Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id WAA17868; Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:42:22 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:42:22 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710210242.WAA17868@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #286 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Oct 97 22:42:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 286 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Sprint Slime Continues (Babu Mengelepouti) Enterprise Numbers (Stan Schwartz) Help! Interface Error With ZyXEL U-1496 (Alick Sadekov) Re: San Diego LEC Competition "A Mess" (Mike Fox) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Frank G. Pitt) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (SimGraphics) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Christopher Herot) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Louis Raphael) Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far (Stanley Cline) Re: Question re: ROLM CBX (Chris Boone) Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? (Mark Brukhartz) Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? (Travis Dixon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:07:26 -0400 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Sprint slime continues Yesterday, I wanted to place a call to Canada. I have an account with Sprint, and have had one for many years, which I access by dialling their PIC code (10333) to place calls on that account. And I have the Sprint Sense plan. I was aware of calls to Canada being advertised at 10 cents per minute on weekends, but was wary of whether or not I actually would be charged that rate given the problems that have recently been reported in the Digest with respect to Sprint's rates on Canada calls. So I decided to call Sprint on their toll-free number (18008774646). After wading through an IVR system seemingly designed not to connect me to a human, and after frustratedly hitting "0" three times in a row (to a rude repsonse of "That is NOT a valid option!") I finally was connected to a "customer service" representative. He informed me that their "systems were down" and that he would be happy to answer any "general" questions. Well, general enough, I thought, wanting to know a rate. So I said that I was on Sprint Sense and asked if weekend calls to Canada were at ten cents per minute. "Well, I don't know," he hemmed and hawed. "When did you sign up for the program?" I told him a couple of years ago. "Well, you might not be on the NEW plan." "And what is the new plan," I asked. "Well, with the OLD plan, calls to Canada are 40 or 50 cents a minute, I don't remember which, but with the NEW plan, they're ten cents a minute on weekends." I began to smell a rat. "You mean," I asked, "that I have been a customer for years, and you're charging me more than a new customer?" "Umm... well," the Sprint rep said, as he began to get uncomfortable, "We couldn't switch you to the new plan without your telling us, we wouldn't know you WANT it ..." WANT it? Excuse me? Why would I WANT to pay "40 or 50 cents a minute" ratehr than ten cents per minute? Sprint's questionable business practices continue ... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:55:27 PDT From: Stan Schwartz Reply-To: stannc@no*spam.yahoo.com Subject: Enterprise Numbers The company I'm working for was rudely awakened recently to find that one of their old "Enterprise" numbers was still in service (a nice charge of over $8.00 for a 15 minute call did the trick). Of course, the number pre-dates anyone who currently works in the telecom area, and for most of those people, the only information they have about Enterprise numbers is an article from the Telecom Digest Archives (thank you!). The charge appeared on the AT&T portion of the RBOC's bill, so we're currently being bounced between the two in order to try to get an answer as to who can shut the number down (let alone tell me what the number is!). A call to the AT&T operator asking for "Rate & Route" sounded like it aged the poor lady a bit. "We haven't had Rate & Route for 30 years." I explained my problem and gave her a few company names (there have been some mergers), and I heard her checking some list or flip chart. Still nothing. Does anyone know of a nice, searchable database for these things, and/or who maintains these numbers nowadays? This trip down "Telecom Memory Lane" has been brought to you by ... Stan (remove the obvious for reply e-mail) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If the charge is on the AT&T portion of the bill, that means AT&T submitted it to the RBOC and therefore AT&T should have backup documents on it somewhere. Without referring to it as the 'Enterprise' charge simply ask the AT&T representative to provide details on the charge in question, i.e. who called you, what number were they at when they called, what number did they ask for ... Generally the few remaining billing functions of Enterprise and Zenith numbers (there have been no new ones assigned for years and the old ones still out there have long been 'grandfathered') are handled by the people who handle billing validation for 'collect' and 'third-number billing' type calls. And after all, that is