TELECOM Digest Mon, 6 Feb 95 20:34:00 CST Volume 15 : Issue 80 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Caller ID to TouchTones (Steve Friedlander) Re: Caller ID to TouchTones (Donald L. Moore) Re: Clock Slips Again (dmac@trans.timeinc.com) Re: Clock Slips Again (Steve Daggett) Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (pp000413@.interramp.com) Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? (Jack Pestaner) Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs (Ed Goldgehn) Re: AT&T 500 Number Problems (Stan Schwartz) NYNEX PIN Security - Extra Airtime? (Doug Reuben) Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Eric Nelson) Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? (Gary Novosielski) 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@mcs.com (steve friedlander) Subject: Re: Caller ID to TouchTones Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 11:19:44 CST Organization: MCSNet In article Lars Nohling writes: > I am looking for a device that will taking the incoming Caller-ID > number and enter it as touch tones to the answering modem before > connecting the incoming call. I want to use it for routing calls based > on the originating location. > Any ideas? Are you using 800 service? Arch Telecom offers Real-Time ANI and DNIS over POTS lines via DTMF tones, allowing you to route it where you wish. You will need a Dialogic type card. Steve Friedlander e-mail: stevef@mcs.com Providing efficiency and improved sales through Communications. The leader in "Value Added" 800 service is Arch Telecom! ************************1.800.ARCH.TEL************************* ------------------------------ From: donmoore@mercury.interpath.net (Donald L Moore) Subject: Re: Caller ID to TouchTones Date: 5 Feb 1995 22:41:20 -0500 Organization: Interpath -- Public Access UNIX for North Carolina In article , Lars Nohling wrote: > I am looking for a device that will taking the incoming Caller-ID > number and enter it as touch tones to the answering modem before > connecting the incoming call. I want to use it for routing calls based > on the originating location. Have you thought about using a modem that can read, the Caller ID data stream. Just by looking for that data between RING 1 and RING 2 you can have the data accessible for a program to do whatever you need. It may mean that you need alter your program. Don Moore ------------------------------ From: dmac@trans.timeinc.com Subject: Re: Clock Slips Again Date: Sun, 05 Feb 95 09:00:21 PDT > An oscilloscope placed on an analog campus line should show clock > slips as sudden phase shifts in the carrier. Is this a valid test? > If so, we could show the phase shifts through such a line and then > demonstrate that no such problems occur on campus or between two > Southwestern Bell lines. Martin, to prove the clock slip problem once and for all you should schedule an end to end test on the digital level. If you go through your equipment the LEC will assume it is your equipment, which it very well might be. I am assuming the trunk is a T-1, if so you can easily check for clock slips by stepping out the testing through the network using a Fireberd or similar test set. If you believe the clock slips are in the LEC's internal network then attack it as a quality issue that they must resolve. In case of the latter your most difficult task is to quantify the problem and here's the biggie, demonstrate it. If it is a clock slip it should be fairly regular and predictable. Damian McDonald, N2AEC Time Inc. Transmission Group ------------------------------ From: sdaggett@netrix.com (Steve Daggett) Subject: Re: Clock Slips Again Organization: NETRIX Corporation Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 22:58:19 GMT > I am pretty sure that we have a chronic case of clock slippage > somewhere in the interface between our campus' Ericsson MD110 and the > Southwestern Bell trunks. I would like to prove it once and for all. I assume from your post that your trunks to SW Bell are analog. If your trunks are digital then your Ericsson will be maintaining a slip count on your T1's. > It occurred to me that a modem sending a steady carrier such as is > used to establish a 300-baud connection would be a perfect signal > generator. It could be placed on a line off-campus and then called > from on-campus. An oscilloscope placed on an analog campus line > should show clock slips as sudden phase shifts in the carrier. Is > this a valid test? If so, we could show the phase shifts through such > a line and then demonstrate that no such problems occur on campus or > between two Southwestern Bell lines. It seems to me that using the phase shifts of a modem carrier would be rather indirect. It could be difficult to tell the difference between a clock slip and a modem retrain caused by some other factor. It would be easier to just hook up a point to point BERT test. You should see frame slips as _periodic_ bursts of bit errors on the BERT testers. The time period between bursts of errors will depend on the rate of change between the two different clock frequencies. The off campus BERT tester isn't necessary if you use full-duplex modems that support remote loopbacks. ON-CAMPUS OFF-CAMPUS ---------- --------- --------- ---------- | BERT |____| Dial | \------- | Dial |___| BERT | | Tester | | Modem |--------\ | Modem | | Tester | ---------- --------- --------- ---------- > Any suggestions are appreciated since the feeling is that > there is really nothing wrong because the lines all sound clean and > voice calls don't get dropped. Your trunks are probably running on several different T-carriers on their way to the CO. There are definitely dozens of T-carriers in your local area. You're probably only having problems with one or two segment out there in Telco-land. Try to find a commonalty that can help the local techs locate the bad segments. Look for one group of trunks that have the problem, or one area of town, or it's only when a call goes outside the local calling area. The more accurately you can describe the problem the better chance you have of getting it fixed. Steve Daggett sdaggett@netrix.com Herndon, VA USA ------------------------------ From: pp000413@.interramp.com Subject: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? Date: Sun, 05 Feb 95 23:07:33 PDT Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link In article , writes: > What is the current thinking on when a PC (powerPC, whatever) replace > the PBX? i.e. when can I run my T1 from the telco with my voice trunks > on it into one card on a PC and have it route voice over the LAN to > other desktop computers that double as phones? It will probably be a > time curve: first available for small offices (ten users) on an ethernet, > then a while later available for 200 lines on a faster LAN, etc. What > says the net? My Mitel sx200 lite has a 68000 for a processor: it's a > MacPlus! Surely the cpu horsepower is available to replace lots of > dedicated TTL and switching hardware. I was just at a briefing from > Apple and they're working with the PBX makers for a Geoport Mac to be > a voice terminal behind a "big maker" PBX. But who are the startups > that are out to kill the PBX makers? I work in an office with five IBM mainframes tied together as one virtual machine, 7,000 PS/2s connected via a flat token ring, 13,000 data terminals, two central office switches that are used as PBXs, and 13,000 phones. Every day that I come in, I have to personally reset the file server on the LAN because I can logon only about 50 percent of the time. But, I can always pick up the phone and make a call without having to do an IPL on the switches. I would never trust LANs to carry voice any time in the near future. PCs and LANs are not engineered to the same standards for reliability and backup as PBXs and other switches. If you ever get into a management position, the first thing that will give you headaches is the number of times that mainframe applications go down during the day, the numbers of LAN servers that go on the fritz, and the number of folks complaining about something wrong with their PCs. But, not the phone system which is rock solid and reliable. We have ISDN on our switches which makes them extremely reliable for data communications, server access, connecting to the Internet, and information databases outside the building. I wouldn't want our PBX to go away because it is a powerful data switching machine that is always up when I need it. I can not say the same for any of our LANs. ------------------------------ From: jackp@telecomm.cse.ogi.edu (Jack Pestaner) Subject: Re: When Will PBXs Go Away? Date: 5 Feb 1995 15:31:04 GMT Organization: Oregon Grad. Inst. Computer Science and Eng., Beaverton Certainly anyone who predicts that PC's can't do a task will eventually be proven wrong, but I believe it will be quite a while before large PBX's or high reliability PBX's will be replaced by PC's. I have managed a 3000 line NEC PBX for five years now, and during that period, it has never experienced a system failure. On the other hand, it is rare that our PC's run for more than a week w/o CTRL-ALT-DELETE needing to be invoked. In a large user environment, perferction is the expectation, and Microsoft has never demonstrated that capability. For instance, when you have direct integrated T1's, any little glitch will dump any modem call on the system -- just one bit! Our PBX is fully processor redundant, and switches daily between processors without affecting phone traffic. It also has an architecture that supports expansion up to 20,000 stations. I suppose a network of PC's could eventually do this too, but you can imagine it is non-trivial. It does appear that some PBX manufacturers are moving in the PC direction. NEC has announced the 2000IVS, which is an Intel processor based PBX, and has ethernet capabilities. Apparently, it is becoming the darling of the CTI crowd. Also, it is very low cost, about 1/2 per port of our NEC, and has all the same features plus more. I feel much more comfortable seeing CTI from PBX vendors, rather than PC/PC Software vendors. Maybe the threat of competition and loss of market share will spur on the PBX people. Franky, the cost of many PBX features is outrageous, and the CTI has been very slow to come. ------------------------------ From: edg@ocn.com (Ed Goldgehn) Subject: Re: LD Termination Fees to RBOCs Date: 5 Feb 1995 19:04:17 GMT Organization: The INTERNET Connection, LLC In article , pturner@netcom.com says: >> BTW, the method of charges is entirely different for LD service in the >> cellular industry. With cellular, it is not unusual for local cellular >> carriers (RBOC's