ISSUE 451 WAS LATE IN ARRIVING AND APPEARS FOLLOWING 452 IN THIS ARCHIVE.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06767; 14 Jun 91 3:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31134; 14 Jun 91 1:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02025; 14 Jun 91 0:04 CDT Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 23:51:05 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #452 BCC: Message-ID: <9106132351.ab01796@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 Jun 91 23:50:33 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 452 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Share FAX, Modem and Voice Line [Ken Jongsma] Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) [Jamie Hanrahan] Re: Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit [Steve Gaarder] Re: German Telephone Unification [Claus Tondering] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Wolf PAUL] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Rolf Meier] Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor? [Toby Nixon] Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel [Ken Thompson] Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone [Julian Macassey] Re: 213 / 310 Split [Carl Moore] Re: Question About Crackling on Phone Circuits [Fred E.J. Linton] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ken Jongsma Subject: Re: Share FAX, Modem and Voice Line Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 16:03:43 EDT Please note that the FAX number below is incorrect (typo on my part). > There have been a number of people looking for devices to allow the > use of one phone line for several purposes. I received a catalog from > TigerSoftware (1-800-888-4437, FAX 1-304-444-5010) that has a couple > of these devices: The correct FAX number is 1-305-444-5010. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries jongsma@esseye.si.com Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115.1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: cmkrnl!jeh@decwrl.dec.com Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) Date: 12 Jun 91 13:22:22 PDT Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA In article , learn@piroska.uchicago.edu (William Vajk) writes: > There was another fax related message here the other day, and I was in > process of responding when the computer went bye-bye. It was a request > for an easy conversion to ascii from fax. Because of the graphic > nature of fax, and the fact that there is no assurance of the style > and pitch of type received, one would actually have to be at the edge > of some serious AI to achieve the goal requested. Anyone who has used > an optical scanner and worked to convert a long document to ascii from > typed sheets can attest to the difficulties of accurate conversion > given only one character set to decipher. > On the other hand, to convert from ascii to fax is relatively easy, > but certainly not easy enough to make a fax machine into a computer > peripheral. I dunno. I've seen an add-in board for PCs that gives you the ablity to send FAXes from common sorts of PC documents, including imbedded graphics, and receive to files on disk. For hardcopy you print the files on your regular computer printer. Received faxes could be imported to PC applications as if they were scanned graphics images. Cost was only $250. The board also behaved as a 2400 bps data modem. Of course, if you want to fax somebody a copy of a piece of paper as opposed to a document within your computer, this won't help you unless you have a scanner handy. Which brings up a related problem ... if I buy a Fax, why should I also have to buy a scanner for my PC? For example, I notice that H-P is selling a "FaxJet" which sits between your compute and your LaserJet printer. This machine sells for around $1400 and handles document feeding for multiple-page transmission, unattended receive, etc., etc. In other words, one of these things plus your LJ gives you a complete high-end plain-paper fax plus a laser printer. It even has a 300 dpi mode for ultra-high-res (by fax standards), when communicating with other FaxJets. But if you think you could also use this gadget as a scanner for your PC, you're mistaken! (At least according to the manual I perused.) If you want to scan a document at 300 dpi and send it to another FaxJet for printing, you can do that, but if you want to scan a document and collect the bits locally, you have to buy a separate scanner for that! Bah. What a waste. (Of course HP will gladly sell you a ScanJet for, what, $1200 or so?) HP could have REALLY set the market on its ear with a combined fax/scanner unit. Oh well. (While we're at it, we should be able to receive faxes directly into PC graphics files too.) --- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA Chair, VMS Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VAX Systems SIG Internet: jeh@dcs.simpact.com, hanrahan@eisner.decus.org, or jeh@crash.cts.com Uucp: ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!cmkrnl!jeh ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 02:16:12 EDT From: gaarder@anarres.ithaca.ny.us Subject: Re: Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) writes: > If you have an interest in the history of military telecommunications, > you may want to visit the Canadian Forces Communications and > Electronics Museum (formerly the Royal Canadian Signals Museum) at the > Vimy Barracks in Kingston, Ontario. I went there last summer; it's small and low-budget but worth a visit if you're in the area. While "one of the best telephone collections in the world" may be an exaggeration, they do have some interesting ones, including a set with an 11-hole dial (separate holes for 0 and operator, even though both send 10 pulses). Thye also have a British phone booth, complete with A and B button phone. (But without any of the information and instruction cards, unfortunately). Steve Gaarder gaarder@theory.tc.cornell.edu gaarder@anarres.ithaca.ny.us ------------------------------ From: Claus Tondering Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1991 06:53:35 GMT linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: > Well, the June, 1991 Oakland phone book has hit the streets, with a > few notable things in it. > But anyhoo, the other thing I noticed is that in the International > calling section, they still list "German Democratic Republic" and > "Germany, Federal Republic of" as separate countries. > First of all, I think that Pacific Bell has had more than enough > notice of the reunification of Germany [...] Pacific Bell seems to be very slow in updating their international telephone information. I just returned from a visit to San Jose, and I was surprised to find that the local 1991 PacBell phone book lists various area codes for Denmark. Denmark did away with area codes in 1988/89 (and I would be very surprised if PacBell wasn't notified of the change), but that information hasn't made its way into the San Jose telephone book. Are other US phone books up-to-date in this matter? Claus Tondering E-Mail: ct@dde.dk Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark ------------------------------ From: Wolf PAUL Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Date: 11 Jun 91 07:37:38 GMT Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe > [Moderator's Note: > They have buried almost everything. > Of course, there are offsets to this: For the past two weeks, Bell > Avenue (the north/south street at the corner from where I live) has > been torn up for several blocks, all the way from Roseland Cemetery > north to Warren Park. Everyone is in on the act: I see trucks from > People's Gas, IBT, and the Water and Sewer Works all out there every > day, digging, laying new conduits, sewers, etc. They wake me at 6 AM > when they start tearing up the street. PAT] And you are really fortunate in that they are all in on the act all at once. About four years ago the footpath in front of my parent's house was dug up when they put in city water in an area which so far had individual pumps. About three years ago the path was dug up to put down Cable-TV cable. About two years ago the footpath was dug up to put down a phone cable (it had been strung on poles till then). About one year ago the path was dug up again when they put gas pipes in. About two weeks ago the path was dug up again when they put in a power line to a new subdivision down the road. Within the next year or so they will dig it up again to put down sewer pipes -- till now, everyone has their own septic tank. And in Vienna, Austria, these various utilities (except Cable-TV) are not private businesses, but departments of the federal gov't or city hall. But they cannot coordinate their schedules ... W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 INTERNET: wnp@iiasa.iiasa.ac.at FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp HOME: +43-2236-618514 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@aearn.BITNET ------------------------------ From: Rolf Meier Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Date: 13 Jun 91 16:08:04 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article mailrus!ulowell!wex@uunet. uu.net writes: [recommendation for using garden hose as conduit] > Anyhow, the hose provides very good protection from shovels provides a > conduit for pulling/replacing wire ( if you put in an extra pull wire, > you can later pull something else through. (use separate hoses for AC) > Hose is easier to pull up later if necessary. It is cheap, and gets > some real use out of trash!! I tried this, in an attempt to save some money on the special (thicker sheath) direct burial cable. It turned out that I was unable to pull the wire more than about 25 feet before it started to bind against the hose. Since I had already bought the hose, I ended up splitting the hose the full length, inserting the wire, and then taping the hose together again. It was really false economy. Next time, I would get the true direct-burial cable. Rolf Meier Mitel Corporation ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor? Date: 13 Jun 91 17:15:39 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , varney@ihlpf.att.com (Al L Varney) writes: > On the other hand, would a modem that had a switch that caused the > modem to refuse to drop new calls still conform to Part 68? The first > incoming call would "hang" the line, but you wouldn't have made it > "busy" by just going "off-hook". How picky is the FCC on this section? The FCC, so far, isn't being very picky about it. For example, most AT command set modems include the "ATH1" command, which can very easily be used as a "make busy" ccommand. But the FCC certifies modems that have it, because there are other legitimate uses for the command. I don't think they'll certify any new modems that use Pin 25 of an EIA-232-E interface for "make busy". >> Bellcore is working >> on a DTMF signal that can be sent on the line to tell the switch that >> the circuit is busied-out (like the "Do Not Disturb" function on many >> PBXes). > And what will this "feature" cost on a per-line basis??? I assume that will be tariffed separately by each LEC in each state. There are certainly INDIVIDUALS who would PAY for a Do Not Disturb feature, that either gave a busy signal or invoked their forward-on-busy number, so they wouldn't have to deal with the warbling tone if they take the phone off hook to engage in some activity without being disturbed. I'm surprised it hasn't already been offered. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Ken Thompson Subject: Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel Date: 13 Jun 91 21:01:43 GMT Reply-To: Ken Thompson Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS Closed captioning uses line 17 of the US TV standard to send text in serial packets. Ken Thompson N0ITL NCR Corp. 3718 N. Rock Road Wichita, Ks. 67226 (316)636-8783 Ken.Thompson@WichitaKs.ncr.com ------------------------------ From: Julian Macassey Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone Date: 13 Jun 91 18:11:28 GMT Reply-To: Julian Macassey Organization: The Hole in the Wall Hollywood California U.S.A. In article John Higdon writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 450, Message 3 of 11 > Julian Macassey writes: >> The voltage applied to the Tip and Ring to activate the light is >> usually 90V at 100Hz. This frequency is ignored by the frequency >> sensitive ringer that responds to 40 - 150V at 20 Hz. The neon is not >> frequency sensitive, so it flashes for message waiting or ring >> current. > ITT uses a similar, but much simpler method of lighting the message > waiting lamp. The System 3100 just sends 60 ipm pulses of 100VDC over > the line. The direct current is completely ignored by the ringer, but > lights the neon lamp. Unlike the 100Hz, there is no flow through any > circuitry except for the neon lamp. In addition to being much more > difficult to generate (than DC), some of the 100Hz will inevitably > leak through the L/C bell network creating a bit of inefficiency. The > DC supply is very simple and cheap. And of course what John doesn't mention is the best reason for using DC today is the dreaded Type B ringers. The telephone bell of old was frequency selective. 100 Hz would be out of the bandwidth of all types of mechanical ringer. Type B ringers are not the gong bells of old but the "crickets in heat" chirpers. According to FCC specs, a Type B ringer should respond from 15.3 to 68 Hz. In reality, these Type B ringers respond nicely to 100 Hz. This means in an office environemnt you can go nuts listening to a colleague's phone in the next pen (cubicle) chirp away every couple of seconds. DC from a good PBX will then save you the grief of a whole office sounding like a crickets orgy while the staff are out at a meeting and the voice mail is backing up. Julian Macassey, julian@bongo.info.com N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice (213) 653-4495 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 13:23:59 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 213 / 310 Split Sigh -- Yes, I know that the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles postal district are different from the (central) Los Angeles telephone exchange. I believe the area served by West Los Angeles TELEPHONE EXCHANGE does fall into the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles postal district, but the West Los Angeles TELEPHONE EXCHANGE is distinct from the Los Angeles TELEPHONE EXCHANGE. (And you are saying that West L.A. is served by GTE as opposed to the central L.A. exchange falling under PacBell, right?) This is akin to what is encountered in New York City: "New York, NY" mailing address refers to Manhattan, but NYC also has four other boroughs. ------------------------------ Date: 12-JUN-1991 21:34:59.21 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: Question About Crackling on Phone Circuits In , rocket!millar@uunet.uu.net (Jeff Millar) asks about "Crackling on Phone Circuits". The last time I had crackling on my phone circuits, the cause turned out to be squirrels chewing on the line at the junction box whence the feeder to my premises originates (on a pole in my backyard. Same thing the time before that. Fred or ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #452 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07600; 14 Jun 91 3:29 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31134; 14 Jun 91 1:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02025; 14 Jun 91 0:04 CDT Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 23:10:55 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #451 BCC: Message-ID: <9106132310.ab30470@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 13 Jun 91 23:10:44 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 451 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? [Martin B Weiss] Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? [Andy Sherman] Re: Mass DPU Agrees Second Unlisted Line is No Charge [Bob Clements] Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? [Adam M. Gaffin] Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Rick Broadhead] Re: The President's Analyst [Roy M. Silvernail] Re: One-Stop Bell Shop [Syd Weinstein] Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO [Syd Weinstein] Re: St. Louis Phone Outage [J. Philip Miller] Re: Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit [bill Re: German Telephone Unification [Spyros C. Bartsocas] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Martin B Weiss Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? Date: 12 Jun 91 13:54:30 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh In article kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: > Additionally I am upset by the misrepresentation of the reason for the > changes in the AT&T card numbers. I am no lawyer and I may not know > the whole story but I think that the statement something to the affect > that the change is being made because of "government rules" is so > misleading that it borders on an outright lie. I think the "government > rule" that they are referring to is one that simply states "the RBOC > must make available to the OCCs the database used for credit card > verification and (here comes the important part) the OCC must ***PAY*** > the RBOC for using that database." While I am unfamiliar with the details of this, it is consistent with the spirit if not the letter of the recent AOS legislation. One of the problems of using the same number was that it may have been easier for AOS companies to take the calls, even though they weren't authorized to do it. Having a different number makes this more difficult. Also (although unrelated) AT&T was required to provide 950-xxxx access as well as 10xxx access, as has been done by other carriers. I have an MCI card for the reason that 950 access was possible -- which is a measure of solid protection against overcharges from COCOTs or hotels. The other thing is, a unique number makes it clearer to the consumer that they are dealing with separate companies. Do you expect your Visa and American Express cards to have the same numbers? Martin Weiss Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh Internet: mbw@lis.pitt.edu OR mbw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: mbw@pittvms ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 14:20:43 EDT In article you write: > I think that this latest move on the part of AT&T will lose them an > important competetive advangage, that is having the same card number > for both local and LD use. In my case, it is certainly making me think > long and hard about contacting one of the other companies, not only for > credit card service but for 1+ service at home too. Another marketing > coup in the mill. Wonder if some other carrier is paying AT&T employees > to do these dumb things ... nah, probably would be a waste of money. Obviously, you missed the followup traffic from AT&T people, including me, on this. AT&T now buys card verification services from the LECs for LEC issued card numbers (the ones with your home phone) and sells card verification services to the LECs for AT&T issued card numbers (the new Calling Cards and the Universal Cards). AT&T does *not* sell card verification services to OCCs. Thus you may charge both local and AT&T carried long distance calls on your new AT&T Calling Card, just as you already can on your Universal Card. Why switch? > Additionally I am upset by the misrepresentation of the reason for the > changes in the AT&T card numbers. I am no lawyer and I may not know > the whole story but I think that the statement something to the affect > that the change is being made because of "government rules" is so > misleading that it borders on an outright lie. I think the "government > rule" that they are referring to is one that simply states "the RBOC > must make available to the OCCs the database used for credit card > verification and (here comes the important part) the OCC must ***PAY*** > the RBOC for using that database." I don't know what the legal issues are. Rest assured that if they apply to us, they will apply to the OCCs as well, by and by. To my knowledge, we've been paying for card verification for a long time. > I believe that the main reason for the change is a cost cutting move > on the part of AT&T. Simple as that; they don't want to pay the RBOC > to share numbers anymore. Anybody at AT&T care to refute or clarify > this "government rule" for me. I hope they save big bucks because > they will probably lose me as a customer. Other than any legal requirements or encouragements, there is ample reason for AT&T to want to make this move. A transition from being a service customer to a service provider is certainly good business. Lowering our cost structure is not an evil thing. It enables that money to be better spent elsewhere. But beyond costs, consider this: your AT&T Calling Card number will be yours forever, *FOR CHARGING BOTH LOCAL AND AT&T LONG DISTANCE CALLS*, no matter how many times you move or change your home phone number. Furthermore, no AOS will be able to bill to that card number. There has been an enormous volume of customer complaints on the order of "I charged it to my AT&T Card but then Joe's Bar, Grill, and Telco charged me 10 times normal for the call". That can't happen with the new card. I hope we don't lose you as a customer. Certainly, the new card should be a plus, not a minus, once you understand what it can do. And it *CAN* do your local calls. