Re: How to Get White pages Data From GTE? Organization: The Forest City Exchange, Forest City, Florida Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 02:51:17 GMT In article , fjd@rain.org (Frank Dziuba) writes: > I understood from a sales promotion from Pro_phone that they have the > white pages typed in at some location in China. Thus they should also > be able to include GTE data. I'm waiting for my own copy of Pro-phone > so I can see about GTE in the database. You guys do NOT, I repeat N O T want ProPhone, its a lot of inaccurate shit. I had a copy for 14 hours, before returning it for a refund; it is VERY inaccurate. Very OUT OF DATE, most entries had to be at least TWO years old to make it. Try Digital Directory Assistance (DDA) for one thats GOOD! Internet: steven@sgb.oau.org Steven G. Bradley steven@gate.net Forest City, Florida steven@transquest.oe.fau.edu CompuServe: 73232.505@compuserve.com Phone: 407/862-7226 America Online: sgbradley@aol.com Modem: 407/862-8088 ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: Calling Card Suggestion Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 14:35:10 GMT > 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. Funny you should mention that. From a May 23, 1994 billing insert from Southwestern Bell: [Quote reformatted to fit line length and to not use all caps. Spelling and capitalization errors are my fault.] Fight calling card fraud with the new free SelectAmerica(sm) calling card. It can happen to you on the street, at an airport or out shopping -- while you're making a call, someone steals your calling card number and contributes to nearly $1.8 billion in long distance fraud reported annually. One key reason for this alarming statistic: illegal international operations -- like drug smuggling -- rely heavily on stolen calling card numbers. Now you can help fight back -- for free! Southwestern Bell Telephone offers a new option to protect your SelectCard(r) from fraud that provides extra security for you and helps keep telephone rates affordable. Effective April 15, you'll have the ability to block any international calls from being billed to your account. If you choose the new SelectAmerica calling card, only calls to locations in the U.S. or Canada will be charged to your card. If you are like most customers, the SelectAmerica calling card will meet all of your calling needs. You'll see no change in your service and you can continue using your existing Selectcard and four-digit PIN. If your card is ever lost or stolen, it cannot be used for illegal international calling. Your current Southwestern Bell Telephone Selectcard with your home phone number and the PIN you choose is still the easiest calling card to use. There's no long access code -- just dial "0" and the number you're calling. Your Selectcard works anywhere for local or long distance calls. And you can keep using your Selectcard no matter how often you change your long distance carrier. If you still need to make international calls, no action is necessary -- your current card will continue to work for calls worldwide. However, to order the free SelectAmerica calling card, call your local Southwestern Bell Telephone service center today. The phone number is shown on the "detail of charges" page in this bill (See the "to order" number). The phone number is also listed in the customer guide section of your white pages directory -- see the "how to reach us" page. [end quote] At least this method lets the customer have the choice. It discriminates against one fixed set of countries (everything but the USA and Canada). And they didn't pull a surprise change and insist you call to get back your ability to make international calls. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ From: Mike McCrohan Subject: Re: Four-wire to Five-wire Adapter to Use US Modem in England? Date: 15 Jun 1994 10:34:39 +0100 Organization: Ireland On-Line In article , Will Dye wrote: > I'm shipping out a modem to a customer in England. The customer tells > me that his phone jack, I think they're called RJ11 adapters or > something like that, has five wires in it. But the jacks I normally > plug into a modem have four wires. I've seen some with six wires in a > PBX phone, but never five wires. The BT Phone connectors are about 1/2" x 3/16" approx. I believe RJ<->BT adapters are readily available in the UK (INMAC sells an RJ45 to BT socket adapter for 45 pounds! They sell the plugs for 4.50 and you can terminate your own cable.) Have your customer look around the catalogues, etc. If worst comes to worst an adapter can be kludged from a UK and US cord splice. ------------------------------ From: raverboy@aol.com (Raverboy) Subject: Re: Privacy on Rolm Switch Date: 16 Jun 1994 06:19:02 GMT Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) I know the Rolm 9751 is mostly for ACD. Anyway, the silent monitor function that supervisors have can ONLY monitor ACD extensions that are also within certain defineable COS's. For example, I can't monitor my manager's ACD line, but she can monitor mine, and all of the CSR's extensions. The silent monitor function will not work with a non-ACD line ... for example private internal extensions. Kevin Mayeux TCI ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V14 #292 ******************************