or otherwise) to provide FREE or flat rate termination >> charges to LD carriers. > Why not, if they extend the T1s to your MTSO? It's that many less > erlangs going out on the other (paid) trunks. I assume the B carriers > probally must provide this for free or are limited to some max rate by > Da Judge (that's Greene, not Ito :-)) Actually, it was a matter of marketing -- or necessity depending on your point of view. The cellular industry needed to attract long distance carriers to make connections to their networks in order to sell their services. It didn't do much good to provide local cellphone service without LD capability. But, the LD carriers weren't going to make those connections on the same basis that they make their existing LD access (by the connection and by time). So, since the cellular industry needs the LD capability to sell its local calling service, the fee structure was virtually eliminated. I don't know which cellular carrier was first to do this (I would take a guess that it was McCaw, but don't quote me on that). But, from what I've heard, this practice is now widespread. Ed Goldgehn E-Mail: edg@ocn.com Sr. Vice President Voice: (404) 919-1561 Open Communication Networks, Inc. Fax: (404) 919-1568 ------------------------------ From: stans@panix.com (Stan Schwartz) Subject: Re: AT&T 500 Number Problems Date: 5 Feb 1995 22:58:06 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Matthew Spaethe (mspaethe@umr.edu) wrote: > My 500 number isn't scheduled to be ready until Feb 3, but I've been > trying it pretty much everyday. Well, AT&T completed the call today > (the local switch has been accepting 1-500-367-XXXX for sometime) and > the only billing option was calling card. Well, I tried that, and > someone other than me answered the phone. I have no idea who it was, > but I guess I'll have the number when I receive my calling card bill! > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, you have gotten a lot further with > it than I have here. My 500 number was supposed to be turned on yesterday, > January 30. Still no go as of Tuesday evening, January 31. The AT&T rep > suggested calling the Illinois Commerce Commission and asking them to > ask Ameritech to unblock 500. A call to the ICC got me the response that > 'so far as they knew' (the ICC), there was nothing yet tariffed for 500 > here. AT&T said try using it via 800-225-5288 (CALL-ATT), but guess what? > That didn't work either. Since my long distance service is defaulted to > AT&T I tried double zero, and ask the operator to get it for me. After > asking someone what to do, she tried dialing it and it went nowhere. She > said it was 'blocked' in her computer and would not 'leave'. > I am sure the AT&T billing department is more effecient and that I will > be billed for this month anyway, just as I was for last month. :( PAT] My 500 number was promised for February 5, and just after midnight, I dialed 1-500-XXX-XXXX, got the AT&T chime, and my other line rang. Way to go, NYNEX! Now if NYNEX could just get some other things straight, I'd be verry happy! (BTW: the line that I called 1-500 from is pre-subscribed to Sprint) -Stan [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I found out something curious over the weekend about my service: It works from *some Chicago prefixes in 312*. But it still does not work in any shape from 708. When dialing from a 708 number both 1-500 and 0-500 are blocked. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dreuben@interpage.net (Doug Reuben) Subject: NYNEX PIN Security - Extra Airtime? Date: Mon, 6 Feb 1995 01:16:12 EST After hearing about NYNEX/NY's (Boston too?) "Free Weekend Airtime", which allows toll and airtime free calling to anywhere in 212, 718, 917, most (all?) of 201, most (all?) of 908, (609 too?), and most parts of lower 914, I broke down and had a friend of mine who was going to cancel with Metro Mobile in CT sign up with NYNEX/NY rather than Cellular One. Due to NYNEX/NY's totally un-professional and erratic call-delivery system, as well as its significantly poorer coverage in most parts of NY (in NJ it is slightly better), and higher roaming rates, I normally do not even suggest NYNEX when someone asks me about service in NYC. úÿ (Although CO/NY does bill for incomplete calls over 40 seconds, so in some rare cases I will suggest that a person use NYNEX instead of CO if they make a lot of calls where the party they are calling takes over 40 seconds to answer.) However, free weekend airtime is something that's hard to argue with, so I told the guy to go with NYNEX, and he is in general happy with them for the free airtime (Until June?, enough so that he is willing to put up with their inferior coverage (signals rarely penetrate buildings, CO's signals seem substantially stronger inside buildings on average). However, they insisted that he have a fraud protection PIN code on his phone, as has been discussed here in the Digest in previous issues. This raises a question: Normally, for any call which is answered, billing STARTS shortly after you press SEND, when the system recognizes/validates your phone and processes your outward call. Thus, if you dial a number, and it rings for four minutes, and on the fifth minute it is answered, you will pay airtime (and perhaps - incorrectly - toll charges) for the FULL 5 MINUTES. Now