HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 07:21:06 CST
From: varney@ihlpl.att.com (Alan L Varney)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: No Caller ID in Texas
Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 855, Message 3 of 8

In article <telecom12.843.5@eecs.nwu.edu> scm3775@tamsun.tamu.edu
(Sean Malloy) writes:

> The law that prevents the adoption of the service predates the
> development of Caller ID (The No. 5 ESS?) and prevents anyone outside
> law enforcement and some businesses from using trap-and-trace devices.

   Caller ID (and most other CLASS features) were invented for and
first implemented on the 1A ESS(tm) switch in the early 1980's, using
CCIS 6 (pre-SS7) signaling.  Most trial areas did not allow Caller ID
into customer hands because of all the un-resolved 'privacy' issues.
(Harrisburg, PA was one of those areas.)


Al Varney
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:29:00 GMT
From: cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu (Christopher J. Ambler, Phish)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Any Advice For Large Move Order?
Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 859, Message 7 of 7

I, and two of my three roomates will be moving on 1 January, and will
have the following order to place:


old house                  --> new house

a. 2 measured in circ hunt --> (change billing)
b. 2 measured in circ hunt --> (change billing)
c. 3 flatrate              --> (change billing)
d. 2 flatrate              --> (same billing)
e. ISDN (2B2D-BRI)         --> (same billing)
f.                         --> add 1 new flatrate custom number
g.                         --> add 700 link to 1 of the 3 flatrates (c)
h. keep 2 existing in old house

All lines are residential. a-e are MOVE orders, f and g are new
installs.  By change billing, I mean that they are currently in the
name of the fourth roommate who will be staying and keeping the last
two existing lines (as in h), and I want them changed to my name.

Question is, is this an unusually large order for Pac*Bell? Should I
expect trouble? How early should I call it in? Any tips or suggestions
in placing the order (other than get ready to pay for it dearly)?


cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu    (805) 756-6634/ISDN
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:55:24 GMT
From: turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu (Bob Turner)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: At NYNEX, CNID is Coming Before E911
Organization: Univ. of Dayton, School of Engineering
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 870, Message 5 of 7

In article <telecom12.850.3@eecs.nwu.edu> rocker@vnet.ibm.com (Joshua
E. Muskovitz) writes:

> To their credit, the rep understood everything I said, but pointed out
> that in this area, at least, we do not have enhanced 911 and so I must
> dial *67 911 in order for them to be able to find me.  She claimed
> that the delay in setting up E911 ("we've been working on it for three
> years") is from the post office -- they have to convert all the Rural
> Route addresses and such to street addresses before an E911 system can
> be installed.

> Personally, I don't believe it.  Why not simply install it now for the
> more urban addresses, and update it for those addresses when they are
> converted?

Oh you better believe it!!! And thank god they are not putting a E911
system up without address rectification.

This is a difficult problem that my company and my joint venture
partner deal with on a daily basis. There is nothing worse then an
E911 system that cannot be trusted. Waiting for the post office is a
typical problem, eavne worse with the current round of lay-offs. In
Kentucky, a big market for us, the addressing support person in
Louisville was "early retired" on Sept 15. So for addressing support
your on your own in Kentucky.

Address rectification is only one aspect of putting a E911 database
together.  And it has to be done. The phone company records are
inaccurate (at best).  This usually isn't a problem because the
addresses they have are for billing purposes not Location ID.

However the legal and operation ramifications are tremendous. Try to
convince your Emergency crews to kill themselves to get to an address
that the ALI computer spitout. Especially when the past performance
has been less than 45% (Actual occurance). Plus the liability
potential is horrendous.

> [Moderator's Note: If she told you 'you must dial *67-911 in order for
> them to find you' then I would question how much she understood about
> what she was saying. *67 usually toggles the status of CLID delivery,
> but in any event it *never* affects the 911 display (if there is one;
> some older 911's don't have it.)  PAT]

Correct. E911 is driven off the billing systems for calling number
delivery.  Thats why the trunks going into a PSAP are generally CAMA
or TSPS. CNID and CLASS don't have anything to do with this.


Bob Turner                                    Senior System Engineer 
513-434-2738                           turner@udecc.engr.udayton.edu
CommSys, Inc.     77 West Elmwood Drive, Suite 101, Dayton, OH 45459
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 02:27:17 EST
From: capek@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Does SS7 Support Early Busy Signal?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 842, Message 12 of 14

While trying to make a credit card call to a persistently busy number
recently, after typing in the card number for the n-teenth time, I
wondered if SS7 protocol would allow the calling exchange to "look
ahead" at the called number and inquire if it is (at that instant)
busy, before prompting me for the card number.  Of course, I might
still get a busy if either the line became busy after I keyed in the
credit card number, or if the response to the query didn't make it
back to the originating exchange in time. The advantage (to me) would
be not having to repeatedly pound in the billing.  The advantage
(small) to the carrier would be not having to do the credit card
verification, and perhaps getting the line on which I'm calling free a
bit quicker.  If the call in question were third party bill, or
collect, the savings could be a lot greater.