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Mass DPU Agrees Second Unlisted Line is No Charge Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 08:57:56 -0400 From: clements@bbn.com In telecom11.431.6 John Levine writes: > [...about having trouble getting a second line unlisted for free > from New England Telephone...] > Knowing NET, they won't tell anyone else. If you are a Massachusetts > phone customer and have been charged for an unlisted second line or > Ringmate number, you are presumably entitled to get your money back. I just went through the process of moving (for the first time in 20 years!) and I had no trouble at all with this. The customer service rep knew all about it. As long as one line is listed, any more in the same name and at the same location may be unlisted for free. The magic phrase is "Special Non-Listed". It's amazing how many problems can be resolved by knowing the right magic words. Sort of like an adventure game. Fortunately, in this case NET knew about it without my having the magic phrase, but it might help anyone else in the same situation. Bob Clements, K1BC, clements@bbn.com ------------------------------ From: Adam M Gaffin Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1991 01:34:15 GMT In article ac220@cleveland.freenet.edu writes: > As an aside, I bet a lot of the faxes we all send could be just as > well done thru E-Mail. Your problem would then already be solved. Thanks for the DesqView idea. E-mail? Sure, just use the address below :-). One correspondent suggested we get a 900 number for our fax machine -- it would either cut down on the number of junk faxes or earn us enough money to pay for all that paper! Adam Gaffin Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass. adamg@world.std.com Voice: (508) 626-3968. Fred the Middlesex News Computer: (508) 872-8461. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 21:44:26 EDT From: Rick Broadhead Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World A slight twist to this subject: The following appeared in the {Toronto Star} on June 10, 1991. YOU MAY HEAR ADS ON THE TELEPHONE Some day, you literally may have commercials coming out of your ears. Bell At lantic, one of the largest regional telephone companies in the U.S., has bought the patent on a system for patching recorded ads into the four-second pauses between rings in a phone call. Its inventor says studies show callers wait an average of three rings each time they call someone. "That's two messages," he points out. - Knight-Ridder News Service - (How many times do TELECOM readers let the phone ring before they hang up? -- I usually wait for more than three rings) Rick Broadhead ysar1111@VM1.YorkU.Ca ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The President's Analyst From: "Roy M. Silvernail" Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 06:19:09 CDT Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN droid@kerner.sf.ca.us (Marty the Droid) writes: > For those who have seen the film "The President's Analyst", did anyone > notice Cliff Robertson playing the part of the 'droid at TPC? I believe it was Pat Harrington who played that particular 'droid. Roy M. Silvernail |+| roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: One-Stop Bell Shop Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1991 13:42:10 GMT Jim Gottlieb writes: > "On January 1, 1991, Bell Atlantic announced the integration of > the sales forces of the Bell Atlantic Telephone Company and > Bell Atlanticom Systems, Inc., our Customer Premises Equipment > Company. > Umm, can they do this? They can do this re the ruling and questionaire they set out. All customers were required to fill out a questionaire, re allowing: a. all Sales Droids access to your records b. Only Bell Sales Droids access to your records c. No Sales Droids access to your records. If you choose C, the default choice if you didn't respond, then your account is assigned to a 'special' business office that can handle only the old telco stuff and no sales stuff. (ie the number in the phone book no longer works for you, you get, "I am sorry, I cannot access your records, you will have to call 800 xxx-xxxx to get a rep that can access your records." Thus, what they really did, was assign all customers that choose a or b to Bell-Atlanticom Systems, Inc. as their sales droids, as they can have access to the records. Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ From: Syd Weinstein Subject: Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO Reply-To: syd@dsi.com Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc. Huntingdon Valley, PA Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1991 13:29:00 GMT Rick Farris writes: > I may be moving my office soon, and because I entertain fantasies of > my own leased line connection to the Internet, I'd like to move right > next door to my CO. Doing so may not save you very much. You'd have to not only move next to the CO, but next to the POP for your local Internet carrier. The leased lines used by the TCP/IP vendors are charged on a termination plus milage basis from the POP to your site. Generally there is only one POP for the TCP/IP network in your area. And the termination charges far outweigh the milage charge. You won't save much... Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235 ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Re: St. Louis Phone Outage Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 9:59:04 CDT Kirk Moir writes: > a) Who manufactured the "high capacity digital cross-connection > system"? I am under the assumption that some kind of DCC switch died. > Please correct me if required. Very conveniently, none of the press accounts have given any real information. In the Sunday paper account (front page of business section) there was a picture of the "computer". It appered to be rack mounted, perhaps 6' tall and 6-8' long. All one could really see was that it appead to have many similar shaped "modules". Could it have been ISDN service? > b) What were the data rates of the affected 2800 services? 2.4Kbps, > DS3, etc.? No details given, but none of the services that have been mentioned in the press would demand very high data rates. > c) What kind of network management was in place to deal with this > kind of outage? Nothing has been mentioned. > d) Did spare capacity exist? Could the trouble theoretically have > been routed around or were most problems associated with non-redundant > subcriber lines? There has been a statement that there are only two of these "computers" in the St. Louis area, so it is not unlikely that it would be very expensive to have redundancy back to the subscriber level. Most of the applications also have been where there are only one a or at most a few lines coming from any particular physical location. The backup that the Federal Reserve used was that of dial up connections. Since all of the mentioned applications have significant security considerations, dial up may not be a viable option for all of them. I, as Kirk, have been very intersted in the technical details. The press has not had any details. I hope that some of the SWBT employees who read this might be able to provide some of them. J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ From: bill@baldric.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 11:08:42 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu The U.S. Army Signal Corps operates a very respectable museum at their Signal Center at Fort Gordon, Georgia. Fort Gordon is on the outskirts of Augusta, home of the Masters (golf) Tournament. I checked the museum out when I was at Fort Gordon, going to school for the Navy. That was back in 1982 and it was a big hit back then. I'll have to drop by there again, next time I make it to that part of the state. Civilians are allowed (even encouraged) onto the base and the Signal Corps Museum. Just ask at the gate. It should make for an hour or two of fun! Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill | Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | or: +1-404-853-9171 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 11:35:05 -0400 From: "Spyros C. Bartsocas" Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification > But anyhoo, the other thing I noticed is that in the International > calling section, they still list "German Democratic Republic" and > "Germany, Federal Republic of" as separate countries. (I forgot to The reason is that the "Eastern portion of the Federal Republic of Germany" is still called the same way it was before it merged with the "Western portion". I suspect that the dialing rates are different too. AT&T's Reach out world plan only covers the Western Portion (country code 49). Spyros Bartsocas scb@cs.brown.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #451 ******************************  ISSUES 451 AND 452 REVERSED IN TRAQNSMISSION. 452 IS BEOFRE 451. 453 IS NEXT IN THIS ARCHIVE.   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20109; 15 Jun 91 1:25 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12085; 14 Jun 91 23:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17805; 14 Jun 91 22:43 CDT Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 22:15:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #453 BCC: Message-ID: <9106142215.ab03261@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Jun 91 22:15:10 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 453 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [TELECOM Moderator] Re: Len Rose Sent To Prison [Bart Simpson] Re: Len Rose Sent To Prison [Scott Dorsey] Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [LA Times, RISKS via M Seecof / J Kravitz] Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 20:41:43 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? The Len Rose saga came to an end this past week when a federal judge considered the circumstances involved and chose to impose punishment by placing Len in the custody of the Attorney General of the United States, or his authorized representative for a period of one year. As in all such cases where the court finds the defendant poses no immediate danger to the community, Len was given a one month period from the imposition of punishment to get his personal affairs in order before beginning his sentence. At some point in time between now and July 10 mutually convenient to Len, his attorney and the government, Len will surrender to the United States Marshall, and be escorted to the penitentiary. As the first order of business at the penitentiary receiving room, he'll be required to submit to a complete strip-search accompanied by a rather indelicate probing to insure that he does not have in his possession any drugs; weapons with which he might harm himself, the staff or other inmates; or other contraband. He'll surrender his identity completely: driver's license, credit cards, social security card -- anything which identifies Len Rose as Len Rose will be taken from him and returned when he is released. For the time he is incarcerated, he will be a number stamped on the uniform he is given to wear. Or, he may be in a minimum security institution and be permitted to wear his 'street clothes', but without a shred of ID in his wallet. His ID will be his prison serial number. But there will still be the initial and occassional thereafter strip search and urine test on demand. Len's wife, who barely speaks English will be left alone to fend for herself for several months. She'll raise the two children the best she can, on whatever money she has available to her. It won't be easy, but then, it wasn't easy when Len was locked up before for a week in the Dupage Jail in Wheaton, IL while the state charges were pending here. Speaking of the kids, I wonder if Len has explained all this to them yet. I wonder if they know, or are old enough to understand their dad is going to prison, and why ... When Len is released, he'll be 'allowed to' carry the tag "ex-con" with him when he applies for work and tries to make new friends. One part of his punishment is that in the future he must reveal his status to prospective employers. Needless to say, the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department trade files all the time ... so Len will want to be super-honest on his federal taxes in the future, since he can probably expect to be audited once or twice in the first five years or so following his release. I wonder if it was all worth it ... if Len had it to do over again if he would do the same things he did before, or if he might consider the consequences more carefully. Despite the intensive crackdown we have seen by the federal government in the past few years against 'white collar' and computer crime, there are still those folks around who either (a) don't think it applies to them, or (b) don't think they will get caught, or (c) don't understand what the big fuss is all about in the first place. If you don't think (c) is still possible, consider the recent thread in comp.org.eff.talk -- yes, I know, *where else* !! -- on the student who got suspended from school for two quarters after downloading and distributing the system password file on the machine he had been entrusted to use. The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi- bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself. The point is, some of us are simply getting very tired of the break-ins, the fraudulent messages, the fact that in order to telnet to a different site we can no longer do so direct from dialup servers without a lot of rig-a-ma-role because computer (ab)users have stolen all the trust which used to exist between sites, and the increasing scarcity of 'guest' accounts on various sites because the sysadmins are tired of being eaten alive with fraudulent and destructive usage. Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. And please, none of your hysterical freedom of speech arguments in my mail, thank you. No one gives an iota what you write about, but when you get your hands in the password file, rip off root or wheel accounts, run programs deceptive to other users designed to rip off their accounts also and generally behave like a two-bit burglar or con-artist, expect to get treated like one when you get caught. And you *will* get caught. Then you can go sit and commiserate with Len Rose. If Len Rose has half the brain I think he has, he will come out of the penitentiary a better person than when he went in. The penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, at least for the people who think about what it was that caused them to get there in the first place. I feel very sorry about what has happened to Len Rose. I feel worse about the circumstances his wife and children are in. But the socially irresponsible behavior (which some people who call themselves 'socially responsible' seem to condone or wink at) has to stop. Now. A US Attorney involved in prosecuting computer crime once said, "users need an example when they log in of what to expect when they screw up while on line ..." Indeed we do ... and Len Rose will serve as such. And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? So Len, *was* it all worth it? Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: bart simpson Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent To Prison Organization: Coventry Polytechnic, Coventry, UK Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 10:25:22 GMT Now that the Computer Misuse Act (1990) is in operation it might stop some of the abuses which have happened in the UK recently. Graham Wilson | lsg001 ------------------------------ From: Scott Dorsey Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent To Prison Reply-To: Scott Dorsey Organization: NASA Langley Research Center Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 13:42:44 GMT In article bill@eedsp.gatech.edu writes: > BALTIMORE (AP) -- A computer hacker has been sentenced to a year > and a day in prison for stealing information from American Telephone & > Telegraph and its subsidiary Bell Laboratories. > Leonard Rose Jr., 32, an unemployed computer consultant, pleaded > guilty in March to one count of sending AT&T source codes via computer > to a hacker in Illinois, and a similar wire fraud charge involving a > Chicago hacker. He did indeed send a copy of the System V login source code to someone who may have used it in the commission of a crime. > Rose was once a member of a nationwide hackers' group called the > Legion of Doom. No, he was not. Sorry. > He originally was indicted on charges of computer fraud and > interstate transportation of stolen property, but those charges were > dropped under a plea agreement. > U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz on Monday ordered Rose to > sell his computer equipment, which was seized last year in a raid on > his home in Middletown, and to tell potential employers of his > conviction. He is to begin serving his sentence July 10. > The judge did not order restitution to AT&T because Rose has what > one of his attornies called "a negative net worth." This is indeed true. He did not have such a condition until spending huge amounts of money for defense. scott [Moderator's Note: I did not bother to correct various inaccuracies in the wire story because the submitter pointed out the text was verbatim, and I assumed *we* all knew about the Legion of Doom thing. Regarding payment to his attornies, my understanding is much of the expense was met by friends, although without employment Len had the 'negative net worth' anyway. I hope his wife and kids have been able to get on public assistance (welfare) for the interim. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 10:29:55 -0700 From: Mark Seecof Subject: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal Moderator's Note: Excerpts from an article published in the {Los Angeles Times} May 17, 1991; page E1. This was sent by Mark Seecof to RISKS, and Jody Kravitz passed ot along to me, to share with TELECOM Digest readers. Thanks Jody! Thanks, Mark! PAT] Edited and submitted to RISKS Digest by Mark Seecof of the L.A. Times Publishing Systems Department. [elisions and bracketed comments mine -- Mark S.] ``Little Phone Company on a Hacker Attack'' By Susan Christian, Times Staff Writer. [Introductory blather...] [...] in the last seven months [small long-distance company] Thrifty Tel's [security chief] has put seven hackers in jail. And she has made 48 others atone for their sins with hard cash and hardware. The case that [security chief] Bigley calls her biggest coup -- involving a 16-year-old Buena Park boy whose alleged theft of computer data cost Thrifty Tel millions of dollars -- is pending in Orange County Superior Court. Thrifty Tel has become one of the most agressive hacker fighters in California, according to Jim Smith, president of the California Assn. of Long Distance Telephone Cos. (Caltel). ``[Bigley] is tough,'' he says. ``I would not want to be a hacker on her network.'' So far, the company has collected more than $200,000 in penalties and reimbursements from hackers. ``We do not have a hacking problem any more because we stood up and punched them in the face,'' Bigley proclaims. ``These kids think that what they're doing is no big deal -- they're not murdering anyone,'' Bigley says. ``They think we're terrible for calling them on it. Their attitude is extremely arrogant. But these are not just kids having some fun. They are using their intellect to devise ways to steal. And these are not kids who need to steal. They come from white-collar families.'' For Thrifty Tel Inc., the battle of wits started a year ago. [...Thrifty Tel is ten years old, went public in '86, and serves 7,000 customers in SoCal.] [...Last year the hackers discovered them. Hackers use computer programs to try many possible code numbers until they find the ones which unlock the system.] ``The first quarter of 1990 we came in with a half-million-dollar net profit, and everything was going great,'' Bigley says. ``Then the next quarter, all of a sudden we were lopsided. We were getting bigger bills from our carriers than we were billing out to our customers.'' With a little investigation, the company pinpointed the culprits: hackers who were eating up telephone time at as much as ten hours a ``conversation.'' Because hackers exchange information and solve secret codes via long-distance modem connections, circumventing expensive telephone charges has become their mainstay. ``It was so frustrating to sit here and watch these hackers burn through our lines,'' says Bigley, a 33-year-old San Fernando Valley resident. She has been vice-president of operations at Thrifty Tel for four years. ``I had technicians out changing customers' codes that they'd just changed a few weeks before.'' But Bigley is not the sort to throw in the towel. [...She is hard-working and persistent.] First, she devoted a couple of months to educating herself about hacking. She monitored Thrifty Tel's computers for unusual activity -- telephone calls coming into the switching facility from non-customers. ``They believe that because they're sitting in a room with a computer they're safe,'' Bigley says. ``The problem is, they're using their telephone; we can watch them in the act. It's a lot easier to catch a hacker than a bank robber.'' Bigley started making a few calls of her own. If the infiltrator seemed major league, like the Buena Park boy, she contacted the Garden Grove Police Department, whose fraud investigators went into homes with search warrants. If the hacker seemed relatively small, however, Bigley took matters into her own hands, telephoned the suspect and presented an ultimatum: Either pay up or face criminal charges. A non-negotiable condition of Bigley's out-of-court settlement provided that the guilty party relinquish his (or, infrequently, her) computer and modem. Thrifty Tel donates the confiscated weapons [computers] to law enforcement agencies. Teen-age hackers tend to be ``very intelligent and somewhat introverted,'' says Garden Grove Police Detective Richard Harrison, a fraud investigator who has arrested many of Thrifty Tel's suspects. Most of the parents he has dealt with were oblivious to their children's secret lives, Harrison says. He suggests that parents educate themselves about their children's computers. ``If a kid is spending a whole bunch of time on his computer and it's hooked up to a modem, he's not just running his software. What is he doing on that computer? Does he really need a modem?'' [ed. note -- this officer may be an expert on fraud but is clearly unqualified to make such sweeping assertions about what (young) people do with computers. Playing rogue can eat up as much time as hacking while the modem remains idle.] Not all hackers are young computer fanatics testing their limits. ``The hacking problem is two-fold,'' says Caltel president Smith, also president of the Sacramento-based long-distance telephone company Execuline. ``First, we have Information Age fraud, which is an outgrowth of the proliferation of computers in households. We have all these kids who want to talk to each other on bulletin boards, and if mom and dad had to pay for all those phone calls, the cost would be prohibitive. Then we have professional fraud -- adults as well as kids who attempt to gain access to our codes for the purpose of selling the codes. They have made a big business out of hacking.'' Smith's company has waged a more low-key defens[e] against hackers than Thrifty Tel. ``I wish I had the time to devote to hacker fraud that she [Bigley] has been able to devote,'' he says. Therein lies the reason that many telephone companies decline to file charges against hackers, says Roy Costello, a fraud investigator for GTE. ``Smaller carriers don't have the time to allow their people to do the investigation and then carry it through the court system,'' he says. [... Stuff about the sticktoitiveness of Thrifty Tel's Bigley and how she thinks that hackers are immoral and wants to defeat them.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 01:59 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Thrifty Tel article from comp.risks On Jun 13 at 1:10, Jody Kravitz passed along the article from the {LA Times} which appeared in RISKS: > ``Little Phone Company on a Hacker Attack'' > By Susan Christian, Times Staff Writer. You may be interested to know that the {San Jose Mercur}y is about to do a story also. However, the writer has been in close touch with yours truly and I can guarantee the article will be somewhat more "informed" and will carry a somewhat different slant. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #453 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22489; 15 Jun 91 2:28 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11397; 15 Jun 91 0:54 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12085; 14 Jun 91 23:49 CDT Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 23:02:49 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #454 BCC: Message-ID: <9106142302.ab20836@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 14 Jun 91 23:02:47 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 454 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson A Retraction: I Was Wrong (was Hollings and Pac*Bell) [Andy Sherman] Re: Billing Question [Jim Redelfs] Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? [William Vajk] Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel [Paolo Bellutta] Re: The President's Analyst [Mike Andrews] Re: Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act [Scott Horne] Re: Share FAX, Modem and Voice Line [Vinood Herur] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Merv Graham] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andy Sherman Subject: A Retraction: I Was Wrong (was Hollings and Pac*Bell) Date: 12 Jun 91 17:37:32 GMT Reply-To: Andy Sherman Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ In article , I wrote: > In article Charlie Mingo writes: >> It must be remembered that antitrust law generally (and the Bell >> divestiture in particular) was designed to benefit *consumers* not >> competitors. > Interesting mythology. Where did you find it? I've seen no evidence > that government intentions regards antitrust law in general or in US > vs AT&T in particular have anything whatsoever to do with consumers. > The Sherman antitrust act was enacted to prevent anticompetitive > behavior by large monopolies for the express purpose of keeping > smaller less efficient competitors from being driven out of business. *** FLAME ON ***** SELF-IMMOLATION IN PROGRESS ***** I was totally out of line. My knowledge of anti-trust law is based on 15-20 year old memories and his is based on more recent reading. While I still disagree with some of his conclusions, I apologize for being snotty without cause. Below is the reply I sent to Charlie after receiving his reply. To: Charlie.Mingo@f421.n109.z1.fidonet.org Subject: Re: Hollings Bill and Pac*Bell (REPOST) In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 10 Jun 91 01:51:11 -0700. <9106100151.1.15147@cup.portal.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 08:20:16 EDT Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell (LONG) To: Uucp From: Charlie Mingo Of: 109/421.4218 Date: 6/10/91 4:22:32 AM ------------------------------------------- To: uunet!ulysses.att.com!andys [This is a rather long posting, but you raised a great number of points. I regret I lacked the time to cover everything in depth, but I trust you will point out anything I might have skipped over.] Actually, you did a *marvelous* job, and I mean that with no irony. I will concede that your knowledge of anti-trust history exceeds mine. Since it has been some 15-20 years since I read that stuff (except for some history of the MFJ), I must accuse *myself* of fuzzy thinking. I still stand behind my contention that at least part of the intent of modern antitrust law is to preserve fairness in the marketplace, but like I said it's been some time, so I don't remember the sources. The only issue I think you addressed badly was the fairness of cross-subsidies between regulated and unregulated business. Of course, one of the things I feel strongly is that since *my* company has been forced to undergo tortuous reorganizations (remember Computer Inquiry II, which the FCC put into effect 1 year before divestiture?) that other companies ought to play by the same rules. Actually, I don't want to have argued myself into the corner of saying that customers should have less features, but they should pay a fair price for them. A fair price is not one which is subsidized by the ratepayers of local phone service. That is the point of my saying Pac*Bel's voice mail business should pay its phone business the going rate for network services such as free forwarding and stutter dial tone -- so that voice mail users pay the freight rather than captive rate payers. On to the Hollings bill ... this also raises some of the concerns in the manufacturing community about the Hollings bill. If the RBOCs make switches, they can mandate that their regulated monopolies buy them *AT ANY PRICE*. Not only does this freeze out other competitors, it can artificially raise the rates paid by local ratepayers, since the deal of the monopoly is based on some kind of ROI. Higher capital expenditures = more money from the N% ROI. (That was the nature of the NYNEX scam). There is also a matter of equity. Captive markets for switching equipment was certainly a major issue in US vs AT&T. I think that the Justice Department is currently attempting to legislate itself a new deal that gives AT&T less in exchange for divestiture than was originally negotiated. This is a good faith way to settle a lawsuit? This is fair treatment? I'd agree that telecommunications policy needs to be made by more than just one judge, but it can still be done without breaking past deals. Thanks for your reply. I apologize for accusing you of fuzzy thinking while engaging in it myself. If Pat posts my original response, I will flame myself. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! [Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, Andy's original article had gone out just minutes earlier when I received his note asking me to cancel it. So I agreed to publish this 'self-flame' on his behalf. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 23:49:40 cst From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Billing Question Reply-To: ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@uunet.uu.net Organization: Macnet Omaha Leroy Donnelly wrote: > Could someone give me the insite on how the phone companies bill for > long distance. Is it based on a grid map or LAT/LONG points. Across the country, I'm sure there are numerous, different methods for BILLING for long distance useage, but can I assume you are interested in how the phone companies HANDLE long distance? LATAs (Local Access and Transport Areas) were created to define how long distance would be handled following Divestiture. Within the Nebraska Area Code 402, there are TWO LATAs -- one served by US WEST Communications (formerly Northwestern Bell Telephone Company) and the other by Lincoln Telephone and Telegraph. For example: A toll call from Omaha to Norfolk, NE (both US WEST Communications cities) is transported over the facilities of, and billed by, US WEST Communications. A toll call from Omaha to Nebraska City, NE (the latter served by LT&T) is billed by your default (1+ Choice) carrier. In my case, such a call appears on my AT&T bill. A toll call from Omaha to Grand Island, NE (both served by US WEST Communications -- *BUT* different Area Codes) is also billed by your 1+ carrier. I'm not sure about other areas, but within Nebraska, the MAJOR toll carriers have not (yet) ventured into the INTRA-Lata business. JR -- Tabby 2.2 MacNetOmaha(402)289-2899 Multitasking w/MacOrphans (1:285/14) ------------------------------ From: William Vajk Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? Reply-To: William Vajk Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 05:43:26 GMT In article Ralf Bayer writes: > In telecom 11/445 William Vajk writes: >> On the other hand, to convert from ascii to fax is relatively easy, >> but certainly not easy enough to make a fax machine into a computer >> peripheral. > Well, that's not quite true. There are several vendors of fax cards > with associated software. These things transfer ASCII directly into > fax format, [Balance deleted] What you wrote was true, but not related to the discussion at hand. A fax machine is simply not a reasonable a computer peripheral (as the parent article had requested.) The idea proposed was to make a fax machine into a printer 'without serious investment.' I simply don't see buying a fax board and software a rational response to making a fax machine double as a printer. Bill Vajk ------------------------------ From: Paolo Bellutta Organization: I.R.S.T. 38050 POVO (TRENTO) ITALY Subject: Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 8:33:33 MET DST rmz@ifi.uio.no (Bj|rn Remseth) asks: > Does anyone know about existing hardware that puts a bitstream on a > video channel and let you extract the same bitstream out of the video > video signal, after it has been transmitted on standard video > transport media such as satellite links, video cassettes and cable TV > networks. > This kind of equipment could use spare capacity on local cable > networks and satellite sattelite links to spread e.g. usenet news > quite inexpensively. > But, the Big Question is: Does this hardware exist? Yes. There are several ways to do that. Let's list the various kinds of media you can use: 1) VCR 2) terrestrial link 3) satellite link 1) can make use of the SMPTE/EBU time code, this is a digital code inserted in the VBI (vertical blanking interval), and represents hours:minutes:seconds:frames plus some spare bits you can use for special purposes. Since this is written on video tape, low bit rates can be achieved. In the US (but not in Europe) they have CC (close captioning) encoding which can be recorded on tape (always in the VBI). 2) can make use of the same code that is used for teletext and VPS codes. Since the channel bandwidth is a bit larger than in a VCR, a higher bit rate can be achieved. An alternative way is to use the NICAM encoding (used for terrestrial TV digital audio). 3) satellite transponders have a very high bandwidth, therefore subcarriers are used to carry additional data (for example different languages audio). Subcarriers can usefully encoded to transmit data at high bit rates. Adam Smith has a large production of Time Code HW. Rohde & Schwarz have DGF and DEF (coder and decoder) for VBI, DCA and DDA for digital audio. This covers 1) and 2). Sit on a chair before asking prices ;) Paolo Bellutta I.R.S.T. vox: +39 461 814417 loc. Pante' di Povo fax: +39 461 810851 38050 POVO (TN) e-mail: bellutta@irst.it ITALY bellutta@irst.uucp ------------------------------ From: Mike Andrews Subject: Re: The President's Analyst Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 02:40:04 GMT In article droid@kerner.sf.ca.us (Marty the Droid) writes: > For those who have seen the film "The President's Analyst", did anyone > notice Cliff Robertson playing the part of the 'droid at TPC? I almost > bust a gut the first time I saw him enter in that grey suit in an AT&T > commercial. It was nice to know that "TCP" still had the same > leadership. :-) > (I wondered if the folks at the ad agency or AT&T ever saw the movie.) Nice irony, but your memory is a little faulty. The "TPC 'droid" was played by Pat Harrington, mostly known for his role as Dwayne Schneider, the handyman on "One Day at a Time" and Trak Auto Parts commercials. Other actors in "The President's Analyst" besides James Coburn are Godfrey Cambridge as the CRA(sic) man, Severin Darden as the Russian, Artie Johnson (Laugh-In) as the FBR(sic) man, William Daniels (the voice of Kitt the Car on Knight Rider and a Doctor on St. Elsewhere) as the Liberal Gun Nut, and Will Geer as James Coburn's analyst and mentor. The film also features the acting and musical "talents" of Barry (Eve of Destruction) McQuire. I have a video copy of the movie which has been one of my favorites for years. Some lines to watch for: Doctor: "The one thing all psychotics have in common is hate for The Phone Company. They all hate the The Phone Company!" The Russian: "Every country in world hates The Phone Company. BEDOUINS hate The Phone Company!" ------- "With all the countries in the world The President has to worry about, which one do you think worries him the most?" "Which one?" "Libya. Do you believe it? LIBYA!" (this is a pre-Qadaffi bit of precognition.