Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
TELECOM Digest Volume 10 Issue 849
TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 Nov 90 22:52:55 CST Volume 10 : Issue 849
Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson
Re: US Sprint Offers Conference Calling [Randy Borow]
Re: US Sprint Offers Conference Calling [Lars Poulsen]
Re: Keeping a Line "Busy" Without a Phone Off Hook [Brian Kantor]
Re: The "Bell" Logo [Barry Margolin]
Re: Unitel FacsRoute With Modems [Peter Smith]
Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling [Tom Gray]
Re: BRI to the Home: When? [Fred R. Goldstein]
Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines [John R. Covert]
Re: Prodigy "Protesters" Respond [Henry Mensch]
Programming Cellular Phones [Eric Varsanyi]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rborow@bcm1a09.attmail.com
Date: Mon Nov 26 14:23:06 CST 1990
Subject: Re: US Sprint Offers Conference Calling
In reply to G.S. Thurman's raves about Sprint's conference calling
service:
Big deal. Has Mr. Thurman (I'm assuming a male here) been
living in a cave? U.S. Sprint didn't "start this service," as he
lauds. AT&T has had something even better (and far less confusing, I
might add) for some time now. It's called Alliance Teleconferencing.
It works in a similar way, by using the "#" and "*" keys, but
also has many other enhanced features Sprint cannot yet match. I've
used Alliance several times and love it. It even has a "Meet Me"
feature which allows all conferees to start the conference at a
predetermined time simply by calling a secure, private access number.
Once again, AT&T leads; the others follow.
Randy Borow Rolling Meadows, IL. (708) 228-7075
------------------------------
From: Lars Poulsen <lars@spectrum.cmc.com>
Subject: Re: US Sprint Offers Conference Calling
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 22:22:26 GMT
In article <14920@accuvax.nwu.edu> 0004056081@mcimail.com (George S.
Thurman) writes (some hype deleted):
>US SPRINT ... now offer the ability to make conference calls on their
>Network ... at no extra charge until February 16, 1991, when
>there will be a 75 cent surcharge if you use this feature with your
>FONCARD(sm).
(1) Does this mean that the service is available without a
surcharge on 10xxx calls from my home phone ?
>The new service will be known as QUICKCONFERENCE(sm), and instructions
>are as follows:
>After you establish a connection with your first party, depress the
>"*" [for at least one full second] followed by 12. This brings an
>additional Sprint dial tone. Dial the number of the next party.
>(Do NOT dial "0"). Depress "*" again followed this time by 13.
>You are now connected! To drop the additional party, or if the
>additional party's number is busy, dial "*" followed by 14.
(2) How many parties can be conferenced? Just three? Five?
Unlimited? (probably not, due to computer table space
requirements).
If only three parties allowed, it sounds like three-way calling
without having to pay for presubscription to the feature.
Nice, but not something I have missed at home; and at work,
our PBX does three-way calls quite nicely.
If this allows five or more participants with reasonable quality,
it will be great competition for the AT&T conference call
facility provided out of the special service centers.
(3) Is this provided through the switch at the IEC POP ?
The described procedure would almost require this.
How is the call billed? From the originator's location to
each participant?
(4) Since the activation requires the switch to listen to data
on the open call, will this not interfere with other uses
of tone signalling? (Banking, remote control answering amchines
and maybe even modems?) If it does, it would be a near disaster.
Is anyone from SPRint listening ?
Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer
CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM
[Moderator's Note: I'll defer to George Thurman to find out some of
the answers to your questions. As it was explained to me, this new
service from Sprint is intended to be a three-way call type thing
without the need to set something up via Alliance for folks (most of
us?) who rarely need that much conferencing ability. It will be
billed as two calls from the originator to wherever. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Brian Kantor <brian@ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: Keeping a Line "Busy" Without a Phone Off Hook
Date: 27 Nov 90 19:41:46 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
In article <69299@bu.edu.bu.edu>, DAN@gacvx2.gac.edu (Dan Boehlke)
wrote:
> What is the best way to busy a phone line? I have a bank of modems
Our modem lines all enter on RJ21 "punchblocks" so I've got some
rather nice clips that can be pushed over the terminals on the blocks
and make contact with the pair that I want to busy out. Between the
two terminals on the clip I have a red LED and a 270 ohm 1/2w resistor
in series. As long as I get the clip on the right way, it busies out
the line and lights up so I can see that I've got one of the lines
busied out.
Since most of our modems have error correction, I've even gotten away
with putting one of these on a line that's in use -- when the user
disconnects, the line remains busy and I can then pull the modem at my
leisure. The modem's error correction fixes the blast of noise from
the clip as I slip it in.
