TELECOM Digest Thu, 12 Jan 95 15:09:00 PST Volume 15 : Issue 28 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Is Two Second Delay Still Necessary? (Steve Forrette) Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly (T Kennedy) Re: MANs in USA (David Goessling) Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Jonathan Mosen) Re: Phone Rates From Israel (SM Communications And Marketing) Re: How to Keep Track of Calls on Busy (Caller ID on Busy)? (Steve Cogorno) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (David Moon) Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges (P.B. Emerton) Re: Sprint and Calls Within Your Service Area (Javier Henderson) Re: GSM Cellular Operators List (Taavi Talvik) Re: First NNX Area Code Officially in Service is 630? (John Mayson) Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas (Joe J. Harrison) Re: New Area Codes and PBX (Paul A. Lee) U.K. Cellular Band? (Jabulani Dhliwayo) GSM Mobile Telefone ERICSSON GH337 (Joachim Oschek) Arthur C. Clarke Gets Degree by Satellite (Matt Healy) 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 America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available 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. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. 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: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Is Two Second Delay Still Necessary? Date: 12 Jan 1995 19:06:11 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn In article , jbaker@halcyon.com (James Baker) says: > Is there still a technical reason for the two second delay at the > beginning of a phone call? > ... the FCC requirements for auto answer stuff is to wait two seconds after > ringing before answering the phone (or at leaset before sending any > signals into the phone wires). I believe the actual requirement is that there be two seconds of silence *after answering*. The FCC doesn't care when you answer. One of the reasons for this is requirement is to prevent a device which purposely answers the call, exchanges data for 1/2 second or so, then hangs up right away, which would avoid toll charges in some situations. A device could be designed to do this repeatedly to transmit an unlimited amount of data (albiet slowly) without charge. I think that any modern switch would be immune from this type of fraud. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: adk@scri.fsu.edu (Tony Kennedy) Subject: Re: Atlanta Airport's Pay Phones Reject 1-800 Numbers Randomly Date: 12 Jan 95 14:04:46 Organization: SCRI, Florida State University Concerning some problems associated with pay phones at Atlanta's Hartsfield airport, Paul Beker noted that: > One interesting trend I've noticed lately: While only a couple of > months ago, all the COCOTs were pre-subscribed to some ripoff, > switchless, IXC, it looks like most of them have suddenly been > switched to AT&T. > This is definately a good thing, for the many people that would be > getting ripped off dialing 0+ otherwise ... I have found several times that I cannot use a 950-xxxx or 10xxx access number for MCI from AT&T phones at Atlanta Hartsfield airport, despite the fact that this number worked from all the other phones I used in the airport. The only way I could use MCI was to ask the AT&T operator to connect me, which they did with much ill-grace. ------------------------------ From: David_Goessling@fcbbs.ss.kpmg.com Organization: Strategic Services of KPMG Peat Marwick Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 12:13:34 EST Subject: Re: MANs in USA You might want to contact Faulkner Information Services, Pennsauken, NJ (609-662-2070/800-843-0460 Fax: 609-662-0905). They have a report on Alternative Access Carriers (like MFS Communications AKA Metropolitan Fiber Systems, etc.) that gives a technical profile of each company's MAN, often including a map of the system. Could be a bit expensive though ... Some of these companies (e.g. MFS) are public, so you should be able to get shareholder/financing info from their SEC-filed documents (AR/10K/10Q). MFS is a subsidiary of Kiewit Diversified Group, which owned 84.5% of the stock issued in April 1993. The underwriters of this public offering were Salomon Bros and Bear Stearns. As far as bank's usage, I think you need to do a literature search in the telecom and banking press for examples. ------------------------------ From: jmosen@actrix.gen.nz@actrix.gen.nz (Jonathan Mosen) Subject: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List Reply-To: jmosen@actrix.gen.nz Organization: Actrix Networks -- NZ Internet Service Providers. Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 01:24:01 GMT In article , etxlndh@eos99.ericsson.se (Robert Lindh) wrote: > Luxemburg Telekom > Norway Tele-Mobil > Netcom > Portugal TMN New Zealand also has a GSM network, run by Bell South. Jonathan Mosen, Manager Government Relations, Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind, jmosen@actrix.gen.nz ------------------------------ From: sm@infinet.com (SM Communications And Marketing) Subject: Re: Phone Rates From Israel Date: 11 Jan 1995 19:17:29 -0500 Organization: InfiNet - Internet Access (614/224-3410) In article , JayK372 wrote: > I believe that you can call from Israel for about 80 cents per minute > from midnight Israel time to 8 a.m. My recollection is that the > highest rate, during the day, is about $1.50 per minute. This is via > Bezeq, the PTT. Or you can use a callback service and pay only $0.99 per minute, billed in six second increments with no service fees. (Flat rate, all the time). Metin e-mail: sm@infinet.com [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And when you use a callback service, you can also learn to tolerate a huge amount of wrong number calls by dumbos in the USA who dial your stateside callback number; let it ring a couple of times and hang up after deciding maybe they dialed a wrong number. Of course the equipment does not know that, so it proceeds to 'call you back' at your number in Europe or wherever and wake you up at four in the morning local time. I sold Telepassport for a few months, and they were absolutely plagued with telemarketers dialing their DID callback numbers and/or just plain wrong numbers. Here and there a phreak would appear also, trying to mouse around with the Telepassport switch. Several of the people I signed up for the service complained about getting 'callbacks' they did not make at all hours of the night because someone stateside dialed their number. Another concern would be if averaging out the cost was truly a benefit or not. You have to decide if most of your calls are during the primetime hours at the highest cost (in which case, having them averaged out to 99 cents per minute is a good deal) or if you can actually get them a lot lower than that. It used to be the telcos charged a great deal for an international call; then came the callback services and all of a sudden AT&T, Sprint and MCI suddenly lowered their rates to match in many cases. My experience with arbitrage was that there was too much work for the agent (me!) with too little profit in return. PAT] ------------------------------ From: cogorno@netcom.com (Steve Cogorno) Subject: Re: How to Keep Track of Calls on Busy (Caller ID on Busy)? Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 20:02:51 -0800 (PST) Pete Kruckenberg said: > The first one is easy, but might not be feasible. If I could get > caller ID's on a busy line, I'd just add caller ID to the last line in Can't be done (unless you have ISDN). You could have Caller ID on Call waiting though, BUT the caller ID transmission would interrupt the carriers, and callers would lose theior connection. I don't believe that ANY phone company in the US currently offers Caller ID on Call Waiting. > (again, last in hunt group), which would always be busy (I don't want > it to ring and confuse the users), but would have call waiting and > caller ID on call waiting, then just pipe the caller ID into the But how would you keep it busy? You would have to get ANOTHER line to hold that line busy (in other words have line A call line B which holds it busy). Otherwise, the phone company will think that the phone is off the hook, and wouldn't transmit Caller ID on Call Waiting (off-hook phones always report busy). > If there are other, better ways of doing this, I'd appreciate your > input. Ask your phone company for an analysis. They will do it, but maybe not for for a residential customer, and it may not be free. The report generally has the number of calls placed, answered, and returned busy for each 30 minute period. We had one for a month, but I think a week would suffice for your needs. Steve cogorno@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: moon@gdc.com (David Moon) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Date: 12 Jan 1995 16:41:58 GMT Organization: General DataComm, Inc. Bill Sohl contributed a FAQ about scanners, and part of Pat's response was: > Illegal modification (i.e. modification by an unlicensed person) voids > your FCC authority to operate the radio. Furthermore, no *licensed* > person is going to make illegal modifications to a radio and risk having > such handiwork be traced back to his bench, at the possible risk of his > loss of his license. I'm sure this is true for radio transmitters, but for receivers? Are you saying I need FCC authority to operate a receiver? What kind of license are you talking about? David Moon moon@gdc.com General Datacomm, Inc. ATTMail: !dmoon Middlebury, CT 06762 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You