Peter Capek
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 20:17:13 GMT
From: koos!kzdoos.hacktic.nl@kzdoos.hacktic.nl
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Help Needed With DTMF Tones
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 847, Message 3 of 17

Alistair Grant <100032.525@CompuServe.COM> writes:

> phone dialer, I have the tones: I have a program that creates the
> average of these tones for the corresponding number

Both tones need to be transmitted at the same time with equal loudness
(yup, that's two tones ... there goes the PC speaker ...)

> Can you tell me what is going wrong? I have the tones last for 0.5 of
> a second and seperated by 0.1 of a second.

Mark and Space times (On and Off) need to be of the same length (>=0.5
sec) to be recognized as valid.

> If you can shed any light on the subject that would be cool.

Cool? Winter is cool. This is autumn ...


Grtx. KH
Koos van den Hout -----------------------------------------------Sysop --\
Student Computer Science (AKA HIO)       BBS Koos z'n Doos (+31-3402-36647)
Inter-: koos@kzdoos.hacktic.nl                 300..14400 MNP2-5,10,V42bis)
net   : vandenhout@ruumtc.tcu.ruu.nl          Fido: Sysop @ 2:500/101.11012
Surfnet RUUMTC::VANDENHOUT
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 12:49:55 EST
From: andys@internet.sbi.com (Andy Sherman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Is Caller-ID an Illegal Trap and Trace?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 870, Message 1 of 7

> [ Description of section in the Electronic Communications Privacy
> Act that makes trap-and-trace devices illegal without a court
> order. ]

> If this is a correct interpretation, it means that the decisions in
> various states about Caller-ID are all irrelevant since this Federal
> law has made any caller ID box illegal (except for calls which are not
> "in interstate commerce.").

Do note that the decisions about Caller ID in the various states
*only* apply to calls which are *not* in interstate commerce, since
the state utility agencies and courts have no jurisdiction to allow or
disallow Caller ID on interstate calls.

> I'm waiting for some slick attorney who has a client who was caught
> with a Caller-ID box raise ECPA to not only have the evidence of calls
> excluded, but have the victim charged with a civil suit of violating
> the ECPA for installing an illegal trap and trace device without a
> court order, which if I remember, ECPA allows civil damages as high as
> $10,000.

First off, since Caller ID is only available for in-state calls, the
slick attorney would need a dunce for a judge to succeed.  But
further, anybody who used a Caller ID service which was tariffed by
the phone company and approved by the state would have the defense of
having in good faith acted in accordance with state and local law.

Meanwhile, I'm surprised you don't mention a potential conflict
between 800 number ANI delivery by inter-exchange carriers and the
ECPA.  Since the FCC has approved the service I assume that delivery
of the calling number to the party accepting a collect call (which is
the legal description of ANI delivery to an 800 subscriber) does not
constitute trap and trace since the party getting the number is the
party paying for the call.

Pat, I suspect that it's time for this thread to move to the privacy
list, but, hey, you're the editor. :^)


Andy Sherman
Salomon Inc  -  Unix Systems Support  -  Rutherford, NJ
(201) 896-7018  -  andys@sbi.com or asherman@sbi.com
"These opinions are mine, all *MINE*.  My employer can't have them."


[Moderator's Note: Every once in a while, an article on Caller-ID and
'privacy' comes along; I should know by now there is never going to be
any consensus. We'll have two more replies, then that's it.   PAT]
From: twb0@lehigh.edu (Thomas Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: "rrrringg-BOOP"
Date: 21 Nov 92 20:26:04 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 866, Message 5 of 12

You have an Intecom IBX switch; the ring-boop indicates that someone
on the called line is on the phone.  They receive a single or double
ring once to indicate that someone is calling them from on-site or
from off-site, respectively.  If someone calls from outside, they only
hear the normal ring (without any "boop").

The only other exception is a three-ring signal if someone returns a
callback when you are on the line.


