
From telecom-request@delta.eecs.nwu.edu  Tue Sep 26 22:16:00 1995
by
1995
22:16:00 -0400
telecomlist-outbound; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 17:40:33 -0500
1995
17:40:31 -0500
To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Sep 95 17:40:00 CDT    Volume 15 : Issue 409

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cell One/NY Fraud Control Problems, More (Jeffrey Rhodes)
    Re: IS95 Standard (Sona Kapadia)
    Re: FBI Arrests America Online Users (Ron Bean)
    Re: FBI Arrests America Online Users (dunscomb@aol.com)
    Re: Hi-Speed via POTS (Dave Harrison)
    Re: Area Code Split Dates (Robert McMillin)
    Re: Help Needed Increasing UTP Segments (John N. Dreystadt)
    Re: Dialing 911 Instead of Police's 7D Number (Gordon Burditt)
    Re: Voice Compression on T1s (Gerald Mori)
    Re: Variable Length Phone Numbers (Dik Winter)
    Re: War On Payphones (Nude Maid Service) (Ron Bean)

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.

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



In article 1@eecs.nwu.edu, dreuben@interpage.net (Doug Reuben) writes:

> Recently, Cell One/NY (00025) announced mandatory use of the *560/*56 
> Fraud Protection Feature. 

Deleted: an excellent discription of the FPF feature and excellent 
feedback.

> 2. Cell One/NY recently, and quite foolishly, commenced mandatory 1+ 
> dialing for most calls, even in many cases for calls within their own 
> service area. This has been explained to me as a "requirement" since 
AT&T 
> now owns them, but unless this "requirement" is specific to AT&T-owned 
> properties under the MFJ, I am not aware of any such MFJ, DOJ or other 
> requirement on the Bell-owned carriers. Indeed, most of them do NOT 
> require 1+ dialing in their markets, ever for roamers. 

The 1+ requirement is a result of McCaw's conversion to Equal Access
which is required by the 1994 Consent Decree between the DoJ and AT&T.
Now that Cell One/NY has been converted to Equal Access, 60% of all
McCaw/Cellular One markets are converted, which means the company has 
the
right to call itself AT&T Wireless (which has greater brand name 
recognition 
than McCaw Cellular).

Basically, 1+ ten digits implies that the call will be charged regular
airtime plus maybe something else. Seven or ten digits can imply no
extra charge.  Depending on the cell of origin and the destination
digits dialed, a toll charge is either paid to the mobile subscriber's
Preferred Interexchange Carrier (PIC) or the toll is paid to ATTWS who
is able to route calls on their own facilities within a Local Calling
Service (LCSA). LCSAs are similar to LATAs under the MFJ. ATTWS is
able to route 1+ calls to ATT Commericial Long Lines when the mobile's
IS41 PIC is not locally supported or because the PIC is not known, eg.
not delivered by IS41 or is delivered blank.

You also noticed that roamers need to dial 1+tendigits even when the
tendigits destination is not charged toll. I guess the "roaming" airtime 
surcharge is the implied "toll" in this case.

> My cellphone is programmed with mainly 10-digit numbers. In some 
markets, 
> 10-digit dialing is REQUIRED, and 11 digit will fail. I really don't 
want 
> to have TWO sets of numbers in memory, one for CO/NY, the rest for
eslewhere.

I like the way my Ericsson TDMA cellphone handles this. I can program
local seven digit numbers and preprogram 1206 to be prepended to any
stored seven digit numbers when the Roaming Lamp is lit on the 
cellphone. 
For the case you mentioned I could change 1206 to 206, but my eleven
digit entries would be useless. A market that supports ten digit toll
dialing and does not support 1+ten digit toll dialing must not be
required to meet Equal Access obligations.
 
> What happens? When a caller calls your CO/NY number that has been 
> forwarded, they get a recording "Your call can not be completed as 
> dialed". You need to dial "*71-1-AC+#" from roaming markets as well to 
> forward your calls properly. Another pain in the neck with is IMHO 
> unecessary, and will lead to customer confusion. There are so few 
> customers who use their features currently, in part because of the 
> complications involved in roaming and previous frustrating 
experiences; 
> this new problem makes it even less likely that they will ever want to 
> use their features. 

You're preaching to the choir. This problem can be minimised by 
requiring
*71+ eleven and rejecting any *71+ < eleven attempts.

Personally, I promote *711 + ten, *71 + ten and *71 + seven as 
acceptable. 
When a mobile dials *71 + seven, they mean MIN's NPA + seven=ten, so 
when
it comes time to route a forwarded call, they mean 1+ MINNPA + 
seven=eleven. 
I also like the feature *71- to reestablish call forwarding to the
last established call forward to destination without having to resend
the destination.