don't need a printed license. Your 'authority' is granted by the FCC by default. The FCC claims absolute control over all radio devices and the airwaves, etc. As discussed in an earlier message today, they claim in section 15.21 of their code that they can revoke your (default) authority. Transmitter, receiver, cordless phone, baby monitor, whatever. PAT] ------------------------------ From: pb-emert@uwe-bristol.ac.uk (PB Emerton) Subject: Re: Chatter Heard on Scanner Leads to Criminal Charges Organization: University of the West of England, Bristol Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 12:55:43 GMT Tony Pelliccio (Tony_Pelliccio@brown.edu) wrote: > Actually the AOR-2500 comes through with the cell band intact. Or at > least it did until the FCC attempted to clamp down on it. The nice > thing is the AOR-2500 is considered a communications receiver and not > a scanner and last I heard the whole thing was still tied up in > hearings. > Of course if you really want to follow a cell call just get a DDI and > hook it up to your PC. The interesting thing is that the company that > sells the DDI will only release software with ESN capability to law > enforcement people. Makes you wonder doesn't it? What company is it? [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Please see the referenced remarks of Tony Pelliccio above: 'FCC tried to clamp down ... still tied up in court'. A word to the wise: you don't want to mess with those people *too much*. A little maybe, but not too much. Like some people here who have disagreed with me over the past couple days on this, I seriously doubt the FCC is going to stage any massive actions to get cellular phone equipped scanners out of circulation, etc. But what I can tell you is they can be a nasty bunch of buggers when they want to be. In the past they have gone into pirate radio stations and started pulling wires and fuses out of the control board while the station was on the air ... kicked the door down and walked in. They have spent hours driving around in a van through some neighborhood to triangulate or get a fix on some signal when they wanted the guy. Like all government agencies, they have loads of money and an infinite amount of time and resources to spend when they decide they will get their way. As Tony points out, they are still fighting in court over the AOR-2500. When the FCC gets a vendetta of some kind started, for whatever reason, they will do a number on all concerned. Bureaucrats will be bureaucrats, and there is nothing worse than a bureaucrat scorned. :) Selective enforcement of their own code (the Communications Act) at times? Sure ... all government agencies selectively enforce the law ... so sue them. But if a time comes for whatever reason that you are a big target the FCC would like to get under control and instead of just raiding your premises with a United States Marshall in tow costing you all kinds of grief and money -- the way another government agency did to Steve Jackson; remember him? -- if instead they contact your attorney and tell him to get you on the straight and narrow 'so we do not have to take this further' then you know what you do? First you Praise Jesus ... then you think over very carefully how far you want to push it. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Sprint and Calls Within Your Service Area From: henderson@mln.com (Javier Henderson) Date: 11 Jan 95 10:36:20 PST Organization: Medical Laboratory Network; Ventura, CA In article , ac554@lafn.org (Al Cohan) writes: > In a previous article, henderson@mln.com (Javier Henderson) says: >> I just got off the phone with Sprint's customer service. Their special >> offer of one cent per minute for calls within your service area applies >> to all of Sprint customers, regarldess of what calling plan you're on. >> You need to dial 10333, but considering the savings, I don't mind. The >> charge is the same regardless of mileage. >> The offer will expire on Feb 28, 1995. >> I'm not associated with Sprint, other than as a mostly satisfied customer. >> The above applies to residential lines in Southern California. Other areas >> within California may have the same deal, you'd better check. > Most of what you say is *not* true. In response to several of my telecom > clients, I called Sprint (800 877-4040) on several occasions. I was > misinformed 8 out of 10 calls. What, exactly, is not true? Read the first paragraph of my posting, please: "to all of Sprint customers". > I suggest you call Sprint three times and see if you get three > telemarkets are *not* located in California. I did, and I got the same answer the five times I called. Javier Henderson (JH21) henderson@mln.com úÿ ------------------------------ From: taavi@vs.ee (Taavi Talvik) Subject: Re: GSM