
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Mon Oct  9 14:17:28 1995
by
1995
14:17:28 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Mon, 9 Oct 1995 09:12:42 -0500
1995
09:12:39 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 9 Oct 95 09:12:30 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 424

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Where Do They Get Precise TIME Information? (Krusty Robinson)
    Re: Where Do They Get Precise TIME Information? (Clarence Dold)
    Re: Where Do They Get Precise TIME Information? (Stan Schwartz)
    Re: Where Do They Get Precise Time Information? (Joseph Singer)
    Re: Where Do They Get Precise TIME Information? (Dale Robinson)
    Re: Where Do They Get Precise TIME Information? (Damon Kelly)
    Re: Help! I've Been Slammed by WilTel! (Mark Gabriele)
    Re: Help! I've Been Slammed by WilTel! (Clarence Dold)
    602/520 Split (Richard P. Nickum)
    Calling Card Billing (Ole J. Jacobsen)
    Slick Unit For POTS (Jason Philbrook)
    Dealing With Bell Atlantic re Line Noise (Ken Bass)
    Bell Name Change (Stan Schwartz)
    Economist Article on Telecom (Tony Harminc)
    Old Telco Question (Stan Schwartz)
    Re: Keeping NPA/NXX Separate (Richard Eyre-Eagles)

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: 500-677-1616
                        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.                                                 
*
************************************************************************
*

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in 
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft. 
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------



>> I have a question. Where does telco obtain their time signal from to
>> synchronize their clocks and equipment.

>> There are two sources of standardized time information in the USA. 
These
>> are the US Naval Observatory in Washington, DC and the National 
Bureau of 
>> Standards in Boulder, Colorado. 

>> Using your computer's communication program and a modem set to 1200 
baud,
>> you can get a dislay on your computer screen showing the correct time 
by
>> calling USNO at 202-653-0351 or NBS at 303-494-4774.

You can also pick up the time signals on shortwave radio from Boulder
and Hawaii on 2.5, 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz.  You will hear second ticks
with a voice time announcement between :50 and :00.  Their signals
also serve as a frequency standard.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Since WWV and WWNH can frequently both be
heard in many parts of the central and western United States, there is 
an
interesting method for keeping the voice messages separate. The tone 
signals and ticks are heard at the same time, but the tone discontinues
at the fifty second mark with only the ticks in the background. The
recorded message from WWVH in Hawaii is heard first (a woman's voice) 
and
the time announcement for WWV in Boulder follows immediatly. That is 
done
so that the people who hear both at the same time don't heat the two
voices at the same time. She gets five seconds then he gets five 
seconds.
At the top of the minute, a signal tone and then the frequency tone 
begins
again. During certain minutes of the hour, there is no frequency tone 
and
other reports are given instead such as atmospheric conditions. A 
certain
number of minutes in each hour are given over to WWV and a certain 
number
are given over to WWVH. During the minutes when there is a message being
spoken by either one, the other one silences its frequency tone as well.
Its a fun thing to listen to but I would not want to listen all day. A
similar service exists in Canada called Radio Station CHU.     PAT] 

------------------------------



Jeffrey Yee (jyee@unixg.ubc.ca) wrote:

> I have a question. Where does telco obtain their time signal from to
> synchronize their clocks and equipment. I was in a CO one time when i

Available from OAK.Oakland.EDU 141.210.10.117

Directory SimTel/msdos/clock/
usnotime.zip  B    2173  870822  Set your system clock to US Naval Obsv. 
time

There is also a version for UNIX...


Clarence A Dold - dold@rahul.net
                - Pope Valley & Napa CA.

------------------------------



In TELECOM Digest #419, TELECOM Digest Editor' wrote:

> Actually what happens when you use the most recent version 1.6 of
> AOL software

I assume you're using a Mac (for shame!) because the most recent
version of AOL for Windows is 2.5.

> If you think fifty cents is too much to pay (or you
> are like me and wonder why you should have to pay for it at all) then 
you
> can dial 202-653-1800, which is what the 900 number translates to.

You can also call 303-499-7111 for the same thing.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I am not using Mac. I am using a DOS 
based
machine; an old 386 I have here.   PAT]

------------------------------



jyee@unixg.ubc.ca (Jeffrey Yee) writes:

> I have a question. Where does telco obtain their time signal from to
> synchronize their clocks and equipment.

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 

> For a good time, call 900-410-TIME at just fifty cents per call. If
> you think fifty cents is too much to pay (or you are like me and
> wonder why you should have to pay for it at all) then you can dial
> 202-653-1800, which is what the 900 number translates to.