Thomas Brown, KA2UGQ          Internet: twb0@lehigh.edu
Lehigh University UC Box 855  UUCP: ..!uunet!lehigh.edu!twb0
Bethlehem, PA  18015          AX.25: ka2ugq@ka2ugq.nj.usa.na
From: richg@hatch.socal.com (Rich Greenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Lilly Tomlin
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:17:17 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 863, Message 5 of 10

Pat,

I have been advised by three other Digest readers that Lilly Tomlin is
not "the late...".  I thought I had heard of her death a while ago but
I may well be wrong.  My apologies to Ms. Tomlin if I am indeed wrong.


Rich Greenberg      Work: rmg50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com
N6LRT               Play: richg@hatch.socal.com
What?   Me speak for Amdahl?  Surely you jest....


[Moderator's Note: As Mark Twain would say, the rumors of her death
are greatly exaggerated!  :)  I don't know either way. If you say so.  PAT]
Date: 15 NOV 92 20:22   
From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: 'Allo 'Allo: Paris, France is Included in New Los Angeles Area
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 852, Message 13 of 14

This is from {Computergram} (Nov 5 & 6, '92)

+            'ALLO 'ALLO: PARIS, FRANCE IS INCLUDED
                IN THE NEW LOS ANGELES AREA CODE

Strange but true -- telephone users in Los Angeles have been trying to
dial local numbers, only to find themselves put through to France. A
slip of the finger? Apparently not -- Joshua Greenbaum, a freelance
writer based in Paris has received eight different calls in the last
month from callers in Los Angeles who dialed a local number. The final
twist -- which propels the affair into the Twilight Zone -- came when
a Los Angeles-based acquaintance tried to dial the facsimile machine
on the desk next to him and found himself talking to his Paris-based
buddy.

The next day a call appeared on Greenbaum's answering machine, a
recorded conversation in which a Pacific Bell operator explained to
Greebaum's Los Angeles chum that she had just tried to call the
number, had got no connection and that anyway "it is absolutely
impossible to dial a seven-digit number in Los Angeles and get
connected all the way to Paris, France". The problem seems to be a
glitch in the implementation of a new Los Angeles area code: all of
the callers who mistakenly got through to Greenbaum were trying to
call a number within the new Los Angeles 310 area. The code for Paris
is +331. Will the tangled tale ever get sorted? In the words of the
immortalised PacBell operator "Well, sir, I'll just have to check into
this."
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992  01:27:28 EST
From: FZC@CU.NIH.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Is Caller-ID an Illegal Trap and Trace?
Reply-To: TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 857, Message 9 of 11

I would like to point out something that I noticed more than a year
ago when I was wading through the Electronic Communications Protection
Act, the law that (it is claimed) makes it illegal to intentionally
listen to a cellular phone.  I noticed another thing which I noted,
and no one seemed to dispute.

According to the ECPA, a "trap and trace device" is a device that is
used for the purpose of picking up someone's phone number who is
calling the line the T&T is on, is illegal without a court order.

If this is a correct interpretation, it means that the decisions in
various states about Caller-ID are all irrelevant since this Federal
law has made any caller ID box illegal (except for calls which are not
"in interstate commerce.").

I'm waiting for some slick attorney who has a client who was caught
with a Caller-ID box raise ECPA to not only have the evidence of calls
excluded, but have the victim charged with a civil suit of violating
the ECPA for installing an illegal trap and trace device without a
court order, which if I remember, ECPA allows civil damages as high as
$10,000.

Not fun.


Paul Robinson -- TDARCOS@MCIMAIL.COM
These (uninformed) opinions are my responsibility alone, no one
else is (stupid enough to be) responsible for them.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 22:34 GMT
From: Tansin A. Darcos & Company <0005066432@mcimail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: My Apologies
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 847, Message 17 of 17

I would like to apologize publicly for what was something which was a
mistake on my part.

I have already sent a message to Mr. Geiser about quoting his message
to me, and the only reason I did this was to allow someone from
Picturetel -- even if not an official spokesperson -- to be able to
say why AT&T's product isn't necessarily that good.

If it wasn't for the fact I felt they should know about it, I wouldn't
have even sent anyone at Picturetel anything about the message in the
first place.  Had I thought there would be a problem, I would never
have forwarded the message.

I am used to using other systems where every message sent is public
anyway, so I'm not all that used to having mail that is strictly
private for me alone, that no one else has seen.

This incident will not be repeated.  


Paul Robinson
From: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Ten Digit Dialing in Oregon
Date: 22 Nov 92 02:48:57 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 864, Message 11 of 15

My new US West phone directory has the following buried inside on page
A23:

NEW DIALING PLAN COMING TO OREGON

Oregon's traditional seven digit dialing within the 503 area code will
be phased out beginning July 10, 1993.