Cellular Operators List Date: 12 Jan 1995 11:50:52 GMT Organization: Department of Communications Robert Lindh (etxlndh@eos99.ericsson.se) writes: > Estonia EMT Yesterday, 10.01 was formal opening of second GSM network in Estonia. Network is operated by Radiolinja Estonia, a subsidiary of Radiolinja Finland. Taavi Talvik Department of Communications tel. +372 6 39 9000 State Chancellery fax +372 6 39 9001 Ädala 4D, Tallinn EE0006, Estonia Internet: taavi@vs.ee X.400: G=taavi;S=talvik;P=itu;A=arcom;C=ch ------------------------------ From: jmayson@nyx10.cs.du.edu (John Mayson) Subject: Re: First NNX Area Code Officially in Service is 630? Date: 11 Jan 1995 14:41:49 -0500 Organization: West Melbourne, Florida, USA In article , Carl Moore wrote: > Mail to the digest indicates that area 630 (an overlay on 312 and 708, > at least for now) is the first NNX area code to go into service. 334 > in Alabama and 360 in Washington state are to kick in Jan. 15. I was able to call a friend in Montgomery, AL using 334-288-xxxx on Jan 1. John Mayson | West Melbourne, Florida | jmayson@nyx10.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 11:56:41 +0000 From: Joe.J.Harrison@bra0119.wins.icl.co.uk Subject: Re: 800 Numbers From Overseas I too had noticed that I can call US 800 numbers from the UK via BT (but not via Mercury, the other major carrier). The BT international operator has been the best source of information so far, according to her this is now week two of a six-month trial to see how it goes down with their customers, which explains the lack of publicity about it. I suppose that from BT's point of view they are expecting potential problems with billing -- like people who "didn't hear" the warning that their call would not be free and complaining about all these international call charges on their bill ;-) Unlike the other people posting here I got a US-originated recording when I tried 1-800-MY-ANI-IS telling me that the number was not available. When I tried calling my credit-card access tollfree number I was told that "sorry, this subscriber has asked for no international access to this 800 number" or some such message, so it looks like when you order 800 service you may in future have to check the box to say if you want overseas callers to get into it, or not. Joe Harrison ICL Ltd. Bracknell Berkshire RG12 8SN UK (+44-1344-473424) J.Harrison@bra0119.wins.icl.co.uk S=Harrison/I=J/OU1=bra0112/O=icl/P=icl/A=gold 400/C=GB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 16:05:06 -0500 Subject: Re: New Area Codes and PBX From: Paul A. Lee Organization: Woolworth Corporation In a recent {TELECOM Digest}, Jan Mandel wrote (in part): > Why cannot they get new area codes from whoever creates the codes and > add them as they come into being? > Is there one single place somewhere that assigns the area codes? Bellcore (Bell Communications Research in Livingston, NJ) is the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), although they have been seeking to turn the responsibility over to some other organization. Bellcore receives information and requests from LECs (local exchange companies) that serve as regional numbering plan coordinators concerning need for additional numbers in the respective regions. Bellcore works with the regional coordinators to define NPAs (Numbering Plan Areas), which are geographic divisions that are assigned area codes. Bellcore, as the NANPA, then promulgates the area code information to the various carriers and other interested parties in the form of Information Letters (ILs). Here are some ways to get this information delivered to you: - Try calling Bellcore at 201 740-4661 or 201 740-4592 and asking to be put on their mailing list for North American Numbering Plan information. - If you are an AT&T Mail or EasyLink user, subscribe to the shared folder "!eichelk:npasplits", which is maintained by David Eichelkraut of AT&T. David passes along the Bellcore ILs and other information concerning the NANP. - Ask your PBX vendor or interexchange carrier (IXC) to provide you with NPA updates through a program they may offer. Paul A. Lee Voice 414 357-1409 Telecommunications Analyst FAX 414 357-1450 Woolworth Corporation CompuServe 70353,566 INTERNET <=PREFERRED ADDRESS* ------------------------------ From: jd13@ukc.ac.uk Subject: U.K. Cellular Band? Date: Thu, 12 Jan 95 09:58:27 GMT Organization: University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. I recently bought a PRO-46 scanner from Tandy hoping to listen to the air band. I have always assumed that in the U.K. the cellular band is also about 870 - 890 Mhz, because this is what I always see where ever I read about scanners. As I expected, this band was not available on the scanner. To my surprise, when I searched the entire range of available