Brian
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <think!barmar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 23:09:03 GMT
In article <14949@accuvax.nwu.edu> john@mojave.ati.com (John Higdon)
writes:
>the Bell logo was made the collective property of the seven RBOC's
>in the MFJ. I believe there is at least one RBOC still actively using
>the logo even though most have dropped it.
>Southwestern Bell puts it on its telephone products and there may be
>an eastern RBOC that still uses it. It is not in the public domain.
NYNEX still uses it. We had a meeting today with a couple of NYNEX
representatives, and the Bell logo is emblazoned on their business
cards.
Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp.
barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
------------------------------
From: psmith <psmith@cs.uwindsor.ca>
Subject: Re: Unitel FacsRoute With Modems
Date: 28 Nov 90 00:04:57 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Univ. of Windsor, Ontario, Canada
In article <14917@accuvax.nwu.edu>, gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca (Paul
Gauthier) writes:
> the use of Unitel's FacsRoute with modems. They say it will work
> perfectly and don't mind in the least if you do it.
...
> [Moderator's Note: Can you please give us the number to call for
> information on this service, with contact names if possible? PAT]
Unitel's Sales office in (at least) SW Ontario is 1-800-265-7814.
Nobody there right now (7pm EST); guess they're not in Vancouver. :-)
Peter Smith
------------------------------
From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock!grayt@uunet.uu.net>
Subject: Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling
Date: 27 Nov 90 12:10:04 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!smithd!grayt@uunet.uu.net>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.
In article <14934@accuvax.nwu.edu> U5437880@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
writes:
>In article <14680@accuvax.nwu.edu>, og@chorus.fr (Olivier Giffard)
>writes:
>> I've just tried to dial a number in the 917 area code (non existent
>> yet) from France. I got a French intercept message just after dialing
>> the 7 of 917 saying that this code was not in service. What means has
>> a switch in France to know that. There must be some kind of table to
>Why is there an intercept? So the company which catches the wrong
>number does not have to foot the bill for bandwidth to find out the
>number is not connected. Invalid area codes are the simplest to
>check, since they change slowly, and there is a relatively small
>number of valid possibilities.
>Try dialling 19 44 81 603 xxxx, and see if you get a French intercept.
>[Moderator's Note: I just now tried it from Chicago, USA. It accepted
>the entire number (that is, 011-44-81-603-four more), and the response
>to me on each of several attempts was the same recorded announcement:
>You call cannot be completed by the telephone company in the country
>you are calling at this time. Please try your call again later."
>Interestingly, my call had left Chicago, gotten out of the USA and was
>sitting in limbo somewhere. Instead of playing the French recording to
>me, when AT&T heard something 'go wrong' over there, it yanked the
>connection back and played an English language message instead. PAT]
There may have been a combination of factors going on here. When you
reached the international network, a different type of networking
(siganlling) exists than that usually used in the US. When you
siganlled the French network with your originate, there was probably
an English language source signal in the message. Thus you could have
been connected to an English language recording in France because of
this. More likely, the originate message for your call, was answered
with a reply of "non-existing number" from the French network. The US
side gateway switch (international) then would have terminated the
call on a recording without wasting transatlantic bandwidth.
I wouldn't know the precise signalling scheme used on your call but
the CCITT signalling scheme R2 provides all of these services and is
used on international calls.
In any event, it would have been the gateway switch on either side of
the Atlantic that would have intercepted your call. The national
signalling systems in both countries are separated by the gateway. Any
reply from the French network would have been meaningless to the
normal ATT network. ATT would have completed your call to the US
gateway and then turned control of your call over to the gateway. The
US gateway would signal the French gateway which will in turn control
the setting up of the call in France. With multiple connections it is
possible that the gateways will signal between themselves with tones
which are meaningless to the national networks. This always seems
like the gateways are using the national networks as large PBX's to
me.
------------------------------
From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: BRI to the Home: When?
Date: 26 Nov 90 19:22:18 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA
In article <14909@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jem@hpisod2.cup.hp.com (Jim
McCauley) writes:
>Little has changed in the interim to convince me that meaningful
>digital services will be made available to me by the gang at the other
>end of my pair of wires (Pacific Bell). By "meaningful digital
>services," I mean:
> 1. Basic rate interface
> 2. Data interchange across switches (Signalling System 7)
> 3. An inexpensive BRI --> 9600 baud serial interface
> 4. A reasonable user interface for establishing data calls
>Do any of you telephone wizards out there in cyberspace have any idea
>when even such rudimentary services might be tariffed?