Sorry Pat, but this is not quite correct.  910-410-TIME translates to 
303-499-7111.  It's the WWV number.  The 202 number you mentioned is the 
National Bureau of Standards in Washington, DC.  If you'll dial all 
three 
numbers you'll find that the 303 number is the same as the 900 number.


JOSEPH SINGER              SEATTLE, WASHINGTON USA            
jsinger@scn.org

------------------------------



Jeffrey Yee wrote, amongst other things:

> Is there a national reference that all telcos go by? Is it a satellite
> signal, radio signal, or what? IF so Where is it and is there only 
one?

Pat Townson replied:

> Using your computer's communication program and a modem set to 1200 
baud,
> you can get a dislay on your computer screen showing the correct time 
by
> calling USNO at 202-653-0351 or NBS at 303-494-4774. I shall stifle my
> desire at this time to discuss the old (defunct for almost thirty 
years)
> Western Union Time Service, which got its feed from USNAVOB.    PAT]

Or using the technology of the internet, visit the USNO web page at:

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/time.html

Which has lots of info about time! :-)

The phone number you mentioned Pat is/has changed from 202-653-0351 to
202-762-1594.

I often wonder why, that with all this technology on my desk, I still
ONLY get the same amount of work done???


Regards, 

Dale

------------------------------



In article <telecom15.422.7@eecs.nwu.edu>, John Thompson <jthompson@
monmouth.com> wrote:

> (I did try to telnet to 'tick', but got nowhere).

Connect to port 13 next time.

I like the information provided by the World Wide Web.  All the
mysteries and incantations of sync-ing your system clock with USNO's
equipment can be found <a href="http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ntp.html">
here. </a>

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: ...
> Is there also a DOS version of this that you are aware of?    PAT]

I suppose that there are NTP daemons you can run on DOS boxes
connected to the Internet.


-d


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Trying socket 13 did work correctly. 
Henceforth anyone interested do it this way:
     telnet tick.usno.navy.mil 13

The '13' on the end means you want to telnet to socket 13 on that
machine. When you do, watch the interesting display on your screen
once it connects.  PAT]

------------------------------



Patrick Townson wrote:

> ...That's how that rule came to be passed back in the 1950's; not so 
that
> people today could stiff a long distance carrier out of a few dollars 
due
> to a clerical error made somewhere. The rule is, if there is/was *any
> basis* for the action to take place (signed order, phone call from 
someone,
> etc) and the company acted in good faith, then you are *not* permitted
> to benefit from the error the company made.   PAT] 

Right, but the point here is that "slamming" is NOT an act made in
good faith.  It is a fraudulent action taken by a disreputable sales
representative.  When I have been slammed by a company (it was a
reseller called "Cherry Communications"), I was called by a telemarketer 
who asked if I wanted to switch to them.  I responded: "Not only no,
but hell no."  (This is an exact quote; after I said "no" the first
time and the saleslime tried again, I repeated it twice. I was
otherwise pleasant in my demeanor and tone of voice.)

A month later, my bill came from Cherry Communications.  It was for a 
LOT
more than I had figured the calls would cost with my real carrier (then
MCI).

That's fraud, and it's wrong.  I did wind up paying (I think) just about
what MCI with all of the various discounts would have cost for those
calls, as I refused to pay their inflated charges (although it was quite
difficult to try and figure out exactly *what* all the discounts were
supposed to be).  This cost several hours of my time, and I was NOT 
happy
about a company whose representatives acted in bad faith to defraud me
being enriched thereby in ANY amount, even though it was less than they
had tried to charge me.

"Clerical errors" are probably not the cause of most "slams".  Perhaps 
the
best way to deal with this is to have the telemarketers eat the charges
for "slam-refusal" telephone services; this would provide a disincentive
that might actually curtail these irritations.


Mark Gabriele   (PGP public key available upon request)
gabriele@rand.org

------------------------------



Robert Ricketts (rkr@pel.com) wrote:

> I'm unsure quite how this works.  If I receive a package addressed and
> delivered to me (e.g. not delivered to the wrong person) that I did
> not order, I believe I have the right to keep it without paying for it
> even if billed at a later time.  (An obvious exception is the negative
> option refusal method used by record and book clubs.  But with those,
> the negative option refusal is part of the contract you agree to.)

But you _did_ order the package (place the phone call).  You're upset
that it didn't come from the company that you ordered it from, but
they might be a supplier to a clearing house that you don't know.