frequencies, I found that there were mobile phones scattered between about 806-9XX Mhz. What I fail to understand is why on earth should scanners sold in the UK have a restriction on the US cellular band when their own band exceeds far beyond these bounds. I have since returned the scanner because besides two police frequencies and a few hams, the frequencies I could get were mostly mobile. Cheers, Jabulani Dhliwayo Applied Optics Group Physics Lab. U. of Kent at Canterbury [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I'll answer your question by asking a couple of my own. Why does the loaf of bread in my refrigerator have a notation on the wrapper that it is registered with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture? What do I care what the people in Pennsylvania eat? Why does my modem limit me to ten redial attempts and document this by saying it is due to some regulations in Canada? What do I care who the people in Canada talk to on the phone? Why do all the school textbooks used all over the USA have to meet the approval of a bunch of people who live in Texas? What do I care what they choose to teach their children (or not teach them)? The answer in all three of the above is the factory specs are designed by where the money is. Pennsylvania says to sell food there it must be approved by the Department of Agriculture and plainly noted as such on the container. The baker does not want to spend the money having two sets of containers printed. Whatever factory in the far east makes all the modems (probably the same factory which makes all the scanners) makes circuit boards to suit the clear majority of its customers: big shots like Motorola, Tandy and such. Tandy sells 90 percent of its scanners in the USA and 10 percent in the rest of the world; whose specs will the factory follow? Don't say 'both, in two separate runs' because that would cost money. Ditto the publishers of school textbooks in the USA -- one opinion will suit all, and since the State of Texas is the single largest buyer of school textbooks (and there are a couple other large states whose specifications are quite similar to that of Texas school book buyers) then their opinion is as good as any say the publishers. :) Now oddly enough, in Australia there is a bunch of retail electronic stores called 'Tandy', owned by a parent company 'Radio Shack' -- just the opposite of the USA -- and I think they do get things built the way they want them; someone correct me if I am wrong. But they have absolutely no connection with the Tandy in the USA other than the one here owns quite a bit of the one in Australia. PAT] ------------------------------ From: oschek@cip.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de (Joachim Oschek) Subject: GSM Mobile Telefone ERICSSON GH337 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 1995 13:09:31 GMT Organization: EE Students Computer Pool, University of Erlangen, Germany Hello out there! I am looking for hidden software-modes of the MOBILE GSM TELEFONE ERICSSON GH337 (like the IMEI-number with the code *#06#) Does anyone know how I can see which channel or which cluster I am using? I would also need desperatly the signal strength in dB! Is there a possibility to gain access to these functions or do I need a special software of Ericsson? If so, where can i get it ? Does anyone know email-addresses or WWW-pages of Ericsson (Sweden)? I already sent a fax to them but I got no reply! It would be great if you could help me with the GH337. (If you know someone who could help me please ask!) Please send your mail to oschek@cip.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de Greetings from Germany, Joachim (http://cip2.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de:8080/hyplan/oschek.html) ------------------------------ From: healy@seviche.med.yale.edu (Matt Healy) Subject: Arthur C. Clarke to Get Degree by Satellite Date: 12 Jan 1995 18:04:20 GMT Organization: Yale School of Medicine According to a story I found on the "Nando Times" web site (URL:http://www.nando.net/newsroom/nt/nando.html), run by the {Raleigh News and Observer}, Arthur C. Clarke will accept an honorary degree from Liverpool University via satellite link to Sri Lanka, where he now lives, on January 26th. A spokesperson for the university said they believe this will be the first degree to be conferred via satellite by a UK institution. TELECOM Digest readers will recognize how appropriate it is for Clarke, the inventor of the communications satellite, to get the first degree to be conferred via satellite! Matthew D. Healy matthew.healy@yale.edu Postdoc,Yale School of Medicine, Genetics & Medical Informatics, SHM I-148, 333 Cedar St, New Haven, CT 06510 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #28 *****************************