all that Enterprise was: the manual, operator-handled form of automatic reverse-charge billing we now know as '800 service'. A person would ask the operator for 'Enterprise whatever-number' (mine used to be Enterprise 4790 if memory serves but I discontinued it in the early 1970's) and that meant the operator would place a 'collect' call to some number but she was not required to ask permission of the called party regards the charges; just like 800 is today. The called party has already said they would pay for any/all calls to their number. You are correct that with the exception of some very popular -- used hundreds or perhaps thousands of times per day in all parts of the country -- Enterprise numbers, they were looked up by 'Rate and Route' in the office in Morris, IL. The very well- known Enterprise numbers were located in a reference 'flip chart' each operator had at her position. But you made a mistake also by asking the operator for 'Rate and Route'. It has not been gone for thirty years, but it probably has been gone ten or fifteen years. It used to be 815+161 I believe. In any event it was never publicly accessible; the people in Morris *never* spoke directly to the caller, only to the operator handling the call. If you were going to make any inquiry at all of the oper- ator you'd have been better off to simply ask something like, "I have an old listing for an Enterprise number; are those still in service; how could I find out?". Give the operators the words and phrases they expect to hear from the public in the order in which they expect to hear them for best results. Do not act like you know more that she does; you will put her on the defensive. There is another possibility which is that it is someone else's still active Enterprise number and it was encoded or put in the system with transposed digits somehow and wound up on your bill, so you may not even have such a number. Just go back to AT&T and ask for the call details: who, what number called from/to, etc. Let them muddle around with it awhile and they will either write it off or produce some answers. Naturally, watch subsequent bills as well. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Alick Sadekov Subject: Help! Interface Error With ZyXEL U-1496 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:19:09 +0300 Organization: Moscow Cellular Communications Hi ALL! Please help me. If you know "ZyXEL U-1496E Plus" with microprogramm 6.13R here is a problem. I have 2 wire leased line and I need to connect two DTE which have the next signals on their pins (see below). May be some of you know what AT commands do I have to load in order to make it work. DTE has V.24 interface, speed 2400 using noninverted bit stream. Using default profiles (for 2 wire LL), test of DTE tells me that I have interface error. Or may be it does not work at all? DTE SIDE MODEM SIDE SDL (ST7I) 25-PIN MALE CONNECTOR (MODEM) RXD ----------- 3 Recieved Data DSR ----------- 6 Data Set Ready RTS ---------- 4 Reqest to send RL ---------- 21 Remote Loop request SF ---------- 11 Select frequency RATE ---------- 23 Data rate selector GND ---------- 7 Signal ground CTS ---------- 5 Clear To Send DTR ---------- 20 Data terminal ready NC 24 Not Connected TXC ---------- 15 Transmitter Timing RXC ----------- 17 Reciever Timing TXD ----------- 2 Transmitted Data LL ----------- 18 Local Loop request DCD ----------- 8 Data Carrier Detected GND Signal ground GND Signal ground GND Signal ground GND ----------- 7 Signal ground TM ----------- 25 Loop ready NC 22 Not Connected ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 08:38:27 -0400 From: Mike Fox Reply-To: mikefox@ibm.net Subject: Re: San Diego LEC Competition "A Mess" Tad Cook wrote: > San Diego Area Local Telephone Competition a Mess, Watchdog Group Says > SAN DIEGO--Oct. 15--Competition for local telephone service has turned > into a confusing mess for consumers, according to a report released > Tuesday by the watchdog Utility Consumers Action Network. > Poor customer service, hard-to-understand pricing structures and > inaccurate information bedevil San Diegans who want to choose another > local carrier than the previous monopoly, Pacific Bell, said Barry > Fraser, a UCAN staff attorney who prepared the report. Watching local competition unfold, I have become convinced that AT&T, MCI, et. al. are fumbling it on purpose for political reasons. Basically, these would-be competitors are not getting the deep discounts in the incumbent's prices that they wanted. They are then saying that their failure to get these discounts is why they can't compete in the local market. Of course, if they were successful now, that would undermine their plea for deeper discounts, so IMO it is not in the best interests of the would-be competitors to be succesful in the local market at this time. I think they figure the cost to them in lost short-term revenue opportunity in the not-so-lucrative consumer local market will be more than made up for by the steeper discounts they plan to wheedle by pointing to their failures as a reason that they should get even sweeter deals. Mike ------------------------------ From: frankie@mundens.gen.nz (Frank G. Pitt) Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 18:38:35 +1200 Organization: Munden's Bar, The