If your carrier-of-choice is a switchless reseller, he might carry your
traffic on Wiltel.  If he fails, or Wiltel fails, to update their ANI-
table,
they will handle you as a casual caller, and send out a bill.

Regardless of how it happened, including malicious slamming, _you_ 
placed
the phone calls.  Why should they be free?


Clarence A Dold - dold@rahul.net
                - Pope Valley & Napa CA.

------------------------------



In article <telecom15.423.3@eecs.nwu.edu> rogers@ISI.EDU (Craig Milo
Rogers) writes:


> In article <telecom15.418.3@eecs.nwu.edu> 
dsewell@helium.gas.uug.arizona.
> edu (David R Sewell) writes:

>> In article <telecom15.396.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, Linc Madison 
<lincmad@netcom.
>> com> wrote:
>>> NEW OLD  START    FINAL   ST      Place/Comment
>>> -- ---  -----    -----   -- -----------------------------------------
--
>>> 520 602 03/19/95 10/21/95 AZ Tucson, Flagstaff, Yuma (all but 
Phoenix)

>> After Tucson businesses (mostly) raised hell about problems inbound
>> calls have had under the new code, the Arizona Corporation Commission
>> just mandated *much* looser final deadlines: 31 December 1996 for
>> Tucson, 30 June 1996 for other affected areas.

> Prescott keeps getting left off the list!  According to the
> Friday, 22 Sep 1995 edition of the {Sierra Vista Herald}:

> 21-Oct-1995     Permissive dialing ends except in Falgstaff, Yuma,
>                 Prescott, and Tucson.

> 30-Jun-1996     Permissive dialing ends in Flagstaff, Yuma, and 
Prescott.

> 31-Dec-1996     Permissive dialing ends in Tucson.

>        The article said that, according to Jack Ott, numbering
> adminstrator for US West, phasing out permissive dialing by prefixes
> hasn't ever been tried before.  "The potential is high for a real


                

> mess."

Note that as of now, I still have been unable to call numbers in Yuma
or in Tucson Arizona from northern California (San Francisco, or
Suisun City) using the 520 area code (on ATT)

I am continuing to use 602.  Has anyone else noticed this?

On an unrelated note, it was great to see Ehud on the list, that is a
name from my distant past days at the good old University of Arizona -
and the "Mosiac" house on Speedway blvd.


Richard Nickum    Price Waterhouse

------------------------------



Something happened today which had my blood boiling. I received a bill
from Pac*Bell demanding immediate payment of my long distance balance
since this had exceeded their idea of "normal". All the calls were
made on my AT&T calling card while travelling in France and England,
it is pure coincidence that I am now home and received the bill. It is
due on October 11, 5 days from now, two of those days are weekend
days.

I called and complained and the payment people at Pac*Bell apologized
stating that I had been a long time good customer and this letter should
not have been sent out. However, I did some further investigation and
discovered that Pac*Bell sets a credit limit which they pass on to AT&T
and it is AT&T which triggers the "pay now or else" letter which is
issued by Pac*Bell. It comes with a nice little note which says it will
only cost $20 to have service restored, but by the way they want a
deposit of $2555.00 (that's right two-and-a-half THOUSAND dollars!).

Since this letter was obviously triggered automatically I have two 
options
to avoid this hassle in the future:

1. Negotiate a higher limit with Pac*Bell;

2. Switch to direct billing from AT&T and set my own limit with them
   (they don't insist on any limit ["we want your money"], but it is
   probably a good idea to have the calling card self-destruct at a
   preset limit in case of fraud.)

The customer service rep with AT&T promised to pass on my comments
regarding how silly this mechanism is. If AT&T is concerned about my
long distance spending habits while I am on the road, they should
invalidate my card and say "please call us" instead of triggering
possible disconnection of local phone service back home.

All involved parties seem to agree that this is nonsense, we shall see
if it gets fixed.



Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher, ConneXions--The Interoperability 
Report,
Interop Company, a division of SOFTBANK Expos, 303 Vintage Park Drive,
Foster City, CA 94404-1138, USA. Ph: +1 (415) 578-6988 Fax: +1 (415) 525-
0194.

------------------------------



My phone company (Nynex) is thinking about putting a slick unit in my
basement. A slick unit takes in several T1's and puts out close to a
hundred POTS lines.

I run an ISP in Maine.

I've investigated different options, and since Nynex is paying for
this, It's a better deal than a channel bank as far as we are
concerned.