These dialing features are non-uniform. The Equal Access conversion 
process
has spurned an internal drive for Standard Customer dialing translations 
at
all ATTWS switch.

> 4. CO/NY customers who forwarded their calls in CT (in the Metro 
Mobile
> system, not in CO/NY's "country" system in Litchfield, CT, which they 
got
> after the local system failed to attract customers. Of course, they 
were
> charging 60 cents per minute for HOME customers in an area of CT 
populated
> mainly by cows...) were NOT able to unforward them, even though Metro 
> Mobile reported the confirmation tones upon the roamer's request to 
> unforward the call. This led the customer to think that he/she could 
> receive calls, when in fact, they were still being forwarded. 

I hate it when that happens. Personally, I always call my number after 
confirmation tone, to make sure what I think happens, really has 
happened.
IS41 has some holes to fill.


Jeffrey Rhodes at jcr@creator.nwest.attws.com

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



maverick@kom.auc.dk (Hans Peter Oestergaard) wrote:

> I am currently writing my Masters thesis on Interference Cancellation
> for a DS-CDMA system and therefore need some information to simulate a
> real-world realistic system.

> Is there anybody who could tell me if Qualcomm's proposed standard
> (IS95) are available anywhere on the net or somewhere else where it
> could be ordered and delivered fast. None of the libraries around here
> (In Denmark) seems to be able to get it and the ftp cite at Qualcomm
> doesn't include the main chapters with specific details.

IS-95 is published by TIA (Telecommunications Industry Association). 
Their
address and number to call for ordering standards, as listed in my copy 
of 
IS-95 is as follows:

Telecommunications Industry Association
Standards and Technology Department
2500 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22201

Global Engineering Documents, USA and Canada: 1-800-854-7179
                              International: 303-397-7956


Sona

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



clifto@indep1.chi.il.us (Clifton T. Sharp)  writes:

> In article <telecom15.400.7@eecs.nwu.edu> PAT writes:

>> New users would often complain, "well I don't know
>> who this person (the sysop) is; I am not going to give out my name,
>> phone number and address to a stranger", and my answer always was, 
but

   PAT, I didn't mind giving my address and phone number, but some
sysops had a whole laundry list of questions they wanted you to answer
 -- how old are you, what do you do for a living, what brand of CPU do
you have (I always answered "NEC V20", taking the position that "CPU"
means the microprocessor chip and not the whole motherboard).

   I could never figure out what they thought they were going to do
with all that other information -- I think some of them were just on a
power trip. Interestingly, I only had *one* sysop call to verify my
identity. That one was a UUCP site. Once I got access to usenet, I
pretty much gave up on BBS's.

   BTW, back then quite a few sysops still wrote their own software,
sometimes on obscure machines (some even ran in interpreted BASIC,
with a few key routines in assembler). MSDOS clones were still
relatively expensive, and most BBS's had no hard disks (they only
lasted about 8000 hours, which is about a year in continuous use).
About the time clones with hard disks started getting cheaper, shareware 
BBS packages were starting to became available, and a lot of non-techies 
were becoming sysops.  This changed the character of the BBS world
quite a bit.


madnix!zaphod@nicmad.nicolet.com (Ron Bean)


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I know what you are saying is true. The
age and occupation questions made sense occassionally when the sysop was
trying to run a serious social issues discussion type board (these were
the forerunners of let's say, one of the Usenet groups today dealing
with social issues.) I had a user profile section on one of my BBSs 
which
users who had contributed to were entitled to review, and because I had
such a wide age span (a couple of guys in their fifties -- older than me
at the time by far; a couple of younger guys about fifteen and every age
in between) it often times helped place their messages in the proper
context by having an idea of *who* was writing them. I always left that
stuff as optional; all I demanded was some recourse to the user in the
event of hassles. Also, for those guys running a so-called 'adult board'
or with an 'adult' section, age was critical to insure they were not
inadvertently providing the younger 'under-age' guys with stuff that 
could get the sysop in trouble. I never did run adult stuff so that was
not a concern to me. And yes, some of the sysops indeed were on a power
trip; they exercised considerable authority over their boards, and yet
when inappropriate got posted, they were the first ones to cry and whine
about how 'I cannot be held responsible for stuff posted here.'   PAT]

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



Pat, you're getting "humongous" junk mail on AOL?  Must be that your
celebrity status makes you a magnet for the stuff.  Or maybe you're
just unlucky.  I get and send a lot of e-mail on AOL, all of it
personal and desired, and I see no junk or spam except for a
once-a-month "newsletter" that I never read.  But then, I'm a dull
man.  Or, maybe I'm just lucky.