Starting then, you will need to dial 1 + 503 + the seven digits for
all long distance calls within the 503 area code.

This change is necessary because of telephone growth in Oregon. The
new dialing patterm will allow these [sic] numbers currently reserved
for area codes to be used for local prefixes, and make available more
combinations when assigning telephone numbers. It will also allow you
to know When [sic] a charge applies to your calls.

After July 10, 1993, you will get a recording telling you how to dial
if you have not dialed 1 + 503 + seven digits on long distance calls
within the 503 area code. Local calls are not affected by the change.

    ----------

I note several things of interest here:

1. There's no apparent provision for a period where both methods will
work. (I tried 1-503-NXX-XXXX and got an error recording).

2. It makes no mention of the *current* dialing method, which requires
a 1 on long distance inside 503.

3. Unlike the other states mentioned in the list, we get to keep seven
digit local calls. (And thus, a way to avoid inadvertant LD charges!)

I understand that they've already done this with the 206 area code in
Washington. In the same way ...

Must be a "left coast" right coast" difference!


uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!51!Leonard.Erickson
Internet: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 20:34:16 EST
From: David Leibold <DLEIBOLD@VM1.YorkU.CA>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: BCE to Take 20% Stake in Mercury Communications
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 842, Message 3 of 14

A deal between BCE (Bell Canada's parent company) and Cable and
Wireless (Mercury's owner) means that BCE will pick up a 20% stake in
Mercury while Mercury will invest $60 million (CAD$) in BCE Cable (UK)
Ltd, a cable television company, according to {The Toronto Star}.

Mercury reportedly has 7% of the UK telecom market, and wants to
expand its residential services (but didn't say whether this was in
terms of local loop, or better long distance access).

Cable companies can use phone lines in the UK, thus all the
connections between cable and telephone companies.


dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 21:47:55 GMT
From: kstox@admips2.Berkeley.EDU (Ken Stox)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: HELP Needed on JPEG Standard!
Reply-To: kstox@admips2.Berkeley.EDU (Ken Stox)
Organization: AC Nielsen Co.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 845, Message 7 of 7

In article <telecom12.834.9@eecs.nwu.edu>, dave@westmark.com (Dave
Levenson) writes:

> While John is correct, JPEG does turn up in some interesting
> telecom-related contexts.  According to some of my informally-received
> information, the AT&T model 2500 video phone uses JPEG in real time to
> compress video for transmission between sets.

> As an aside ... why in the world did they use that model number?  Is
> it possible that someone at AT&T didn't know it had been used once
> before, for a product that once had what might be called 'significant
> market penetration'?

Were I the guessing sort, I would say that this was quite intentional.
Someone believes that this will become as popular as the original 2500
set. NOT!


Ken Stox 	Consultant to A.C. Nielsen	kstox@naitc.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Date: 15 Nov 92 01:19:26 GMT
From: lairdb@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Two Cellular Phones on the Same Number
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 847, Message 15 of 17

In <telecom12.840.13@eecs.nwu.edu> Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.
COM> writes:

> Change "most" to ALL.  There should be NO US cellular carriers that
> will permit more than one ESN to operate on any particular phone
> number.  Failure to validate the ESN is a serious violation of FCC
> rules (EIA standards incorporated into the CFR).

Wait a minute; this is a *clear* example of [I forget, there's a Latin
term for it], where somebody says something that *appears* to follow
from something else, but there's actually no relation between the two.

"Failure to validate the ESN" has *nothing* to do with a design
failure that does not permit more than one valid ESN per number.  That
would be like saying that if I verify credit card numbers at all, then
I cannot allow more than one card to bill to the same account.  There
is no sensible reason, other than a reluctance to challenge design
difficulties, that an entire list of ESNs could not be valid for a
single number.  The voice path issues, as Alan says later, are just a
switching issue.


Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:58:59
From: desaulni@mprgate.mpr.ca (Richard W. Desaulniers)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Bellcore ADSI Specification?
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 862, Message 6 of 8

I would like to get in touch with anyone out there who know anything
or knows of a Bellcore contact who knows about the Analog Display
Service Interface (ADSI) specification that Bellcore is supposedly
developing.

According to our sources Bellcore is trialling this in the US and
Canada.  As we understand it this is a specification for telephone
sets or terminals equipped with programmable displays.

Example: in the case of voice messaging, menus would be downloaded to
your phone showing what keys to press for which function.

Please contact me directly via e-mail if possible.


Richard W. Desaulniers   InterNet: desaulni@mprgate.mpr.ca  MPR Teltech Ltd.