Pit, Cynosure Reply-To: frankie@mundens.gen.nz In article , was written: > In article , Lisa Hancock > wrote: >> 6) Be careful charging/recharging. NiCad batteries the phone uses can >> develop a memory if not fully discharged then fully charged. They >> suggested I leave the phone on to run down, then fully recharge it. >> That makes sense to me, although it is a pain since it does require >> some advance planning to allow one day to run down and one night to >> recharge. > This is a very common, and very unsubstantiated, urban legend. Under > carefully controlled laboratory conditions, where you repeatedly > partially dischange the cells to the *same level* each time, you can > sometimes get a memory effect to appear, after a lot of cycles. It's not an urban legend, it's a well known fact. I spent several years running an aircraft battery room, and we had to do a deep-cycle discharge on NiCad bateries for exactly this reason. In fact, it was this additional servicing requrement that made our airforce move to gel cel lead acid batteries instead. Thing is, flattening your average cell phone battery is not enough to prevent memory effect, because to properly deep cycle a NiCad battery you have to ensure that you short _each_cell_ when it goes below 0.2 volts, to prevent the cell from being charged up in _reverse_ by other cells discharging through it. So, unless you modify your cell phone battey pack to allow you to short each cell, your battery pack will get memory effect (or worse) whether you flatten it or not, and in fact flattening it without shorting each cell can cause _more_ damage to the battery than just allowing the memory effect. Of course, manufacturers want to sell more battery packs, so they don't tell you all this, and they make it as hard as possible for you to service your batteries properly. I have recovered many RC battery packs, many portable drill battery packs, etc, purely by unsealing them and doing a proper deep cycle discharge on them. Of course, you must determine that it _is_ an alkaline cell for this to be effective, it has no great effect on gel-cel lead acids, or NiFe batteries which a becoming more common as prices reduce. > Under normal random usage, in which you never fully discharge the > batteries, but always discharge to a different level, the memory > effect does not appear. It does, actually, but you're so used to it, you don't know that you could get much better performance if you maintained the battery properly. > (Also, most newer phones won't fully discharge the cells, > prefering instead to shut themselves off when the voltage drops below > a certain level.) This is good actually, as deep discharge done wrong, which is what most users would do, does more damage by reversing the charge on some cells. > Note that you have (probably) for years been partially discharging > your car battery everytime you start your car, and then immediately > recharging it (with the output of the alternator). It doesn't develop > memory. (Of course, it's not NiCad either.) And that's why it doesn't. The Nickel-Cadmiun battery uses a completely different chemical process than your lead acid car battery. Frank G. Pitt | When in doubt, wash | fun: frankie@mundens.gen.nz Wellington | (Orlando) | frankie@ibm.net New Zealand | | profit: fpitt@nz1.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: simg@netcom.com (SimGraphics) Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Organization: SimGraphics Engineering, South Pasadena, California Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 17:26:17 GMT In article , Lisa Hancock wrote: > 1) How do people drive and talk? Hello Lisa! May I suggest an educational trip to Europe, say Paris? Over there people drive, talk on the phone, shift gears and finish their coffee and cruoisant, all at the same time. Good luck, Sylvester ------------------------------ From: Christopher_Herot/CAM/Lotus@lotus.com (Christopher Herot) Reply-To: herot@lotus.com Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:30:04 -0400 Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far > 1) How do people drive and talk? > For me at least, there's no way I can drive my car and talk on the > phone, it's simply too distracting with traffic. Yes, I know when we > drive we freely talk to the person next to us, but somehow it's > different on the phone. Considering all the times I was nearly > hit by a distracted driver talking on the phone, I don't know how > people do it. My theory is that the person in the seat next to you is as caught up in the driving experience as you are. Any human-factors students out there might find it an interesting research project to see if the nature of the conversation is different whether the other party is in the car or remote on the phone. I recommend that you buy a hands-free booster kit. They are remarkably cheap ($200 installed for my Motorola Micro-Tac) for the amount of electronics involved. Not only do you get hands-free talking, but you get a place to mount the phone where it is easy to dial and to answer incoming calls. You also get better reception and the peace of mind of not having an RF transmitter inches away from your brain. > 6) Be careful charging/recharging. NiCad batteries the phone uses can > develop a memory if