Since CIS charges for Internet mail, and AOL doesn't, for me it's the
least expensive service around.  (Cheap enough to make me put up with
the kiddycar mail facilities, even. Maybe with AOL 3.0 they'll get mail 
facilities as good as those on CIS.   Or, maybe 5.0, or 8  ...)

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



Robert Ricketts (rkr@pel.com) wrote:

> Greetings. I'm looking for a couple of boxes that does the following:

>            A       B         C         D        E        (see below)
>       |         |     |             |     |           |

I think Telebit makes a device to combine multiple dial ups to a single
higher speed.

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



On 21 Sep 1995 07:34:13 PDT, lincmad@netcom.com (Linc Madison) said:

> The splits are listed in order by the date of the END of permissive
> dialing.

> NEW OLD  START    FINAL   ST      Place/Comment
>  -- ---  -----    -----   ---------------------------------------------
> 562 310 02/01/97 08/01/97 CA Los Angeles area; details not finalized

Interesting.  According to a recent article in the Marina Del Rey
{Argonaut}, the cutover is scheduled to start around 06/96, with
permissive dialing ending early in 1997 -- a very aggressive schedule.
Also, this list doesn't cover the alleged split of the 818 area code
into 818 and 626 (?) along geographic lines, with San Fernando Valley
cities (Burbank, Pasadena, Studio City, Van Nuys, etc.) retaining the
818 area code, and San Gabriel Valley cities (Azusa, the Covinas,
etc.)  adopting the new 626 NPA.  I heard about this (if I recall, it
was a mailing in my Pac*Bell bill) several months back, but have heard
nothing since.  Am I hallucinating?

Trivia question for fellow Angelenos: within the city limits of Los
Angeles, how many area codes are there?  How many within the County of
Los Angeles?

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



In article <telecom15.396.4@eecs.nwu.edu>, gettings@econnect.net says:

> The maximum length of an ethernet UTP segment is said to be 300 feet 
or 100
> meters.  Does anyone know of a low cost repeater or amplifier to allow 
more
> than this length between the hub and the workstation?

Check out the FAQ for comp.dcom.cabling or comp.dcom.ethernet. There
are several methods for extending the length, but they are going to
depend on the configuration of the rest of your network. You have to
worry about speed of light delays within a single collision domain so
if the rest of your network is large enough, you will have to use a
router. More likely, you can just stick another hub halfway between.
Another option would be to use 10Base-2 (thinwire) between the hub you
need to reach and the workstation as 10Base-2 has about twice the
distance. Many hubs have a single 10Base-2 connector on the back.


John Dreystadt

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

Down


> We are to blame for this though, in most cases we do not
> take the time to educate the citizens that 9-1-1 is for life
> threatening emergencies *ONLY*.

Please educate the *POLICE* that 9-1-1 is for life threatening 
emergencies ONLY.

A few years ago I was the victim of a hit-and-run rear-ender accident.
I was stopped, waiting to turn left, waiting for oncoming traffic to
clear.  The police showed up quickly (I did not have to call them;
apparently there was a cruiser half a block away.)  I had a banged-up
arm but nothing that needed medical attention.  The car seat back
broke.  The car was totalled, although it wouldn't have taken much
damage (e.g. dirty windshield or empty gas tank) to total this junker
car.

The police officer told me I'd need a copy of the accident report for
insurance and to call 911 in a few days.  I ended up asking for a
repeat three times because I didn't believe I was hearing correctly.



                                                                                  

Several days later I called the normal police number.  I was told
to call 911 for the accident report.  I refused.  After about
five calls I threatened to sue (I was bluffing) using the name of a 
local lawyer a friend had mentioned once, and reminded the officer
that he had the right to remain silent.  Finally I got my 
accident report (well, they sent it direct to the insurance company).  

They never did catch the guy.  But a few months later they added a 
center-turn-lane to the site of the accident.


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lerctr.org!gordon

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



Jim McGrath (Jim_McGrath@gw.pps.com) wrote:

> I would like to hear from anyone with experience using voice
> compression techniques in T1 muxes. I need as much of the bandwidth of
> my T1s as possible for data, but had to cost-justify the T1s by
> including reductions in voice telco expenses. I will probably be using
> Newbridge muxes (3600 & 3624), which seem to support a voice-path at
> as low as 8kbps. Although it leaves more for data, I'm concerned about
> degraded quality. Of 8, 16 or 32kbps, I'm sure 32 is the least
> objectionable for the telemarketing people who will be on the phones,
> but what kind of quality might I expect?  Are there other mux vendors
> who provide better quality at low bandwidths?