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 06:00:55 EDT From: Scott Horne Subject: Re: Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act Organization: Computer "Science" Dept, Yale University In article , linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu writes: > [No, I'm not a lawyer, but...] There's an interesting point of > Constitutional law involved. It turns out that if you have a "NO > SOLICITING" sign on the front of your house, it is entirely legal for > someone to come to your door anyway and solicit you for POLITICAL > purposes, because the First Amendment right of the solicitor to > engage solicitee Subject: Re: Share FAX, Modem and Voice Line Date: 14 Jun 91 19:14:01 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca. I have been using an ASAP TF555 here in France for the last couple of months and I have been disappointed with its performance. It works well with fax calls but when people call, sometimes it just doesn't switch it to the telephone. As a result, the person on the other end hears one ring, nothing else, and then the line disconnects. Rather annoying -- I plan to send it back to the US from where I got it. Vinod Herur Internet: vherur@sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. Uucp: ...!sun!vherur ------------------------------ From: Merv Graham Subject: Re^2: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Date: 14 Jun 91 19:29:02 GMT Organization: Graham-Patten Sys., Inc., Grass Valley, CA mitel!Software!meier@uunet.uu.net (Rolf Meier) writes: > In article mailrus!ulowell!wex@uunet. > uu.net writes: > [recommendation for using garden hose as conduit] > I tried this, in an attempt to save some money on the special (thicker > sheath) direct burial cable. > It turned out that I was unable to pull the wire more than about 25 > feet before it started to bind against the hose. Since I had already > bought the hose, I ended up splitting the hose the full length, > inserting the wire, and then taping the hose together again. > It was really false economy. Next time, I would get the true > direct-burial cable. I'm sorry I didn't see the start of this thread, but if we're talking about low voltage circuits: I used a 1 (or was it 1.25)inch , black, polyethylene, flexible water pipe. It was cheap enough and has a nice smooth inner bore for pulling cables. I used about 125 feet between the house and shop for LV control, phone and intercom cables. Originally blew a nylon cord through the pipe (old vacuum cleaner connected backwards trick) for a pull line and always pull a new cord with each new cable I pull. Works great. Merv Graham | gpstwr!merv@gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com Graham-Patten Systems, Inc. | or: tektronix!gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com!gpstwr!merv P.O. Box 1960 | Grass Valley, CA 95945 | Ph: 916-273-8412 FAX: 916-273-7458 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #454 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25728; 15 Jun 91 3:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21072; 15 Jun 91 2:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11397; 15 Jun 91 0:55 CDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 0:31:02 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #455 BCC: Message-ID: <9106150031.ab14790@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Jun 91 00:30:47 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 455 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Tony Harminc] Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel [Jeremy Druker] Re: Billing Question [Leroy Donnelly] Re: N.Y. Metro North Commuter Railroad [Scott Horne] Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Carl Moore] Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO [Jim Redelfs] Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor [Laird P. Broadfield] Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone [Steve Forrette] Re: St. Louis Phone Outage [Floyd Davidson] Re: Can You Identify These Mystery Boxes? [John Tombs] The Wonderful Thing About Standards (was Hollings/PacBell) [Steve Forrette] Maryland Helpline Worked in California [Carl Moore] Need Modem Usage Stats -- Detroit Area [Douglas Parker] Sources Wanted For Punchdown Tools? [Christopher Davis] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 00:48:40 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Rolf Meier wrote: [recommendation for using garden hose as conduit] > It turned out that I was unable to pull the wire more than about 25 > feet before it started to bind against the hose. Since I had already > bought the hose, I ended up splitting the hose the full length, > inserting the wire, and then taping the hose together again. > It was really false economy. Next time, I would get the true > direct-burial cable. What you need is wire pulling compound. It's usually gloopy yellow stuff that comes in a giant squeeze bottle or a can. You can, of course, use almost anything slippery, but grease etc. may damage the insulation over time. Tony H. ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Druker Date: Fri Jun 14 19:25:05 1991 Subject: Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel In , rmz@ifi.uio.no (Bj|rn Remseth) wrote: > Does anyone know about existing hardware that puts a bitstream on a > video channel and let you extract the same bitstream out of the video > video signal, after it has been transmitted on standard video > transport media such as satellite links, video cassettes and cable TV > networks. > This kind of equipment could use spare capacity on local cable > networks and satellite sattelite links to spread e.g. usenet news > quite inexpensively. > But, the Big Question is: Does this hardware exist? Yep -- it sure does. The Magic Phrase is "Data Broadcast", and it works by sending data during the so-called Vertical Blanking Interval between picture frames. This is how teletext works, and data broadcast is, in fact, a specialized form of teletext. Ordinary teletext works by constantly retransmitting a set of pages of data, where each page comprises up to 25 rows of 40 characters each. Data broadcast, on the other hand, treats the transmitted data as a single continuous stream of bytes. There are one or two companies in the UK that I know of which suuply data broadcast receiving kit ("data decoders"). Only one as far as I know supplies the transmission ("head-end") kit, and that comprises a MicroVax with (hellish expensive) software that they wrote. The data decoder has an antenna socket and an RS-232 socket (or two for the fancy kind that can receive multiple channels simultaneously on different output ports). These cost in the region of 200 Pounds Sterling. In the UK, both BBC and ITV provide data broadcast capacity for sale (the horse racing betting shops use it to broadcast digitized audio commentaries of races, for instance) and in the US, PBS has been using data broadcast for some time too, though for what I don't know. I'm currently working on data broadcast head-end S/W myself (how else could I know all this trivia :-) but, alas, I do not own the rights to it :-( so I cannot publish any on the net. My system runs on a '386 under UNIX or Xenix, and with a DOS PC containing a PC Teletext broadcast card to convert the data to composite video format. The data rate is largely limited to what the data decoder can handle. For 625 line systems with 25 frames (50 fields) per second, the nett data rate is about 15Kbps per VBI line used; in our case we have chosen to use 8 VBI lines, which is as much as our data decoders can accomodate. I could go on and on and on (just say the word :-) but your eyes are surely glazing over by now. If you know of anybody who's interested in actually buying any of this stuff, mail me for names and numbers. Jeremy Druker jsd@proxima.UUCP !uunet!ddsw1!olsa99!proxima!jsd ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 16:12:54 CST From: Leroy Donnelly Subject: Re: Billing Question Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs!leroy.donnelly@uunet.uu.net Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha Could someone give me insight on how the phone companies bill for long distance. Is it based on a grid map or LAT/LONG points. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 [200:5010/666@metronet] NOT EVERYONE USES AN IBM PC :-( (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 06:15:56 EDT From: Scott Horne Subject: Re: N.Y. Metro North Commuter Railroad Organization: Computer "Science" Dept, Yale University In article , is written: > The New York MetroNorth commuter railroad has a toll-free number which > accepts input consisting of the first four letters of your > destination! I don't like it. Some sort of menu might be better. (Then again, there are twenty-seven stops between New Haven, CT, and Grand Central Station, inclusive ...) I once had some trouble getting information on trains from New Haven to Grand Central: the input `NEWH' (6394) was invalid. It turned out that `UNIO' (8646), for Union Station in New Haven, was expected. Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne horne@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 203 624-9263 Summer residence: 25 High St, Apt 32, New Haven, CT ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 9:47:37 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World Waiting N rings gets back into: 1. give the receiving party time to answer the phone; I was told ten rings many years ago. 2. in recent years, some systems charge you after a certain number of rings even if the call is not answered. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 00:40:17 cst From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO Reply-To: ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@uunet.uu.net Organization: Macnet Omaha Rick Farris wrote: [Trying to locate his local Central Office building - to no avail] Stop a phone truck and ask the driver. They all know where they are. In Omaha, I wouldn't have any "problem" telling someone where the CO is. In fact, to impress a customer with how FAR their line runs to the CO, I frequently tell them WHERE the CO is! "My" CO is located on the main highway through Elkhorn (Omaha CDO) and is clearly marked with a large Bell logo. Occasionally, a local customer will knock on the door in the morning, while I'm in there wiring on the MDF, and report their trouble directly to me! Ahhhhh! SmallTown PhoneMan. I love it! JR Tabby 2.2 MacNetOmaha(402)289-2899 Multitasking w/MacOrphans (1:285/14) ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1991 19:18:55 GMT In john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > I could not RESIST adding my two cents -- plain to all of this > extensive discussion about what value resistor to busy out a phone > line with. For a quarter century, when it has been necessary to busy > out a phone line I have simply shorted it. In the case of ground > start, I have shorted it and grounded it as well. I had one trunk left > this way for about a year. Came back, pulled the short and the line > came right back to life. No CO switch, modern or ancient, gives a > hoot or a holler about what kind of load is on a line. It is all > current limited in the subscriber line equipment. Yes, John, but as we all know, you're served by a combination of an SXS and Ernestine on a cord-board. (Seriously though, folks, Pathetic*Bell really *is* nearly as pathetic as John makes them out to be.) 'Fraid though that quite a bit of CO equipment does indeed care about load on the line, as I recall a 5ESS (or was that a DMS? fuzzy memory) will drop dialtone *and* all but minimal battery on sensing a full short. Whether this will clear itself on removing the short or requires an official Service Action is a software toggle (read that as "another way for the BOC to justify a repair charge.") In fact, Keptel(Armiger)'s fancier MTUs and SNI-MTUs will perform this disconnect automatically right at your demarc; they can also be set for self-reset or requires-telco-visit-reset. Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 17:08:09 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Julian Macassey writes: > This circuit the "TAP telephone" was as I recall designed by > Joe Flamini, a real telecom character. He is an MIT Phd, ex cop, bon > vivant and comedian. Anyhow, the IC is a Dual Timer. One half sets up > the flash button for a 600Ms break and the other half, which is across > the hookswitch is set up for 1500 Ms. This is why when you try to ^^^^^^^ > flash the hookswitch on the TAP phone you hang the phone up. I think this is a really stupid feature. How do they expect you to dial the phone if the tone pad goes out? :-) Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu [Moderator's Note: My office phone is like that. The switch always will disconnect; never flash. The TAP button flashes, but after a flash or two it seems to need to time out a few seconds before it is willing to flash again (it does nothing after the secod or third time it is flashed until a few seconds have elapsed.) Stupid. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Floyd Davidson Subject: Re: St. Louis Phone Outage Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 04:59:05 GMT In article phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: > Kirk Moir writes: >> a) Who manufactured the "high capacity digital cross-connection >> system"? I am under the assumption that some kind of DCC switch died. >> Please correct me if required. > Very conveniently, none of the press accounts have given any real > information. In the Sunday paper account (front page of business > section) there was a picture of the "computer". It appered to be rack > mounted, perhaps 6' tall and 6-8' long. All one could really see was > that it appead to have many similar shaped "modules". > Could it have been ISDN service? Maybe a little explaination of what a "digital cross-connection system" is would help. Several companies make them. AT&T calls theirs a DACS and the particular one where I work is called a DEX (made by DSC Communications Corp.). There are others. It is basically a digital switch. Except it does not decide which lines to connect by looking for touch tone and it does not provide dial tone or any of the other services that come with a digital "switch". The connections are set up at a console, or any number of them, and remain in place until they are changed or removed by software commands. The outside world is interfaced via T1 carrier. These systems are used to cut down the amount of time and manpower it takes to wire circuits up on distribution frames. Instead of running wires, the craftsman just enters commands in the computer. Obviously at some point each circuit is in fact likely to end up going analog on a copper wire circuit, so not all wiring is eliminated. But for circuits that pass through an office where the carrier it rides is digital on both sides, there is no wiring done at all. It also has the advantage of remote access via modem. And a circuit can be bridged to test equipment that is also remotely controlled via modem, thus permitting circuit testing at an unmanned location by someone at a central control/status center. I have no idea how many testboard craftspeople have been laid off since this device has come into use, but ... Floyd L. Davidson | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine floyd@ims.alaska.edu| but not for opinions. |Science suffers me as a guest. ------------------------------ From: John Tombs Subject: Re: Can You Identify These Mystery Boxes? Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 17:54:51 GMT In article n3hnr@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Jason Galanter) writes: > I have a couple of boxes that I have absolutely no clue on their use. > I am sure someone out there knows what they do and I would appreciate > any help that might be availiable, I assume they are long distance > carrier access boxes pre-dial-1 service. > They are TELTRONICS (division of brand-rex) AD350-DW issue 5 boxes > and >that is all the info I have ... anyone have any clues? Well, I work for an associated company, though not on these. My information is that they are first generation store-and-forward dialers: input 1+10 digits, output +10 digits. For more info you could try Don Mastropietro at 813-753-5000. John Tombs at Teltronics/TCT , ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 20:35:44 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: The Wonderful Thing About Standards (was Hollings and Pac*Bell) Organization: University of California, Berkeley > "That's the wonderful thing about Standards; there're so many > to choose from!" I believe this can be attributed to Nick Tredennick, who designed the MC68000 architecture, among other things. But I could be wrong. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 11:03:00 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Maryland Helpline Worked in California 800-477-4704, the Maryland 301/410 helpline, worked from California when I tried it recently. ------------------------------ From: Douglas Parker Subject: Need Modem Usage Stats -- Detroit Area Date: 14 Jun 91 15:54:14 GMT Organization: General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, MI I need usage stats for modems in the Detroit area. I also need current sales information on modems in the Detroit area. I'm posting to the entire group because although the data is from the local area, sources might be available elsewhere. Tanks, a whole lot! #:) Douglas Parker General Dynamics Corporation Computer Systems Engineer 6000 E. 17 Mi. Rd. MZ: 435-02-33 Sterling Heights, MI 48313 (313) 825-8677 uunet!gdls!parker Do you think my company would be endorsing comments *I* make? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 15:58:14 -0400 From: Christopher Davis Subject: Sources Wanted For Punchdown Tools Where can things like this be ordered? Christopher Davis - System Manager & Postmaster, Electronic Frontier Foundation <{uunet,bu.edu,...}!world!eff!ckd> NeXT: 155 Second Street, Cambridge, MA 02141 - +1 617 864 0665 - FAX: +1 617 864 0866 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #455 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21883; 15 Jun 91 14:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23678; 15 Jun 91 13:10 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09535; 15 Jun 91 12:03 CDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 11:22:58 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #456 BCC: Message-ID: <9106151122.ab10168@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Jun 91 11:22:37 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 456 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Northern Telecom History [Tony Harminc] Real CO ISDN Ugrade Costs Needed [Barton F. Bruce] AT&T 1341 Answering Machine and Distinctive Ringing [Jerry Grooms] Can Bell Canada Put a Collect-Call Block on a Number? [Davin Milun] Help "Save the Infosphere" [Sue Anderson] CATV Company Rate Comparisons [Nick Sayer] Does a National Phonebook Exist? [Wally Kramer] Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? [Steve Forrette] NETWORK WORLD Article on IXCS and Toll Fraud Monitoring [Peter Marshall] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 11:15:58 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Northern Telecom History gaarder@anarres.ithaca.ny.us wrote about United Telephone of Pannsylvania: > While I was in college in Carlisle, Pa., United Telephone replaced > their Kellogg K-60 switch with a North (not Northern) Electric NX-1E > mega-whizz-bang. A recent posting mentioned that North has cut its > business back to just power systems. The NX-1E may be part of the > reason why. This was -- brace yourself -- a computer-controlled > crossbar switch. That's right, one foot in the future and one in the > past. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that North took an existing > crossbar design and glommed on computers so they could have a > computerized switch quick. .... Interesting. Northern Telecom also made a computer controlled crossbar switch called the SP1. They installed a large number of them between about 1972 and 1979. There are still many thousands of lines of SP1 in Toronto and other Canadian cities. They also made a four wire toll version (SP1/4W) and a TOPS option for toll operator (TSPS) service. The first TOPS switch went into service in Alaska in about 1974. A little Northern Telecom history is necessary to understand why this strange beast was ever made. In the late 1960s, NT was still essentially doing no R&D of its own. License agreements with the Bell System in the USA provided the technology, which was then manufactured under licence (or occasionally just imported). NT manufactured 1ESS systems this way, 100% unchanged from the Western Electric version as far as I know. There are about half a dozen large 1ESS switches in Toronto for example - all installed between 1969 and 1972 or 1973. But the 1ESS was too large - or rather was not cost effective outside large cities - and there are only a few large cities in Bell Canada's (parent of NT) operating territory. Also - and more important - the legal goings on in the USA made the continuation of the cosy licensing arrangements with the Bell System impossible. So NT decided to develop a switch that would make economic sense in configurations from small-town to big city sizes. (Now here I speculate; I should make it clear that I am not an NT insider and all this information comes from published material): the digital writing was already on the wall. I am sure that the R&D that eventually became the SL/1 and then the DMS series was in progress by 1970 or so. But something was needed that could be delivered soon. So tried and true crossbar switches were married to a computer. In those days everyone designed their own CPU; there were no off-the-shelf CPU chips with ready-to-go C compilers. The SP1 CPU was typical for its time, wide words (36 bits? - I forget) all made of TTL and programmed in assembler. But it worked. Various stuff was added to the SP1 over the few years it lasted; centrex, hotel and hospital versions, etc. and of course the four wire version mentioned above. Although the DMS switches caught up on the SP1 quite quickly, the time it was being installed was a time of major replacement of SxS gear and expansion in general, so a large number of lines (and switches) went into service. One entire new building in downtown Toronto (Simcoe Street -- the first new CO building in many years) was filled with nothing but SP1. (I can't resist an aside on the Simcoe Street building. This was built in the early 1970s, and is a very tall, modern looking building *with no windows* right in the middle of downtown. If I am conducting out-of-country visitors around town, I often contrive to pass by the building and say in an off-hand manner: "that's the headquarters of the Secret Police". The building looks forbidding enough that it sometimes works with gullible visitors.) One amusing thing that gives an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the SP1 is that in the late 1970s, when the DMS switches were just starting to take off, NT discovered that the entire SP1 CPU could be replaced with the DMS100 CPU running a software emulator which ran substantially faster than the original! I think most if not all were eventually replaced. This increased the call processing capacity significantly, and also did wonders for reliability. Former phone phreaks with good ears will easily recognize the crossbar sounds when calling into an SP1 - clicky sounds quite different from the silent DMS or the ESS wire-spring stuff. The call progress tones are nice, analogue, PTP too. Caveat: all this is from memory. The dates are roughly right, but in the very unlikely event that anyone needs correct dates, "recourse should be had to the literature" :-) Tony H. ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Real CO ISDN Ugrade Costs Needed Date: 12 Jun 91 00:55:47 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. Later this week there is a Mass. DPU hearing on NYNEX's latest ISDN proposals. I gather they want to start with only 12 switches in MA setup for ISDN, and will try pricing data service the way they price their (bloody expensive) Switchway 56 service, and x.25 service much the way they price their other x.25 service - Infopath. At that rate, only the truely desperate or very rich would use this for data, and I really hate to see them trying to differientiate between my possible uses of a rented 64kb channel. Should be ONE price for for point to point switched 64 - voice or data, sure x.25 is another game. When they get data neatly seperated from voice, just wait til they start trying to compress voice traffic which will really mess up fast modems. AT&T's new IACS system that will provide frame relay, will also handily compress large numbers of voice channels onto fewer T1s. You should see the glowing descriptions of what it can save the telcos! Fiber bandwith is dirt cheap, and in some quarters there is a glut of it, so moves to 'cheapen' the delivered voice channel quality, and to raise the prices on 'data' traffic need to be thwarted. Does anyone KNOW anything about the real expenses NET&T has to pay to implement ISDN in #5ess COs? What does AT&T charge for the new software? One can assume there is plenty of fiber trunking going in totally justified without ISDN. So what other ISDN specific expenses do they really have? Any ammunition for a user speaking at a DPU hearing would be most welcome. ------------------------------ Subject: AT&T 1341 Answering Mach and Distinctive Ringing Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 15:54:11 EDT From: lunatix!grooms@ms.uky.edu My wife is setting up her new office at a university and it became necessary that she acquire an answering machine for office use. For lack of any better reasons, I suggested she try the AT&T 1341 (?) Digital model for it's vertical form-factor and quiet, tape-less operation. She is fairly demanding when it comes to friendly ergonomics, but was quite satisifed with this model. Alas, the university's telephone system is programmed to provide a distinctive ring on incoming outside calls which the 1341 does not detect. Switching to a Panasonic 1740 enables outside calls to be detected and answered. The problem is she hates the ergonomics of the Panasonic, including it's distinctive "clown-horn" tone. My questions are: 1) What technique enables the Panasonic to recognize a call where the AT&T cannot? 2) Is there any possible way (including extraordinary means) to get the 1341 to work, short of have the line re-programmed, which the univ. is apparently loathe to do? Thanks in advance. Email preferred and summary if warranted. jerry grooms grooms%lunatix.UUCP@s.ms.uky.edu ------------------------------ From: Davin Milun Subject: Can Bell Canada Put a Collect-Call Block on a Number? Date: 12 Jun 91 05:32:33 GMT At a camp that I'm associated with in Ontario, we have just installed a phone line for the counsellors. The dial has been disabled so that it is for incoming calls only. But we would like to arrange it so that they cannot accept collect calls, or bill third party calls to that number. A first call to Bell Canada resulted in us being told that this was impossible. Does anyone know if this is truly not possible, or if it is worth us persuing the matter? It is a 613-336-xxxx number. Thanks. Davin [Moderator's Note: Whether or not it is possible in the USA seems to depend on the type of equipment serving the number. The CO serving my home phones is the latest ESS and my lines are fixed in this way, but a friend in the area with an older version of ESS cannot have it. I assume your situtation is the same. Ask Bell Canada if any exchanges there are able to do it, provided you have no special interest in the number assigned to the phone now. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 10:52:15 -0400 From: Sue Anderson Subject: Help "Save the Infosphere" Reply-To: aq941@cleveland.freenet.edu This summer and fall, the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), a nonprofit public computer network headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, will be working on its first annual "Infosphere Report" -- a research project which will attempt to assess the nation's health with regard to information age issues. We are defining the infosphere as: the technical and organizational environment in which the general public can access computer-mediated communication and information resources. The central idea is to conduct an on-going study similar to those conducted in areas such as economics, population growth and the environment, with reports appearing every year. The data will be cumulative, comparative, and prescriptive. That is, it is expected that over-time a portrait will emerge which will describe this nation's progress as it enters an information age. It will show where we are doing well, where we are doing poorly, and where more emphasis is needed. One of the trickiest parts of doing a study like this is trying to figure out what the critical variables are when measuring something like the "infosphere." If you are measuring the health of the environment, you can measure the presence of various chemicals in the air, water, or soil. But how do you measure the health of our informational environment? We have some ideas about what information should be included. We might, for example, be interested in finding out how many homes, schools, and libraries have computers and modems; how many libraries allow modem and/or internet access to their computerized card catalogues; and how many government agencies allow modem and/or internet access to their informational resources. We want more ideas. So we are actively soliciting the computer networks and telecomputing community to be a part of this effort. If you have any thoughts on how the infosphere might best be assessed -- what kind of variables we should be looking at -- we'd appreciate your input. All suggestion are valued. Suggestions which also tell us where we might go to actually FIND that information are cherished! Please send your suggestions to: Sue Anderson, M.Ed., NPTN - Infosphere Project aq941@cleveland.freenet.edu or Tom Grundner, Ed.D., NPTN - President aa001@cleveland.freenet.edu Please also feel free to re-post this message where ever you think appropriate. ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: CATV Company Rate Comparisons Date: 12 Jun 91 20:08:26 GMT Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA We have a monopoly here in Stockton. Continental Cable charges $19.54 a month minimum, and has 34 clear channels, 4 pay channels and one pay-per-view channel, but it's on two pieces of coax, which makes cable-ready equipment capable of only 'seeing' half the channels at a time. A converter to solve this problem costs $2/mo, a remote control is another $1, the first pay channel is about $10, and additional pay channels have decreasing costs. Needless to say, I am not happy with this situation but, of course, I live in a condo where no antennas are allowed, so there is no alternative. When (and if :-) ) I graduate from college, I'm gonna get a dish. Now if there was only a way to get phone service without having to get service from an RBOC. Speaking of dishes, has anyone heard from the Congressional inquiry concerning predatory pricing practices of cable programming suppliers? I was watching C-SPAN some time ago, and ran across such a hearing. One of those testifying said the average cable company paid $2 per subscriber per month for a package which satellite and wireless-cable providers paid an average of $10 per subsciber per month. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 13:28:53 PDT From: Wally Kramer Subject: Does a National Phonebook Exist? Reply-To: wallyk@orca.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, Oregon Is there a ``phonebook'' which covers everywhere in the U.S.? Electronic, CD-ROM, 900-FIND-THEM :-) or whatever (even paper). I'd like to track down some college buddies, but I don't have clue as to what city some of them are in. Wally Kramer contracted from Step Technology, Portland, Oregon 503 244 1239 wallyk@orca.wv.tek.com +1 503 685 2658 [Moderator's Note: No, there is no single phone directory covering the entire USA in any media. But any large metropolitan library will have a huge collection of out of town phone books you can review. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 16:53:39 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? It was written: [stuff about 14 digit random AT&T calling cards deleted] > I believe that the main reason for the change is a cost cutting move > on the part of AT&T. Simple as that; they don't want to pay the RBOC > to share numbers anymore. Anybody at AT&T care to refute or clarify > this "government rule" for me. I hope they save big bucks because > they will probably lose me as a customer. The databases are still being shared. The RBOCs accept the 14 digit random AT&T cards, and AT&T still accepts the RBOC cards, whether or not they're related to your phone number. The big difference is that the other long distance carriers will not have access to the random AT&T cards, although they still have access to the RBOC cards. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 14:06:31 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: NETWORK WORLD Article on IXCS and Toll Fraud Monitoring This article by NW's Wash. Bureau Chief was entitled "Long-Haul Carriers May Offer Toll-Fraud Monitoring: Services Would Help Shield Customers from Hackers." According to the NW article, the IXC's are considering offering such services, that would function "by monitoring network activity for suspicious traffic patterns and tipping off users before huge costs would be run up ...." The focus is on PBX users, who, says this article, "have been loathe to report toll fraud because they are embarassed ... or because they have entered into private settlements with carriers that cannot be disclosed." However, the article notes that Pacific Mutual Life Insurance had "asked the FCC to open a proceeding ... to establish guidelines that fairly distribute liability for toll fraud among users, long distance carriers and customer premises equipment manufacturers ..." The article also indicates MCI and AT&T had opposed Pacific Mutual's position and that the Petition for Rulemaking was also filed on behalf of the Securities Industry Assoc., VISA USA and the NY Clearinghouse Assoc. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #456 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09677; 15 Jun 91 21:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25268; 15 Jun 91 20:16 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20570; 15 Jun 91 19:11 CDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 18:22:54 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #457 BCC: Message-ID: <9106151822.ab10525@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Jun 91 18:22:45 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 457 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson First Cable TV Firm Enters PCN Phone Test [Teleputing Hotline, P. Marshall] People's Telephone Company Offers Free, Automated Rate Info [Skip Collins] Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? [Ole J. Jacobsen] Telco-Provided Voicemail Systems [Sean Williams] New Cell One (New England) Rates [David E. Sheafer] Telco Depreciation Schedule is Unfair [Mark Terrible] COCOT Regulations With Reference to New NPA and Prefix? [Carl Moore] Wireless Phone Security [Paul Elliott] Seattle Yellow Pages Wanted [Pawel Mario Szymkiewicz] 1991 AT&T Outage (Was SPECIAL REPORT: St. Louis) [Bruce Klopfenstein] More Strange Recorded Messages [Roy Smith] Telephone Keypad For Alphanumerics [Bernie Roehl] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 09:15:09 -0700 From: Peter Marshall Subject: First Cable TV Firm Enters PCN Phone Test (from "Teleputing Hotline," 5/30/91) Through an alliance with McCaw Cellular, the U.S. largest cellular phone operator, the #1 cable TV operator, Tele-Communicaations, will test-market Personal Communications Network cellular phone service in Oregon. The two companies envision the service to be more like cellular ... than a cordless telephone. However, it could [be] less expensive than cellular, with fewer features and more limited mobility. Rather than being a competitor to existing cable firms -- McCaw is the largest -- the deal envisions PCN as a low-cost, crippled alternative. ------------------------------ From: Skip Collins Subject: People's Telephone Company Offers Free, Automated Rate Info Date: 13 Jun 91 22:29:56 GMT Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD Upon examining a PTC COCOT at a shopping center in Maryland, I noticed that the instruction card included some small print which said that in order to obtain the rate from that phone to any other number, one could dial *6. Upon doing so, I found that an automated system came online identifying itself as "Rate Star". It gave me several menu choices such as Calling Card rates, dial-1 rates, and collect rates. Then I keyed in a long-distance number and, voila, the nice computer lady told me that my call, from Laurel, Md. to Baltimore would cost $1.21 for the first minute and $.12 for each minute thereafter. This was for a credit card call. The long-distance carrier for the phone was also PTC. Interestingly, while the instruction card said that I had the legal right to use any carrier I wanted to use, no carrier access codes that I tried worked. I did not have the time to fool around much. Automated rate information seems like a service whose time has come. This could alleviate such annoyances as a $20 charge for a two minute call across town. If only all the telcos provided it. Skip Collins, collins@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 13:15:00 PDT From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? I got my new AT&T calling card the other day. I immediately had to call AT&T to find out what line the card pertains to, since the new magic number bears no relation to the old scheme, and AT&T did not have the sense to print "This card is for use with your line 415-550-xxxx" in the printed advisory that follows the card. (I have five lines, some of which are "for business" so I do need to know what calls I am charging to what account). I mentioned the fact that I did not believe this new scheme had anything to do with "government regulations" and the AT&T person responded: "What people on the outside did not know is that AT&T has not been fully divested until now. The new calling card system is the final stage of divestiture as required by law.." I'm not convinced. I think there are two basic reasons for why they did this: 1. Old AT&T cards are now being accepted by other carriers. I have been billed by all sort of outfits from MCI to Joe Random carrier by simply using the good 'ol 10-digit + PIN scheme. AT&T obviously hates this and wants the new "proprietary cards" to secure their revenue. 