At least here in Massachusetts, where NYNEX/NET tends to be a little
behind other telcos in some areas, they've filed an ISDN tariff. The
BRI will be a $5 supplement above normal exchange rates. Packet on
the D channel will be $8/month (plus usage). Packet on one B channel
will be $22/month (plus usage, at higher-than-voice rates).
The catch? Besides the prices (basing switched data rates on an older
pre-ISDN CS-PDN tariff), they don't have SS7 in MA yet, so data
services are island-only. That'll take until late 1991-1992 to get
into most offices. Also, the price of customer equipment like
Terminal adapters is still pretty high, owing, I think, to low
volumes. That will determine the user interface, not the net.
At least it's beginning to move.
Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA
goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 486 7388
Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 17:36:57 PST
From: "John R. Covert 27-Nov-1990 0921" <covert@covert.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines
>Thackeray estimated in a recent Chronicle interview that PBX abuse
>will cost industry $500 million this year. According to her formulas,
>the DEA hackers may have used service worth $100,000 or more during
>each of the 18 months in which the agency's phone system was
>compromised.
$100,000 in a month seems to be a little high. Considering that a
full rate call to anywhere in the 48 states costs at most 25 cents a
minute, recalling that FTS restricts international calling, and not
taking the night and evening discount periods into account or the
savings the government gets having a private network (in other words,
considering each minute to be worth 25 cents), it would require
400,000 minutes of usage to cost $100,000.
That's more than nine hackers on the lines 24 hours a day, seven days
a week. Unlikely.
john
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 09:24:50 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <henry@garp.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Prodigy "Protesters" Respond
Reply-To: henry@garp.mit.edu
Sad to say, Mr. Grabhorn's informants are in error when they say these
changes were not made available via the "Highlights" screen (the first
screen you see after you sign on to *Prodigy*).
In fact, several times over the past few weeks the new e-mail changes
have been highlighted on the "Highlights" changes ("... to learn more,
[JUMP] <some e-mail jumpword>"), and that's how I learned about them.
# Henry Mensch / <henry@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
# <hmensch@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay> / <henry@tts.lth.se> / <mensch@munnari.oz.au>
# via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de
[Moderator's Note: Although their techniques for dealing with the
users they perceive to be troublesome leave something to be desired,
Prodigy is not entirely at fault in this. Maybe it is unrealistic to
think of Prodigy as a system intended for email. In the next issue of
the Digest, I'll be printing a response from Prodigy management to
complaints and questions raised about their new rates. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 13:25:53 MST
From: Eric Varsanyi <ewv@craycos.com>
Subject: Programming Cellular Phones
This weekend I bought a second cellular phone and actually managed to
install and program it myself. The phone only has a single NAM and I
would like to be able to use it on two different systems.
Motorola has an policy (enforced in software) of only allowing the NAM
in a phone to be programmed three times. After the third time it locks
out and attempts to get into programming mode.
On my first phone (Motorola 750 handheld) I found out how to clear the
counter from Motorola (it was like pulling teeth). It involves
shorting Pin 6 on the back of the phone to ground to get into
maintenance mode and then typing #32# to clear the phone out. Motorola
would not tell me what anything except #32# would do.
On the new phone (A Motorola MC200) they put the same silly
restriction on NAM programming. For some large sum of money they will
sell you an "adaptor" that goes between the DB25 on the tranceiver and
control head. A local cellular installer told me that this adaptor
simply shorts two pins on the DB25 to get into the maintenance mode
(just like on the 750).
So, the question is: Does anyone out there (perhaps someone with a
NAMFAX) have any info on which pins get into maintenance mode on an
MC200? Also, is there a generic list of commands that most Motorola
phones recognize once in maintenance mode (aside from #32#)?
Is there a good technical reason to not allow rampant reprogramming of
your NAM or is Motorola just doing this to ensure revenue for their
'factory authorized' service centers?
Eric Varsanyi (ewv@craycos.com) Cray Computer Corporation
[Moderator's Note: They may have also gotten a little heat from the
cellular companies or the feds regarding fraudulent use of the phone.
It wouldn't be the first time for Motorola. Years ago they
manufactured a chip known as 021-A for forty channel CB radios. It was
(ahem!) programmable by the most simple-minded CB radio user. Anyone
with a solder gun and an Exacto-blade would get in there and cut the
trace which kept pin 16 from going low. Presto, 40 channel CB suddenly
can tune all the way to 27.805 megs provided the pirate technician
could broadband it and get it to oscillate up there. The FCC finally
got tired of it and leaned hard on Motorola to quit using that chip. PAT]
------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V10 #849
******************************