  The company I used to work for was heavy into Newbridge muxes for
both voice and data.  I've heard voice calls at 32k and 16k and they
were intelligible with 32k obviously better sounding than the 16k.  I
think 16k is the absolutr minimum you'd want to run at.  Although I
haven't tried 8k myself I spoke to one of the techs who tested a voice
call at 8k and he said it was OK in that you could understand the
person on the other end but the total lack of sound quality it was
somewhat irritating to deal with, whatever that means. :-)

  When we first installed a bunch of 3600s engineering thought it
would be a good idea to put all our voice customers on 32k channels in
order to save money (or make more).  Of course, a lot of customers
were using their voice channels for data as well and that pretty much
put an end to that plan.


Jerry
Internet Direct                Have you heard about our
(416)233-2999, 359 lines       our Do-It-Yourself Webserver?
T1 bandwidth, 300-28,800 bps   http://web.idirect.com

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



> One point remains to be covered, however:

>> What is a phone number? For the most part, a phone number is a 
*route*
>> through the network.

> This is absolutely not true in North America.

Nor is it true in the Netherlands.  But we manage variable length
phone numbers very well.  When somebody dials 06 (the start of the
free and premium numbers, as well as the equivalent of 911 in the US
plus all cellular phones), a connection is made with the central
switch for such numbers in Rotterdam.  No trunk, only a signalling
channel.  Based on what follows said switch will tell the asking
switch to routine it either to some particular switch (which may be
the switch itself if the number translates to a local connection) or
to signal that the number is not in use.  

Moreover, because there is a hierarchical structure amongst switches
some things have to go up and down to/from parent/child switches.  For
instance, I dial 0611 (emergency number).  06 goes to Rotterdam which
expects more digits and when it sees the second 1 it decides that the
number expands to a local number and hands it back again.  If I dial
0632032012 again 06 goes to Rotterdam which at some instance (after
320320) knows where the call should be routed to and signals that the
remainder should go to a particular switch.  But similar things work
with area codes.  

If I was living in the place were I was born (Warffum) and I were to
dial 0206372010, the switch would know at the digit two that it is not
for itself and would forward it higher up (Groningen).  Groningen can
decide routing when the 0 is received and at that stage forward it to
Amsterdam, setting up a signalling channel between Warffum and
Amsterdam.  And finally when the number is completed a speech channel
is set up for the connection.  However, if the number I dial is in
Delfzijl (05960-..., area code for Warffum is 05950), Groningen might
well decide on a direct link between Warffum and Delfzijl for call
forwarding; bypassing all lines to Groningen (provided of course that
such a link exists).


dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj  amsterdam, nederland, 
+31205924098
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn  amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: dik@cwi.nl

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



echack@crl.com (Edmund C. Hack) writes:

> all this is coordinated via pagers and/or cell phones. In the sex
> trade, if you call an "escort service" or a "nude maid service", the

   Are you saying that "nude maid service" is being used as a
euphemism for prostitution? Too bad, I always liked the idea.

   The first such service I heard about was a guy who called himself
the "Naked Poet Housecleaning Service". He was for real: He'd come to
your house, take off his clothes, *and recite poetry while he cleaned
your house* (yes, he really cleaned the house).  He admitted that it
was a gimmick, but he was unemployed and it worked. Nobody touched
anybody. No word on whether the poetry was any good, but he didn't do
windows (for obvious reasons :-).

   More recently other people have tried larger services, with actual
employees (always female, which does make one wonder...).  As far as I
know, they really did clean houses, and supposedly nobody touched
anybody. IMHO it lost a bit in the translation, and I don't know if
they're still around. Businesses based on gimmicks tend not to last
very long.

   Anyway, it might be worth mentioning that there are people who take
things like nudism and massage seriously; it's not always a cover for
something else (see alt.nude and alt.backrubs).

   Hmm, I think that should be rec.nude, not alt.nude.  We don't get
it here, so I'm going by memory.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: There are still 'escort' and 'massage'
services around. So many, in fact, that the few legitimate ones have to
emphasize 'no sex' in their advertising, and even then some customers
assume they only put that there to discourage the perverts without
really meaning it. 