The other option would be to buy a channel bank and what Nynex calls a
FlexPath T1. This figured to be about $80/line/month. Ouch.

So the Slick is looking pretty good at $34/line/month.

<b>There are two type of Slicks and I'm interested in hearing what
other people's experiences are with them.</B>

Nynex voiced concern (who woulda thought?) that some slicks might not
be able to support full speed 28.8 connects,something of extreme
importance for an ISP.

One type is a "Universal Slick" which will allow DDS2 as well --
something I won't be needing much more of with the recent arrival of
Frame Relay.

The other type is just a "Slick" I guess. It does not incorporate DDS2
capabilities, but it can only handle 60-somthing of the 96 lines it
carries simultaneously.  Works great with modems.

Nynex says another ISP in Clinton Mass had trouble with a slick unit.
They also use slick units on the side of the road in remote locations
to extend POTS far beyond the normal range of the CO, such as rural
areas. These people use modems just fine. Of course Maybe the slick in
clinton was improperly installed and tuned, but I don't have too much
confidence when Nynex tells me these things.

Thanks for any comments!


Jason Philbrook   jp@midcoast.com

------------------------------



Does anyone have PERSONAL experience dealing with Bell Atlantic to
resolve problems with a noisy phone line? I can just barely get 14400
bps. I just upgrade to a 28.8k modem and it is hell.

I ordered a second phone line, but it is just as bad.

To eliminate concerns about inside wiring (my house is only two years
old), I moved my computer very close to my basement window, ran a wire
outside and directly into the network interface. (Having disconnects
all wire into the house.) Still problems.

So I bought Shielded Twisted Pair and ran that from the box to a jack
in the basement. Same problem.

My modem (Zyxel Elite 2864) has a mode which reports S/N ratio and RX
level. On these poor connections I got between 13-20db SNR and -33dB
receive level. Does anyone know what the standards are?

The levels seem to fluctuate a lot. When it rains it seems to be worse.

I believe we are served off of a SLC. But I'm not sure the distance.

Any first hand experience would be appreciated.


Ken

------------------------------



In TELECOM Digest #419, TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:

> She would respond something like, 'Southern Bell Inward, what number 
did
> you dial?

I just thought I'd take this opportunity to mention that earlier this
week, the name change became official.  Southern Bell and SouthWestern
Bell became BellSOUTH.

Even though I always thought it would be a good name for the Mexican
Telephone Company, how long before Taco Bell changes its name to
BellSPICY ?

------------------------------



TELECOM Digest readers may be interested in The Economist's survey of
telecommunications in their September 30th, 1995 issue.  Titled The
Death of Distance, it discusses the rapidly approaching future world
where it costs as much (as little) to call the next continent as it
does to call the next house.  I read the article on paper (I subscribe
to this excellent newspaper), and only then noticed that they have
made it available on their Web site http://www.economist.com/ .

No connection/just satisfied customer/etc.


Tony H.

------------------------------



I was walking in one of the yuppified sections of Uptown Charlotte
today, when I noticed a person-hole cover that said "W.U.Tel.Co."
Would someone care to explain if Western Union had telephone or
telegraph lines buried down there, and if it was telephone -- when did
they own local telcos?


Stan


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It was probably an access point for
Western Union Telegraph Company cables. They were never in the local
telco business. Did they have a large office in Charlotte at one
time or another?  I do know that if you go over on LaSalle Street
in in the south end of downtown Chicago I used to see a few of those
mainly in the vicinity of WUTCO's large office building and wire
center.  PAT]

------------------------------

Numbers)


Robert McMillin (rlm@netcom.com) wrote:
<SNP>

> beastie?  How about 714-714-xxxx or 805-818-xxxx?

The "So-Cal Area Code Conflict" prefixes do exist.  They are used for
WATS services (not diallable on a POTS line).  I think there is an
818-805 and an 818-213 out of SHOKCA04.

There is an 818-909 in Van Nuys/Cedros, there is POTS and DID on this 
prefix.  It was established before the 909 NPA came in.  There is also a 
310-909.  

What's funny is that the old 213-310 was in Santa Monica and was a
Centrex prefix dedicated to GTE (before all of their departments were
moved to Thousand Oaks, then dissolved).  But then, the 310 area code
came along.  GTE conveniently cancelled the 213(310)-310 prefix.

There is a 562 in 213, 310 and 818.


Richard Eyre-Eagles, KJ7MU     Tempe, Arizona            

------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #424
******************************

           