how does the PIN code fraud feature affect this? I've timed how long it takes to get the "prompt" to enter your PIN code, and then to enter the code while driving, and it is about ten seconds. Now do these tenseconds count? Thus, if you place a call and are required to use the PIN, if the call lasts 65 seconds total, from the time you first sent out the call, are you required to pay for two minutes, or does the switch only start the airtime counter from when it receives a correct PIN code? Anyone test this? I'm interested in finding out because if I find that NYNEX/NY is billing people from the time they *initially* hit SEND to place the call rather than when a caller enters his/her complete PIN, I will call NYNEX/NY and demand to have the PIN feature removed. An information on this would be appreciated! Thanks, Doug Reuben * dreuben@interpage.net * (500) 442-4CID / (203) 499 - 5221 Interpage Network Services -- E-Mail/Telnet to Alpha or Numeric Pagers & Fax ------------------------------ From: mater@PrimeNet.Com (Eric Nelson) Subject: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1995 20:23:47 MST Organization: Primenet Additionally, sometimes the fraudulent phones are used as long distance centers. People will call the fraudulent number and then use three way calling to connect to a long distance or international number. The cellular companies have to pay for this long distance and international charge. Hence, real money out of their pockets. Cellular companies have invested quite a bit of money in pre-call validation procedures and equipment. The AUTOPLEX system has software patches that are designed to detect the rolling ESN type of fraudulent phone. GTE started a clearing-house about two years ago to do pre-call validation. ------------------------------ From: gary.novosielski@sbaonline.gov Organization: Small Business Administration Date: Sun, 05 Feb 95 21:35:24 -0400 Subject: Re: Cellular Fraud: How Much of it is Real Money? Some contributors have made the point that in "stealing" someone's goods or services, you steal their profits as well. Others maintain that only the replacement cost should be considered, if that. This question of real versus phony losses reminds me of the old joke: It seems there was this well-to-do lady walking down the street, back during the Depression. When she gets to the corner she sees a shabbily dressed fellow, obviously down on his luck, selling apples. She figures she'll help the poor guy out. "You there, my good man, I'll take an apple. How much are they?" "One million apiece," answers says the apple vendor. "Are you mad?" says the lady. "A million dollars? Don't you know you aren't going to sell very many apples at a million dollars each? What sort of fool are you?" "Who's the fool?" says the vendor. "I only need to sell one!" Sure, sure, bad joke; but stick with the premise for a moment: Suppose instead, at the end of the story, that the lady hits the guy over the head and steals his whole tray -- an even dozen apples. How much loss does he report to the police? How much loss has he suffered? If they catch the woman, what crime do they charge her with, grand larceny or petty theft? Does the fact that the vendor *priced* the apples at a million bucks each make them *worth* a million each? And what do the headlines read the next day? "Rich woman mugs beggar for twelve cents worth of fruit." -or- "$12,000,000.00 apple heist called `Crime of the Century.'" Gary Novosielski GPN Consulting [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The product is worth whatever the seller says it is worth, period. Its his product to be defined however he wishes. Whether or not anyone else agrees with his assessment is another matter. Generally we buy things we don't need based on our belief they are worth more than the seller is asking, not worth less than he is asking. If he says the apple is worth a million dollars, then that is what it is worth. If the cellular carrier says a fraud call was woth $X, then that is what is is worth. Now: how seriously would such claims be taken? In other words, what would the headline be the next day? Well, since he is an old dirty bum, his word on the subject would mean nothing. On the other hand, since the telcos and the computer gurus all speak their own language that no one else understands and since they dress properly and act as though they know what they are talking about, their word means everything. Everyone 'knows' that apples are not worth a million dollars, and the same people who 'know' this also are the kind to take everything telco says at face value. (The Telephone Company once said blah blah, fill in the blank). Therefore what telco says is true and old bums tell lies. Of course it also helps if you have an attorney who is good at sucking up to the right people, and a public relations department trained to bark on command. Don't you understand anything? Truth is whatever the right people say it is; the people who are in the proper circles, who dress and act properly and who say things the right way. Did anyone keep up with Dick Tracy in the paper on Monday? Over the next couple months he is going to catch someone who has stolen millions of dollars in phone service and computer resources. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V15 #80 *****************************