About 35-40 years ago, there used to be a daily radio program called
'City Court' which was broadcast live from the police misdemeanor
courtroom at the police administration building downtown. It was on
the air from 9:00 AM until more or less noon every weekday, depending
on when the judge decided to break for lunch. It was a very popular
program, with lots of listeners who had a prurient interest in the
cases on trial that day, and of course the 'trials' themselves were
a joke. Ninety or ninety-five percent of the judge's caseload was sex-
related. There were a few spitters on the sidewalk and litterers and
people who smoked on the streetcars, but by and large it was people
the vice-cops had arrested the night before. In-between the occassional
'refused pay his fare to the streetcar conductor' and 'was caught 
shoplifting at Sears' were dozens of prostitution, indecent exposure,
and 'lewd and/or disorderly conduct' cases.

A very popular radio program similar to (but not nearly as sophisticated
as) today's Court TV, people would listen eagerly to see if they recog-
nized the names of any of the people 'on trial' that day. It included a
regular cast of characters; people who were invariably the complaining
witnesses, including five or six 'vice cops' from the Chicago Police
Department, the house detective at the Lawson YMCA, security personnel
at department stores downtown, etc. You were perfectly welcome to be in
the audience if you wanted; all you had to do was show up at the 
eleventh
floor police courtroom at the main police headquarters each morning. Of
course if you were unfortunate enough to have gotten arrested the night
before, you were on the show whether you liked it or not. The courtroom
itself was a smelly, nasty-looking place, with a large 'bullpen' in back
and a connecting door where the prisoners would come in as they were
called. 

The radio station went on the air at 9 although they seldom started the
court until ten or fifteen minutes after that when the judge arrived. 
As the first order of business, after the courtoom bailiff had announced
there would be 'no talking, no smoking, no newspaper reading, everyone
pay attention and no disrepect for the court' the bullpen door would 
open
and anywhere from a dozen to a hundred women would form a line in the
order their names were called. Most were dressed as they had been the
night before when 'on duty', but badly in need by this time of a bath 
and
clean clothes. Each 'trial' took about ten seconds as the matron would
motion for them to leave tbe bullpen and approach the bench where their
name would be read, and the judge would say 'guilty, punishment is time
served' and bang his gavel, which was the signal for the matron to send
the next one. They would sas-shay across the front of the courtroom in
a beligerant manner, pausing usually to say 'thank you judge' and leave.
Once this exercise was complete, which usually took 10-15 minutes, the
judge would break for coffee and a cigarette, then come back about 9:30
for the next session. 

When court resumed, following the bailiff's warning to the audience,
the 'more involved' cases began. These were cases where there was some
dispute in the testimony to be given. The same two vice-cops would stand
there, as case after case was heard. Like poker players, they stood 
there
with poker faces expecting to win some and lose some; not caring either
way. The cops always had the same old story, with variations: "Well
judge, me and my partner were having breakfast at the drug store in the
Palmer House Hotel. As we were leaving, this woman (here, a pause for
the obligatory identification of the defendant) approached us and 
offered
to perform a sex act for money."  Naturally, offended by hearing such a
thing they arrested her. The woman of course would explain it in a much
different way. "I left the drug store and was waiting for the elevator
to go upstairs to my room when these men approached me and they asked
me 'how much?'. Well I just ignored them and got on the elevator but 
they
got on with me and got off on the same floor I got off. They asked me
again, 'how much do you charge?' and I just walked away but as I was
going in my room, the one grabbed me and said I was arrested." The
judge would listen to it all and give his verdict one way or the other.
Roughly half the time he said 'innocent' and the other half the time he
said 'guilty, one month court supervision, twenty dollar fine'.  The
defendant would say thank you, and leave with the two poker faced cops
showing no emotion at all and just standing there for the next case
to be called. Average time for trial was about five minutes, maybe ten.

Now and again they would have a 'major case' such as an alleged house
of prostitution being raided with all the employees and customers who
were present at the time brought in. For some reason, those same two
vice-cops found themselves in more unusual situations in which they were
'shocked and offended' in a day's time than most people find in a 
lifetime.
By comparison, the 'refused to pay streetcar fare' people and 
shoplifters,
who were given their trials in the third session when court resumed
about 11:00 AM after the judge took another break were quite tame and
boring.  

But City Court was a popular and widely-listened to radio program each
day. A small red light on the judge's podium was used to let the judge
(and others) know when they were 'on the air', and the judge, who had
to run for re-election now and then would make a point of doing all
his blustering and hell-raising when that light was on so everyone
would hear him. Then that light would go off when the radio station
took a break for a commerical message, and that is when the judge
would dismiss the case or say 'guilty, with time served.'   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V15 #409
******************************

                                                                                  