not fully discharged then fully charged. They > suggested I leave the phone on to run down, then fully recharge it. > That makes sense to me, although it is a pain since it does require > some advance planning to allow one day to run down and one night to > recharge. Go back to the dealer and tell them how annoyed you are they sold you an obsolete battery technology. For a few bucks more you can upgrade to a NiMH or Li-Ion battery which will last a lot longer and has no memory effect. Alternatively, if you spend a lot of time in the car, most car-mount booster kits will charge the battery enough to last until you are back in the car. If any of these options seem expensive, you obviously haven't received your first bill. It changes your entire perspective. Christopher Herot ------------------------------ From: raphael@willy.cs.mcgill.ca (Louis Raphael) Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: 20 Oct 1997 16:07:56 GMT Organization: McGill University Computing Centre Lisa Hancock (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com) wrote: > 1) How do people drive and talk? > For me at least, there's no way I can drive my car and talk on the > phone, it's simply too distracting with traffic. Yes, I know when we > drive we freely talk to the person next to us, but somehow it's > different on the phone. Considering all the times I was nearly > hit by a distracted driver talking on the phone, I don't know how > people do it. Judging by the number of times I would have been run over by a cellular-phone-yacking driver (if I hadn't moved out of the way), I'd say only hands-free models should be allowed for the driver in vehicles. They're a serious road hazard. Even the hands-free models are worse than talking to the person sitting next to you, as the person at the other end of the line doesn't know when one is in a tense traffic situation, and can't always be told to "shut-up" for a few minutes. I believe that hand-held cell phones have been banned while driving in some places, such as Malaysia, for this reason. Louis ------------------------------ From: roamer1@pobox.com (Stanley Cline) Subject: Re: New Cellular Phone Experience So Far Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 06:16:46 GMT Reply-To: roamer1@pobox.com On 15 Oct 1997 02:02:56 GMT, in comp.dcom.telecom was written: > 5) No charge for phone off. I once called someone's cell phone via the > roaming number long distance and was billed even though his phone That's the one bad thing about using roamer access numbers: The cellular switch has to provide answer supervision when it *gives the dial tone* (or on Motorola EMX switches, the beeps) so that you have forward voicepath to enter the phone number you're calling. > off. However, I called myself from a pay phone with the phone off, > got the recording, and got my money back. Callers can be assured no > one will be billed on either end if the cell phone is turned off. Answer supervision is normally not returned on calls placed directly to a cellphone, if the call lands up going to the no-answer, disconnect, etc. recordings. However, some carriers (I believe "USHell" [US Cellular] has had this problem) seem to return answer supervision on no-answer recordings when a phone is dialed directly (not via roamer access number) -- and I get billed for those calls. That is 100% sloppiness on the part of the cellular carrier. Stanley Cline somewhere near Atlanta, GA, USA roamer1(at)pobox.com http://scline.home.mindspring.com/ spam not wanted here! help outlaw spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ ------------------------------ From: Christopher W. Boone Subject: Re: Question re: ROLM CBX Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 09:17:26 -0500 Organization: The Walt Disney Company / ABC Radio Networks Engineering Reply-To: cboone@earthlink.net John Saxe wrote: > Why am I reminded of the time I headed off our receptionist from > transferring a call to "extension 10xxx"? This sounds like a cracker > surfing for a dial tone to me. Or a hacker asking for extn 9011 !!!!! We had several try to do that on our ROLM at my former employer ... lucky the attendants were smart enough to catch on. (It was a 3 node 9000VL CBX ... sn #2! ... it has since been replaced with a 9006i model 80 YUK!!!!) > Are you *sure* those are standard AT&T analog phones? I ask because > my university has a Rolm CBX and the phones are definitely not standard > analog phones, although it is possible to have analog lines in the system > so maybe you are correct. What you have on your campus are RolmPhones ... black or ask color ... but nowhere does the name CBX appear on the RPs ... the analog phones he describes are analog with the add on paper faceplates which has all the dialing access codes like Park, Connect, etc ... AT&T does NOT make a digital phone that is ROLM compatible. >> My question deals with the interconnectivity in the system and how it >> is achieved. I am unsure whether calls made to other premises are >> carried over the analog telco lines, or if there is some leased line >> implementation for the system, but I am intrigued by the ability to >> directly ring any given phone in any system. I would speculate that >> each system has an incoming line which picks up and then accepts some >> instruction (perhaps DTMF) as to the destination extension. My caller > I doubt your speculation. We have several switches on campus, and one > or two located on the other end of the state, and the interconnects > between them are all dedicated. In the case of the off campus nodes > it is via a leased line (T1 or better I think). Your system is > probably similar. Probably using analog tie lines as well!. Not sure but the way he describes the system, it sounds like there is one HUB switch; each CBX connects to it (it acts as a tandem) and the 80 is merely the tie line code to the HUB, then the xx is the tie line code to the distant site and the sss is the extn code. Personally it would be better to use ROLMNet with a 8-RNX-XXXX format with RNX being a 3 digit location code and xxxx being a 4 digit extn; that way it can be routed by the hub and if one path is blocked, ROLMNet can send it a different direction. (I used to program ROLM CBXs both Route Op, dial 9 and ROLMNet dial 8 for a major public utility covering four states. That's how we had our network dialing.) >> ID identified the number which the system used to generate an outgoing >> call from the system to my house. In redialing this number, I get a >> high pitched tone upon connection. > What the switch presents as caller-ID info is programmable in the > switch. It may bear no relation to anything. The CID number he got was merely the outbound CO trunk from the local CBX to his house when dialing 9 (probably a dumb access trunk code ... not ROUTE OP). Dialing back in may get an intercept tone from the CO (if the trunk is only one way) or possibly a modem at the CBX? (Stupid to do that!) >> I'd like to be able to identify how this interconnectivity works, and >> how to get into a location's system through this back-door, as opposed >> to the published phone number which connects to the receptionists. >> Any resources or instruction would be greatly appreciated. GOOD LUCK trying to get that info here; you sound like a scummy phreaker! GO jump in a pit of boiling tar first. > What, does this newsgroup look like alt.2600 to you? Kinda my thoughts exactly. Chris Former Sr Telecom Egr Tech for Entergy/Gulf States, Texas ROLM CBX 8000/9751/9200 trained and ROLM certified on 8000/9200 and Phonemail ------------------------------ From: mark_brukhartz@il.us.swissbank.com (Mark Brukhartz) Subject: Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? Organization: Swiss Bank Corporation Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 19:55:34 GMT I am another happy SkyWord Plus customer. It uses Motorola's ReFLEX two-way protocol. See http://www.mot.com for FLEX and ReFLEX documents. I believe that the pager transmits periodic "I am here" messages. It also acknowledges incoming pages. The system transmits pages to your last known location. If one is unacknowledged, it is transmitted nationwide, because you might be in a place with one way "basic coverage'. The pager must transmit enough power to be heard from inside of fairly opaque buildings. Every joule transmitted comes from the one AA cell. I'm actually impressed that one lasts a month. There is also a built-in NiCd battery. It is obviously charged from the AA, then discharged at transmit time. The AA apparently can't provide sufficient current for a transmission. The NiCd will probably be replaced with one of those new high-energy capacitors in a future pager. Reliable paging (with acknowledgement and retransmission) is a great service. Consumers will hear more about it as the 1900 MHz PCS phone systems come online. Most (or all) of the American digital telephony protocols also provide reliable alphanumeric paging. Mark ------------------------------ From: travisd@netresponse.com.nospam (Travis Dixon) Subject: Re: "Sky Word Plus" - How Does it Work? Date: 20 Oct 1997 18:02:35 GMT Organization: NetResponse In article , baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin) wrote: > How far off is this picture? And how good is this thing in actual > practice? How often does the pager try to tell the network where it > is? What are the frequencies and signal strengths involved? (I > notice that this thing *eats* batteries at the rate of one AA per > month, according to SkyTel. So the transmission would seem to be a > significant power burden.) I have the full-blown Skytel two-way service with the "Wireless Access, Inc." hardware. In about two months if use I've had mixed feelings about it. The coverage is definitely spotty. When I'm home (Frederick, MD) I have little to no service. Occasionally I'll wake up and it'll have BASIC service. Never two-way. Works great at work (Arlington, VA) though. One month for batteries? Try a week. This unit sucks them down. I don't have technical specs on the protocols used but I think you're very close. By using the two-way systems Skytel can actually provide better coverage at lower rates. The system only has to transmit to the tower that you're closest to so you don't burn capacity on the system when you're out of range for instance. Only problem was the $1100 (yes, eleven-hundred dollars US) bill last *month*. Sent too much e-mail to it :). Company's idea though :) travis ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #286 ******************************