2. As metioned in the Digest already, with the new cards, billing will be (I presume) handled by AT&T directly and thus no (costly) arrangements with the RBOCs need to be in place. Anybody know how much of a "grace period" they are going to give us with the old cards? Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, Phone: (415) 941-3399 FAX: (415) 949-1779 Email: ole@csli.stanford.edu Direct: (415) 962-2515 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 03:34 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Telco-Provided Voicemail Systems The Moderator writes: > One of the nicest features of telco-operated voice mail is the stutter > dialtone which advises the subscriber of new messages waiting. United Telephone provides a voicemail service called "MessageLine". When I ordered my service, I asked about the ability of the system to notify me of new messages. Stutter dialtone is not provided by United, so they programmed the MessageLine to call my house whenever I receive a message. The phone rings three times whenever I receive a message. (This could also be programmed to call your pager, or cellphone, etc., so long as the call is local.) And yes, the outdial/paging feature can be toggled on/off by calling your mailbox and entering a two-digit command. It was confusing to the rest of my family, however, to receive calls which had no real caller on the other side (ie: the voicemail doesn't talk when it calls the house.) so I set up a distinctive ringing number and had the voicemail reprogrammed to call it. Everyone is happy now, so long as I turn off the paging feature at night ... > Also, telco *could* now provide 'programmable forward on busy / no answer' > if they wanted to. Ameritech Mobile....allows me to toggle 'forward on > busy / no answer' as I wish; AND program it to any number, anywhere, but > Illinois Bell (my hardwired service) insists that this feature can > only be programmed in the CO on a work order... United Telephone's "Call-Forward/Busy" and "Call-Forward/No Answer" are two separate services, individually billed. I can turn on one, the other, or both. (It's sort of dumb to turn on both of them, though, because the way it's programmed "Call-Forward/Busy" overrides "Call-Forward/No answer" if they're both on at the same time. You can use only one at a time.) Incidentally, Rochester Telephone provides the service you describe above. Destination numbers for both Call-Forward/Busy and Call-Forward/No Answer can be changed at any time, and you can also change the number of rings Call-Forward/No Answer waits for before forwarding the caller. Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | "I own Spectrum, so I'm 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 | really speaking for myself!" Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA | voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ From: David E. Sheafer Reply-To: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu Subject: New Cell One (New England) Rates Date: 12 Jun 91 10:52:10 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA Cellular One - New England recently reduced new rates: plan monthly fee inclusive minutes peak off peak Leisure $29 none .50 free Premium 61 60 peak .43 free deluxe 76 100 peak .42 free after 300 min .35 economy 21 none .44 .29 professional 46 60 .43 .28 executive 61 100 .42 .27 after 300 min .35 In addition all plans include basic message plus and there is a Roamer administration of $2.00/month (if you roam Cell One will charge you $2.00 in addition to the other carriers charge doesn't sound like a good deal.) I called NYNEX to see if they are coming out with new rates, and they said they were waiting DPU approval and expected to know by 6/13/91. They wouldn't say what their rates might be. David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 04:35:15 -0400 From: westmark!mole-end!mat@uunet.uu.net Subject: Telco Depreciation Schedule is Unfair >> Also, telco *could* now >> provide 'programmable forward on busy / no answer' if they wanted to. > This isn't available on all Ameritech switches (especially those nice > 1A ESS(tm) switches). Ameritech Mobile's oldest switch is probably > two years old; they ditched all the original switches. > Try to talk the regulators into allowing the wholesale replacement of > all those old(er) switches!!! This is a MAJOR consideration. Telco equipment has to be depreciated over a 15 to 20 year period. It all used to be 20 years until AT&T took some senators and House representatives into its factories and said `Can you tell the difference between the telephone circuit boards and the computer circuit boards? Then why can't we depreciate them on the same schedules?' They didn't get 5-year depreciation, but they got 15 year depreciation on some things. What this means is that the last fellow into the market on a given technology cycle has the advantage of the better, cheaper, more capable equipment and nobody else can afford to upgrade. (This man's opinions are his own.) From mole-end Mark Terribile ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 10:06:18 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: COCOT Regulations With Reference to New NPA and Prefix I just got a message about some COCOTs not recognizing area codes 903 and 908, both of which have been fully cut over. Do the proposed or current COCOT regulations require up-to-date information for new area codes and prefixes, or did I overlook something in skimming over the mail? Failure of a system to recognize a new area code or prefix can be quite annoying, and my office (in eastern Maryland) is getting a new area code before this year is out. Over the years, I have heard (in this Digest and elsewhere) about problems in recognizing the following: N0X/N1X prefixes in Los Angeles area before 1980 (that's when New York City started getting them); 301-850 at or near the Baltimore-Washington International Airport; 202-994 in Washington, DC; 508 area code in Massachusetts. ------------------------------ From: Paul Elliott x225 Subject: Wireless Phone Security Date: 14 Jun 91 18:07:35 GMT Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA We have been discussing the issue of "wireless eavesdropping" on cordless and cellular phone conversations -- here is a product announcement that looks like it might provide an easy solution for the cordless phone problem: From _Electronic Engineering Times_ June 10, 1991, page 20: (heavily paraphrased) "One-Chip Voice Security" A Low-cost, single-chip secure voice system, which can be fitted into telephones, cellular handsets and other communications equipment, has been developed by Micro Code (Cambridge) Ltd. ..uses Sierra Semiconductor's CMOS technology... ..duplex voice-band encoder/decoder... ..integration of analog and digital, including configuration EEPROM... ..chip will be made by Sierra in Singapore, target price of $25... ..variable-carrier frequency inversion, more than 10exp9 code settings... ..single 5V supply... [end of excerpt] Here's another development I spotted in _Microtimes_ June 10 1991, page 22, "Realizable Fantasies" by Jim Warren (a monthly column): [talking about crypto-faxes, and then:] "Fujitsu may be the first offering a cordless consumer telephone that scrambles communications between the handset and the base-station (Azet-R10)." [end of excerpt] I wonder if the Fujitsu phone will use the Micro Code chip? All this is kinda disappointing, since a good friend of mine has been trying to develop an encrypted handset/base-station. I *told* him that it would just be a matter of time before the big boys (like Fujitsu) introduced a similar product, but hope springs eternal, and all that. Definitely products whose time has come. Maybe now we can get the legislature to stop the ridiculous "anti-scanner" type of regulations [author's editorial comment there]. I wonder if Congress will demand a "back door" into these schemes? Paul Elliott - DSC Optilink - {uunet, pyramid, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott ------------------------------ From: Pawel Mario Szymkiewicz Subject: Seattle Yellow Pages Wanted Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 22:40:59 GMT I have an urgent need for the Seattle, Wash. telephone directory, i.e. the famous Yellow Pages (the one from April '91, preferably - I've seen it in my library, but of course can't take it home.) It's free for Washington residents so if you could email me we could arrange for a shipment. Please contact me as soon as possible. (e-mail to mrpaolo@wpi.wpi.edu) Paul (electronically known as mrpaolo@wpi.wpi.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 09:35:14 -0400 From: Bruce Klopfenstein Subject: 1991 AT&T Outage (Was Re: SPECIAL REPORT: St. Louis) > Jan. 4., 1991. An AT&T construction crew in New Jersey mistakenly > cracks a single fiber-optic cable. The cable is the width of a > person's thumb. The crack halts 60 percent of AT&T's long-distance > calls to New York City. Aviation control centers are paralyzed, > causing gridlock in the skies throughout the Northeast. I heard at a conference that this is not true. The actual reason was a bug in a software upgrade to a telco switch that shut down other switches. Was this ever covered on this list? Thanks. [Moderator's Note: We had mention of it here, but the cable failure was the reason given. Your allegation is the first time I recall hearing any other reason for the outage earlier this year. PAT] ------------------------------ From: roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Subject: More Strange Recorded Messages Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 14:55:17 GMT Here's another good one. I just called the 800 number for a well known manufacturer of Unix-based graphics systems, which I got from 800 directory assistance, and got: "For your convenience, the number you have reached, 800-338-wxyz, has been changed. The new number is 800-676-wxyz ...". They changed the number for my convenience??? Sounds to me more like they changed long distance carriers and their new carrier didn't serve the same 800 exchange as the old one (they kept the same last four digits). Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu - OR - {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy [Moderator's Note: Someone I know here has all non-pub service except for one published number which is picked up by an answering machine at all times. His outgoing message says, "For your convenience, this line is answered 24 hours daily by this answering system ..." :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bernie Roehl Subject: Telephone Keypad For Alphanumerics Organization: University of Waterloo Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 16:57:25 GMT I'm working on a project in which touch-tone users will have to enter names, addresses and so on. Is there a standard way of encoding these? (One scheme that pops to mind would be "key,position" (for L you would type 53 since 'L' is on the 5 key in the third position). Please respond by email as I'm not a regular reader of comp.dcom.telecom; I'll post a summary to the net of whatever I receive. Thanks in advance... Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept Mail: broehl@sunee.waterloo.edu OR broehl@sunee.UWaterloo.ca BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!sunee!broehl Voice: (519) 885-1211 x 2607 [work] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #457 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12668; 15 Jun 91 23:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32226; 15 Jun 91 21:23 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25268; 15 Jun 91 20:11 CDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 19:11:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #458 BCC: Message-ID: <9106151911.ab27175@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Jun 91 19:11:06 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 458 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Automatic Redialing Regulations [Toby Nixon] An Incredible Cellular Phone Deal [Mike Andrews] Cellular Phone for Sale (Novatel 8305) [David E. Sheafer] Home Business Services [Jeff Sicherman] Tokyo Moving to Eight Digit Phone Numbers [Jiro Nakamura] Summary: India Data Link [Arun Baheti] AT&T Special Rates to U.K. (Apr 28) Incorrect Billing [Ravinder Bhumbla] DID Power Fail Arrangements [Vance Shipley] Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor [John Higdon] Re: German Telephone Unification [Charles Buckley] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Toby Nixon Subject: Automatic Redialing Regulations Date: 12 Jun 91 19:42:29 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA There have been a few messages posted here about government restrictions on automatic redialing equipment. Since I've been active in standards work in this area recently, I thought I'd pass along what I know. For several years, US and Canadian regulations in this area have differed. Recently, the FCC and DOC decided to get together and harmonize FCC Part 68 and CS-03 (Canadian equivalent) so there would be one consistent standard for North America (making life much easier for manufacturers). Telecommunications Industry Association technical subcommittee TR-41.9 studied the issue of automatic redialing, and recently submitted a recommendation to the FCC on what the harmonized regulation should be, which is basically this (but I'm doing this off the top of my head ...): Automatic redialing equipment may dial a single number TWICE during any ONE HOUR period. However, if the equipment is capable of detecting a busy signal, it may dial up to an additional 13 times during the one hour period so long as it detects busy on each attempt. Manual intervention is permitted to restart the cycle -- meaning that if you hit the "redial" button again, you can basically automatically redial forever. What the agencies and committees don't want is a completely unattended system dialing again and again all night and keeping some poor old lady awake. An important note: the proposal specifically exempts emergency alarm systems (such as burglar alarms calling a central monitoring center), and equipment that is under external computer control (such as modems). Yes, I did have a hand in that last part! The reason is that we did NOT want to get the FCC into the business of regulating computer SOFTWARE, and these days it is primarily the SOFTWARE that does the redialing, not the FCC Part 68-registered equipment. Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ From: Mike Andrews Subject: An Incredible Cellular Phone Deal Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 02:37:50 GMT On Sunday of last week I spotted an ad in {The Chicago Tribune} for an unusual cellular phone deal: "Dads and Grads! Buy a Motorola phone and get a Motorola bag phone free!" Triangle Mobile Electronics and Phones Plus "Ameritech Mobile 5-Star dealers" offered to install a Motorola car phone for $99, a bag phone for $149, a portable handheld phone for $299, or a flip phone for $499 with each including a free Motorola bag phone. All that was required was a six month Ameritech Mobile service activation for each phone. I called and asked if everything was included, expecting that the required antenna would be priced at $200, but I was assured that $99 was the full installed price. On Monday, I had the Motorola 250 car phone installed at the Triangle store in Lincolnwood. I planned to put CP-250 the "carry phone" in my wife's car. The phones were identical internally and carried Ameritech labels. I watched carefully as I signed the forms, waiting for the catch on the deal but there was nothing unexpected. There is a $35 activation fee to Ameritech that is billed with the first service bill. I signed a contract agreeing to pay the dealer $300 each if I cancelled the Ameritech service before the six months were up. The total paid to the dealer was $105 with tax. The manager of the Triangle store had an interesting observation. They had been selling this phone at $499 just six months ago. It sold incredibly well for that price. Then lowered the price to $299 and sales actually slowed. At this $99 price with free bag phone the sales were almost dead. It seems that nobody wants to buy a "cheap" phone! Most customers were skeptical like me and were looking for hidden charges. At the same time I was buying mine other customers were buying a Gold Star phone for $99 without the free bag phone. I suppose it doesn't make sense to commit to the expense of two cellular phone numbers if you only need one phone. I think this is an incredible deal in any case. The offer ends on June 18th. Some dealers are advertising "free" phones on the radio, but I'm sure they will charge for installtion. I wonder if the dealer gets a continuing commission on your service usage. If his end is only $300, I don't see how it could be profitable enough. BTW, My phone seems to have a intermittent quirk where it thinks it is out of the service and indicates that it's in Roam mode when it is actually well within the service area. The first time that happened was right in my own driveway where the bag phone worked fine. I had to move the car to clear it up. When the same thing happened while on the road recently, I powered off/on the phone to clear it. I'm planning to have the phone serviced to check the receive sensitivity. Does anybody else have any experience with this phone? Is this problem typical? ------------------------------ From: David E. Sheafer Reply-To: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu Subject: Cellular Phone for Sale (Novatel 8305) Date: 14 Jun 91 09:29:58 GMT Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA I have recently purchased a new cell phone and have the following for sale. A Novatel 8305 Transportable Cellular Telephone Bag Phone. It has cigarette lighter cable and rubber ducky antenna. (The antenna should be replaced.) Programming information will be provided. The features are: 9 number memory quick store quick recall a-b system selection touch tone from keypad bell,earpiece, and speaker volume control mute handsfree dialing (doesn't have handsfree speakerphone) electronic lock redial call retry Please send any offers or questions to the following. Include shipping in your offer. David E. Sheafer internet: nin15b0b@merrimack.edu or uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b GEnie: D.SHEAFER Cleveland Freenet: ap345 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 00:15:37 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Home Business Services Organization: Cal State Long Beach Speaking of Pac Bell (well, we are now), a few months ago they announced a set of business-like services that would be made available to home addresses at something like residential rates. The purpose was to support home businesses and get some additional revenue without scaring off the customers with the business rates. Has any subscribed to one of these accounts yet? Do they try and switch you over to true business service after getting their mitts on you? Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: Jiro Nakamura Subject: Tokyo Moving to Eight Digit Phone Numbers Organization: Shaman Consulting Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1991 16:42:50 GMT Hi - Has anyone noticed that Tokyo is now fully converted to eight digit numbers? I recently phoned a friend in Japan (I'm in Ithaca) at +81 3 701-xxxx and got a hurried message that the number was now +81 3 3 701-xxxx. It wasn't until I phoned him up that I realized that the area code for Tokyo had not switched to 33 (my immediate assumption) but that all the old seven digit numbers in Tokyo now had a 3 prepended to them: +81 3 3701-xxxx. As you all know, since about last year, all new numbers in Tokyo have been eight digits with a 5 in front of them: +81 3 5xxx-xxxx. But I didn't know that they had switched to all eight digits now. Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting (607) 256-5125 VOICE (607) 277-1440 FAX/Data ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1991 14:27 CDT From: Arun Baheti Subject: Summary: India Data Link I recently posted an article to TELECOM Digest requesting information on data links to India, preferably internet. I received approximately 20 responses with possible solutions, and about another 20 requesting copies of the information. I want to thank all of you who replied. I was surprised by the number of people who share my interest. A summary with the most practical solutions last, minus credits and duplications to save space (and Patrick's eyes), follows: o Working out an arrangement with ERNET, the commercial/ educational network run by the government. A contact for information and site lists there is anil@shakti.ernet.in This would be a high cost (but ideal) solution. If, however, you have a friend at one of these sites... o The National Center for Software Technology in Bombay maintains an Internet link which you may be able to access. o There is a magazine called "Telematics India" and another called "Asia Technology" that might help. o Two Telebit Trailblazer error correcting modems. o MCI Mail; contact Atoosa Rezai <0004538383@mcimail.com> for information regarding MCI Mail to India. o US Sprint Mail; contact 800-767-4529 for information. Our contact there is J. Keith Higgins, but you should be able to get information from anyone. My thanks again to all who replied. Please keep me posted of any new information you come accross. Arun Baheti sabahe@mac.cc.macalstr.edu arun_baheti.elsegundo@xerox.com ------------------------------ From: Ravinder Bhumbla Subject: AT&T Special Rates to U.K. (Apr 28) Incorrect Billing Date: 15 Jun 91 20:59:06 GMT Organization: University of California, San Diego On April 28, AT&T had a promotion for William Shakespeare's birthday and advertised that calls made to U.K. that day would be billed at the economy rate. When I got my bill this month, the calls had been billed at the standard rate. A call to AT&T International Assistance (800-874-4000) and AT&T Customer Service (800-222-0300) cleared that up. If you made a call to U.K. that day, you might want to check your bill to make sure you were billed correctly. {Standard disclaimers apply} Ravinder Bhumbla rbhumbla@ucsd.edu U. of California, San Diego ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: DID Power Fail Arrangements Organization: SwitchView Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1991 16:42:34 GMT Installing DID circuits was one of my favourite parts of PBX installs. Negotiating with the Bell installer as to what would be provided and how was highly amusing (and not a job for a craftsman who was not knowledgable and confident). It was often a trying affair to actually get the DTMF dialing arrangement I had ordered, the Bell technician insisting that dial pulse was "how it works". Many of the installers had had no experience with DID and were not certain exactly how they worked and consequently could not test them. I remember trying to convince one guy that I was to provide the battery on the loop and not the CO. He was only convinced after talking at length with his counterpart in the central office. But the hardest task was always getting the power fail circuits provisioned. With conventional trunking the trunks are usually switched to single line sets for emergency answering positions. With DID the battery for the loop is provided by the PBX so the circuits themselves will not work if the PBX goes down. In order to continue service calls must be routed over other conventional trunks to the customer premises. If this cannot be done then the calls should be routed to intercept in the CO to alert callers that service is temporarily unavailable. The CO would be signaled to switch to alternate routing by a seperate lead which was either normally grounded and opened under power fail condition or vice versa. These alternate routing arrangements were part of the DID service and did not require any extra charges but actually getting them in was a job in itself. This leads me to one of my stories of devious ingenuity. My boss had sold a PBX to a company and in his usual style had not confirmed that the switch could actually do what he had promised it would. The customer wanted DID to allow callers to reach people in their offices after hours. During the day the same numbers would reach the attendant. I just could not get the switch set up in this way. I let my boss sweat over this for a week and then told him how we could do it. We would trigger the power fail switch for the DID circuits whenever the attendant was manning the console! This caused the calls to the DID lines to be routed over the conventional trunks and terminate on the console. I was not for this plan but it did work and got him out of trouble. It scored me some points also :'>. I was always amazed though that Bell never noticed the frequency that these "power fails" occured (every weekday from 9 to 5). Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 02:37 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: > Yes, John, but as we all know, you're served by a combination of an > SXS and Ernestine on a cord-board. (Seriously though, folks, > Pathetic*Bell really *is* nearly as pathetic as John makes them out to > be.) > 'Fraid though that quite a bit of CO equipment does indeed care about > load on the line, as I recall a 5ESS (or was that a DMS? fuzzy > memory) will drop dialtone *and* all but minimal battery on sensing a > full short. But as I may have mentioned, Ernestine is getting the boot in September and will be replaced by a 5ESS. This is to prepare for the introduction of CLASS services in the SF Bay Area in October. Also, I have ordered five more lines so that I can experiment with some of the features. (For those of you counting, this brings my total to fifteen.) In any event, I will most certainly try shorting one or two of them out and see if they come right back. (Although, you may be right; I remember having to call PB once to get a 5ESS line restored after it had been inadvertantly shorted at a broadcast remote location.) If you are correct about having to have a line manually restored after shorting it, this seems to be a very grave weakness in an otherwise capable switch, no? John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 14:47:11 PDT From: Charles Buckley Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification scb@cs.brown.edu (Spyros C. Bartsocas) wrote: > The reason is that the "Eastern portion of the Federal Republic of > Germany" is still called the same way it was before it merged with the > "Western portion". I suspect that the dialing rates are different > too. AT&T's Reach out world plan only covers the Western Portion > (country code 49). I had thought so too, and I don't know about Reach Out World, but on my recent bill, normal calls of the same length to the two zones were billed at exactly the same rate. Before unifacation, I remember this not being true. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #458 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15309; 16 Jun 91 0:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24310; 15 Jun 91 22:30 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32226; 15 Jun 91 21:23 CDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 20:29:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #459 BCC: Message-ID: <9106152029.ab29439@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Jun 91 20:29:33 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 459 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Mike Godwin] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Jim Thomas] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Mark Brown] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Jim Youll] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Clint Fleckenstein] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 11:54:24 -0400 From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation I have to say that in all the postings I have ever seen Pat Townson write, his posting about Len Rose is the most shameful and morally indefensible. I find it incredibly ironic that Townson, after all this time, seems to have so little sense of what Len Rose actually *did* and of what he didn't do. Let's detail some of Pat's many, many factual and moral errors: In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > The Len Rose saga came to an end this past week when a federal judge > considered the circumstances involved and chose to impose punishment > by placing Len in the custody of the Attorney General of the United > States, or his authorized representative for a period of one year. The judge didn't decide to give Rose a year in prison. That was a product of the plea agreement between the government and Rose's attorney. > Speaking of the kids, I wonder if Len has explained all this to them > yet. I wonder if they know, or are old enough to understand their dad > is going to prison, and why ... "Dear children, "Your father is going to prison because he possessed and transmitted unlicensed source code. Hundreds of other Unix consultants have done the same thing, but I was targeted because I wrote an article for {Phrack Magazine} about how to modify login.c for hacking purposes, and that article, while never published, was found in a search of Craig Neidorf's room. The prosecutor and the phone company tried to put Neidorf into prison, but when their distortions came to light they dropped the case. They searched my system for the same E911 document, but when they didn't find it, they decided to find something else to prosecute me for -- namely, the unlicensed Unix source code. "Children, lots of people, including Patrick Townson, will call me a hacker and say I got convicted because of breakins into other people's computers. Patrick Townson lies if he says this. I never broke in to anyone's computer. I was always given access to systems by sysadmins who were authorized to give me that access. "My children, as I spend that time in prison, be aware that some people will, without shame, distort the facts of my case in order to use me as a cheap moral lesson. If you must hate them, don't hate them because of what they say, but because they have chosen to be hypocritical. Hate them because they have friends who possess unlicensed source code, but they've never reported those friends to the U.S. Attorney. Hate them because they make blanket condemnations without bothering to learn the facts." > I wonder if it was all worth it ... if Len had it to do over again if > he would do the same things he did before, or if he might consider the > consequences more carefully. Have you asked this question of all Unix consultants who possess unlicensed source code, Pat? No, I didn't think so. > If you don't think (c) is still possible, consider the recent thread > in comp.org.eff.talk -- yes, I know, *where else* !! -- on the student > who got suspended from school for two quarters after downloading and > distributing the system password file on the machine he had been > entrusted to use. The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for > message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap > did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi- > bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself. This is a particularly contemptible slam at EFF, which is as concerned with your rights as it is of those who are self-proclaimed hackers. EFF has never approved of unauthorized computer intrusion, and we have never doubted that the Georgia student who distributed the password file was wrong to do so. Pat, up until this point, I regarded you as something of a friend. I've spoken to you on the phone, asked for your help, and been willing to offer mine. But this whole paragraph about "EFF devotees" convinces me that you really have no moral center, and no ability to distinguish between what some people write and what other people believe. I would never dream of attributing every opinion posted in your newsgroup to "comp.dcom.telecom devotees." Of course, that's because I actually consider the moral consequences of labelling people. > The point is, some of us are simply getting very tired of the > break-ins, the fraudulent messages, the fact that in order to telnet > to a different site we can no longer do so direct from dialup servers > without a lot of rig-a-ma-role because computer (ab)users have stolen > all the trust which used to exist between sites, and the increasing > scarcity of 'guest' accounts on various sites because the sysadmins > are tired of being eaten alive with fraudulent and destructive usage. Len Rose never did a breakin, and never took any action that limited the use of telnet or guest accounts. Neither has EFF. > Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going > to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. And > please, none of your hysterical freedom of speech arguments in my > mail, thank you. No one gives an iota what you write about, but when > you get your hands in the password file, rip off root or wheel > accounts, run programs deceptive to other users designed to rip off > their accounts also and generally behave like a two-bit burglar or > con-artist, expect to get treated like one when you get caught. Who is the "you" in this paragraph, Pat? EFF? You were just talking about EFF. Has anyone at EFF *ever* said that "freedom of speech" encompasses breakins? No. It is your contemptible distortion to attribute that view to us. > And you *will* get caught. Then you can go sit and commiserate with > Len Rose. If Len Rose has half the brain I think he has, he will > come out of the penitentiary a better person than when he went in. > The penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, > at least for the people who think about what it was that caused them > to get there in the first place. What do you think caused Len Rose to get there, Pat? > I feel very sorry about what has happened to Len Rose. This seems two-faced after you've spent a whole posting gloating about it. > I feel worse about the circumstances his wife and children are in. > But the socially irresponsible behavior (which some people who call > themselves 'socially responsible' seem to condone or wink at) has to > stop. Now. First of all, there is no statute outlawing "social irresponsibility." If there were, you would have committed a felony with your distortions in this posting. > A US Attorney involved in prosecuting computer crime once said, "users > need an example when they log in of what to expect when they screw up > while on line ..." Indeed we do ... and Len Rose will serve as such. Is the U.S. Attorney Bill Cook, Pat? The AUSA who cost Craig Neidorf $100,000 because he didn't know that the E911 document was not a program, and that the information in it was publicly available and not a trade secret? Bill Cook has never been held accountable for what he did to Craig Neidorf. > And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the > government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning > another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? Yes, you need to say more. This time around there are forces in the community that, unlike you, will act to keep both the government and the phone companies honest. > So Len, *was* it all worth it? Len no doubt thanks you for the charity you have shown him in kicking him when he is down. Was it worth it, Pat, to take still another slam at Len, and to alienate people who are working to preserve *your* rights in the process? Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-1550 EFF, Cambridge, MA ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 01:15 CDT From: TK0JUT1@mvs.cso.niu.edu Subject: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? The Moderator's comments in TELECOM Digest #453 giving his view of the Len Rose sentencing are disingenuous. After some moralizing about Len, the Moderator leaps to examples of hackers and other intruders, then adduces these examples as justification for Len's sentencing. Len *WAS NOT* busted for hacking, but for possession of AT&T source code and for sending it across state lines. Check the evidence and charges. He did not send this stuff to a "hacker" in Illinois. Rich Andrews, the Illinois recipient, was not accused of hacking. Two programs, including login.c were sent to {Phrack}, but the {Phrack} editor was never accused of being, nor is there any evidence that he ever was, a hacker. And, contrary to another post in the same issue of TCD, there is no evidence that the programs Len possessed or sent were ever used in criminal activity. Both public and non-public court records and documents indicate that the issue was explicitly one of unauthorized possession of proprietary software. Counter-assertions by Len's critics will not change this. There is little disagreement that Len may have acted unwisely. The question is whether his actions justify a prison sentence, and to my mind the answer is an emphatic *NO!*. It is absurd to imply that somehow Len failed to learn from a "crackdown." The case was the beginning of the so-called "crackdowns," and his actions are no more a message to "hackers" and "phreaks" than double-parking tickets are to auto thieves. There are six levels of prisons in the federal system, with level-1 being the most minimum of the bunch. Len will most likely be sentenced to one of these as a first-time, minor, non-violent offender. But, despite the term "country club prison," there is no such thing as an easy-time prison. Contrary to the Moderator's comment, prisons are rarely "therapeutic" places. I've been in and around them since 1980, and the number of offenders coming out the better because of their prison experience are few. Len's ten month stay and subsequent probation period will cost the tax-payers upwards of $30,000. There are alternatives to incarceration that are less costly while simultaneously serving the ends of the need for sanctions. Even if we assume that Len is guilty of all the charges invented by his critics, his incarceration is simply not worth it for society. To answer the Moderator's question about whether "it was worth it:" No, an unjust sentence never is. Nor is anything served by exaggeration and hyperbole that, in this case, attempts to claim otherwise. Jim Thomas Sociology / Criminal Justice Northern Illinois University [Moderator's Note: Jim Thomas is one of the Moderators of Computer Underground Digest, a mailing list on the internet with roots going back to 'hacker' discussions in TELECOM Digest in the past. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Brown Subject: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 11:27:06 CST Patrick: Yes, Len Rose deserves jail, based upon what I know. > The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for > message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap > did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi- > bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself. There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool who believes in it. I respectfully submit that you are way off base here. Cheers, DISCLAIMER: My views may be, and often are, independent of IBM official policy. Mark Brown IBM PSP Austin, TX. (512) 823-3741 VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: Jim Youll Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: 15 Jun 91 16:32:21 GMT Reply-To: Jim Youll Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh. In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > The Len Rose saga came to an end this past week when a federal judge [etc...]> [... discussion of impoverished wife, kids] > Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going Oh, thank God. I feel much better knowing that the feds are going to continue their wholly uninformed pursuit of people committing crimes the feds don't even understand. Maybe you have forgotten Steve Jackson Games. I haven't. > to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. And > please, none of your hysterical freedom of speech arguments in my > mail, thank you. None here. > And you *will* get caught. Then you can go sit and commiserate with > Len Rose. If Len Rose has half the brain I think he has, he will come > out of the penitentiary a better person than when he went in. The > penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, at ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bull!!!!!!!!!! Male-male gang rape can *LEAD* to therapy, is maybe what you mean here... > least for the people who think about what it was that caused them to > get there in the first place. > I feel very sorry about what has happened to Len Rose. I feel worse > about the circumstances his wife and children are in. But the > socially irresponsible behavior (which some people who call themselves > 'socially responsible' seem to condone or wink at) has to stop. Now. > And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the > government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning > another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? Yeah, you might mention that the grand juries generally haven't the slightest idea what a computer is, let alone a computer-oriented crime. I'm not invoking any of the free-speech or other arguments and don't intend to, but when law enforcement makes a mockery of justice as it has in many, many computer-crime cases, and when we see corporations inflate their alleged losses by factors of a hundred or a thousand, then something is terribly wrong, and simply focusing on the vicious pursuit of real or alleged criminals just serves to draw attention away from the very real problems caused by runaway egos of prosecutors. If I had to analyze the nerds who come up with the loss figures, I'd say they're trying for a big number to please their superiors and to gain fame . A two million dollar crime that you stopped looks a hell of a lot better than a $200 crime. People who are not computer- literate will generally believe what they're told by "experts". (Well, true of any field). > So Len, *was* it all worth it? Your compassion for your fellow man overwhelms me. Sure, Higdon goes after an outfit that makes its *entire profit* entrapping and prosecuting people who may not have committed a crime at all (anyone who has access to a telephone and incorrect information can dial a 950- number, for cryin' out loud). Shows that they are rude, incompetent. I see a direct parallel in the prosecution and entrapment of people in the current "crackdown" on computer crime. It's a government fad and in its wake are going to be a lot of innocent victims, and I'm not just talking about wives and children. Disclaimer: Messages originating from this address are mechanically generated. Management assumes no responsibility for the contents thereof. Jim Youll, aka jyoull@andy.bgsu.edu, 419/354-2110 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 18:30:03 -0500 From: Clint Fleckenstein Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: North Dakota Higher Ed Computing Network Sorry to ask a stupid question, but what did he do? :) It's been a while. I got in a lot of trouble on the net myself back in 1987, and got bounced out of school. Clint Fleckenstein DoD #5150 fleckens@plains.nodak.edu [Moderator's Note: What Len Rose was *convicted* of doing was being in possession of AT&T computer source code illegally, and transporting the code across state lines. And Al Capone was sent to prison for failure to pay his income tax. Would you care to discuss your case with us here? Thanks to all who wrote me on this issue; I've got more articles in the queue to continue this thread tomorrow, and will summarize a rebuttal of my own, also probably tomorrow space permitting. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #459 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17348; 16 Jun 91 1:17 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09806; 15 Jun 91 23:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24310; 15 Jun 91 22:30 CDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 21:44:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #460 BCC: Message-ID: <9106152144.ac18147@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 Jun 91 21:44:11 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 460 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison [Craig Neidorf] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [John Richard Bruni] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Owen M. Hartnett] Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [John Higdon] Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [Nick Sayer] Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? [Don Froula] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 10:54:22 CDT From: Craig Neidorf Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison In TELECOM Digest, Volume 11 : Issue 453, Scott Dorsey writes: > In article bill@eedsp.gatech.edu > writes: >> BALTIMORE (AP) -- A computer hacker has been sentenced to a year >> and a day in prison for stealing information from American Telephone & >> Telegraph and its subsidiary Bell Laboratories. >> Leonard Rose Jr., 32, an unemployed computer consultant, pleaded >> guilty in March to one count of sending AT&T source codes via computer >> to a hacker in Illinois, and a similar wire fraud charge involving a >> Chicago hacker. > He did indeed send a copy of the System V login source code to > someone who may have used it in the commission of a crime. Who is this person that you believe he sent the System V login source code to that may have used it in the commission of a crime? >> The judge did not order restitution to AT&T because Rose has what >> one of his attornies called "a negative net worth." > This is indeed true. He did not have such a condition until > spending huge amounts of money for defense. Speaking as someone who knows what really happened to Len and how the system really treats a criminal defendant, I will inform you of a couple of things. Len Rose did not spend huge amounts on his defense. When Rose was first raided by the Secret Service in March 1990, the agents seized all of his computers and everything related (and a lot of things unrelated). They effectively deprived him of his livelihood as a private Unix consultant. They had their reasons and I'm not going to argue about those. However, Len had little money to begin with and was already deep into debt before these incidents happened. He lost his house and his truck. Len Rose had a court appointed attorney for a while and there are some things you should know about how that works. You can only get court appointed counsel if you cannot afford an attorney and you must prove this to the court by bringing in all of your financial files. Later attornies like Sheldon Zenner and Jane Macht were paid for by friends of Len Rose and there was a donation fund for his family's living expenses to which many people contributed. Craig Neidorf (C483307 @ UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU) [Moderator's Note: Mr. Neidorf was a defendant in one of the criminal prosecutions associated with the Legion of Doom. He is (was?) the publisher and editor of {Phrack}, an electronic journal whose name is a contraction of the two words 'phreak' and 'hack'. He was found not guilty of the charges lodged against him, and the government dropped its prosecution of him when it was discovered that the information he published (relating to the complaint) was available to the public from other sources. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John_Richard_Bruni@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth A Prison Term? Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 22:40:24 PDT Pat, I grant you all of what you said in your preface to the Len Rose topics, yet I still wonder. As a journalist I keep coming across references to computer fraud totalling somewhere between $2 BILLION to $20 billion a year. There must be some fire to all this smoke. Yes, the hackers make life more problematical for those who like (as I do) open exchange of information on the computer nets. The security requirements are a hassle. But in the course of researching a novel that has hackers in it, it slowly came to me that the real troublemakers are much more deeply buried in the system. I know of 'Phone Phreaks' who have written themselves into the system since ESS-4 came out. These guys are not just hacking the phone company, they are so far into to it that for all intents and purposes they *ARE* the phone company. Darksiders like these make hackers look like small fry ... which for the most part they are. I still think Cal Tech and MIT oughta get the good hackers and make them into useful members of society. Universities do a much better job of that on smart people than jails do. Put the moles in jail, if you can find 'em. Most of them probably have Swiss bank accounts by now and have retired to the Riviera. That's my two cents worth, and I know it's controversial. But I was forced to decide what I thought of all this when, in the course of researching my book, I made friends with both hackers and 'trackers.' That's all, folks! ------------------------------ From: "Owen M. Hartnett" Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: 16 Jun 91 00:26:13 GMT Reply-To: "Owen M. Hartnett" Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: (in a very fine article) > When Len is released, he'll be 'allowed to' carry the tag "ex-con" > with him when he applies for work and tries to make new friends. One > part of his punishment is that in the future he must reveal his status > to prospective employers. Something about the above bothers me, from a legal standpoint. Wasn't there a movement quite a few years ago that said, in effect, that since ex-cons have little chance of employment once they've told their prospective bosses that they're ex-cons, that requirements to do so were being mitigated, so that they would stand a better chance of rehabilitating once they got out? This seems probably the most harsh of the requirements. Does a bank robber have to inform a prospective employer of his past history, even if said employer doesn't ask? This sounds almost unconstitutional, if not cruel and unusual punishment. Owen Hartnett omh@cs.brown.edu [Moderator's Note: In your example, it probably would be unreasonable to force a garage mechanic to tell a prospective employer he had robbed a bank. It would not be as unreasonable to force the same person to reveal this if he applied for employment as a bank teller. In the case at hand, I quoted the court's decision without really agreeing with it. If Len goes into non-computer employment, it should not have to be discussed. If he goes into computer-related employment, well ... I'd be reluctant to make him wear that ball and chain his whole life. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 23:59:48 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article John Higdon writes: > On Jun 13 at 1:10, Jody Kravitz passed along the article from the {LA > Times} which appeared in RISKS: >> ``Little Phone Company on a Hacker Attack'' >> By Susan Christian, Times Staff Writer. > You may be interested to know that the {San Jose Mercur}y is about to > do a story also. However, the writer has been in close touch with > yours truly and I can guarantee the article will be somewhat more > "informed" and will carry a somewhat different slant. If I remember the original article (or a similar one in another local paper) there was some information about the VP - crusader and how much of her waking time she spends on this activity. There is more to her motivation than the company's interest and a sense of justice. I'm not sure the edited version of the article showed the whole picture very well, even as it was known then. I'm looking forward to this 'new slant'. Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: Your wish is my command! I contacted John yesterday and asked him to compare the article which appeared here and in RISKS with the version which appeared in his local paper. He did so, and his comments follow in the next message of this issue. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 02:24 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal Mark Seecof quotes the {LA Times}: > ``Little Phone Company on a Hacker Attack'' > By Susan Christian, Times Staff Writer. On June 13, the {San Jose Mercury} ran a story about Ms. Bigley's courageous efforts. The writer, Alex Barnum, did a little more investigating and presented a little more balanced picture than Ms. Christian. Excerpts below: Firm's Big Phone Fees Hang up Hackers by Alex Barnum, Mercury Staff Writer "A year ago, Thrifty Tel Inc. won approval from the state Public Utilites Comission ot charge unauthorized users of its long-distance lines a 'special' rate: a $3,000 'set-up' charge, a $3,000 daily line fee, $200 an hour for labor and the costs of investigating and prosecuting the offender. "Since then, the Garden Grove company has netted $500,000 and caught 72 hackers, ranging from an 11-year-old girl to a grandma-gradpa team of professional phone hackers." [Doesn't sound as if Thrifty Tel came off too badly on that one, does it? That's $500,000 NET profit on hackers. JH] "But while many have applauded Thrifty Tel's ingenuity, others have criticized the company for taking the law into its own hands. Some Los Angeles law enforcement officials, in fact, say the approach borders on extortion ... "Others charge that Thrifty Tel is deliverately baiting its long-distance system with lax security to catch hackers and bring in new revenue. Thrifty Tel is 'a vigilante,' says John Higdon, a San Jose phone network expert." [blush].... "Even a single call can cost a hacker more than $6,000. And Thrifty Tel charges an extra $3,000 for every access code the hacker uses. Since about half of Thrifty Tel's hacker 'customers' are minors, their parents usually wind up footing the bill. "Moreover, as a condition of the settlement, Thrifty Tel requires hackers to hand over their computers which mirrors a provision in the criminal code. Bigley usually turns the computer over to authorities, although she says she kept one once. [She kept more than that according to her own conversation with me. JH] "While praising Bigley's basic strategy, law enforcement officials say she has taken it a step too far. 'She can threaten a civil suit, but not criminal charges,' says one official. 'You don't use a criminal code to enforce a civil settlement.'"... "Other critics charge that Thrifty Tel is deliberately haiting hackers with antiquated switching technology and short access codes that are easier to hack than the more modern, secure technology and 14-digit access codes of the major long-distance carriers." Mr. Barnum has all the quotes from Ms. Bigley that the {LA Times} article had, which essentially contain the circular argument that it costs money to upgrade to FGD and why should Thrifty have to spend that money on account of "thugs and criminals" while whining about all the losses suffered at the hands of the hackers. Thrifty's technique looks more like a profit center than hacker "prevention". John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Nick Sayer Subject: Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal Date: 15 Jun 91 15:39:22 GMT Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA marks@capnet.latimes.com (Mark Seecof) writes: > He suggests that parents > educate themselves about their children's computers. ``If a kid is > spending a whole bunch of time on his computer and it's hooked up to a > modem, he's not just running his software. What is he doing on that > computer? Does he really need a modem?'' > [ed. note -- this officer may be an expert on fraud but is clearly > unqualified to make such sweeping assertions about what (young) people > do with computers. Playing rogue can eat up as much time as hacking > while the modem remains idle.] I heartily agree. For two years while I was in high school, I ran a perfectly legitimate BBS in San Diego. Telecom historians in that town will remember that in '85 (I think), PacBell security sent out a letter to all BBS sysops in effect saying "Big Brother is watching you." Saying that BBSs are centers of hacker activity is like saying ethnic neighborhoods are centers of drug activity: specific examples do occur, but the generalization is unjustified. If it was my town, I'd press that cop for a full, public appology. When modems are outlawed, only outlaws will have modems. Modems don't phreak, people do. etc. > Not all hackers are young computer fanatics testing their limits. Nor are all "young computer fanatics testing their limits" hackers in the sense that the article means. First, let's remember that the term 'hacker' in it's propper definition implies no illegality. Those who attempt to defraud telephone companies are more properly called "phreakers." > ``The hacking problem is two-fold,'' says Caltel president Smith, also > president of the Sacramento-based long-distance telephone company > Execuline. ``First, we have Information Age fraud, which is an > outgrowth of the proliferation of computers in households. We have > all these kids who want to talk to each other on bulletin boards, and > if mom and dad had to pay for all those phone calls, the cost would be > prohibitive. ... A big reason why there are so many boards. If there's one in your local area, then there's no need to phreak it. > [... Stuff about the sticktoitiveness of Thrifty Tel's Bigley and how > she thinks that hackers are immoral and wants to defeat them.] Thank you for sparing us her little attitude. I am offended by both her generalizations and the phreakers who "try" to make those generalizations justified. There. I feel much better. Nick Sayer mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us N6QQQ 209-952-5347 (Telebit) ------------------------------ From: Don Froula Subject: Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? Date: 15 Jun 91 21:02:11 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL wallyk@bicycle.wv.tek.com (Wally Kramer) writes: > Is there a ``phonebook'' which covers everywhere in the U.S.? > Electronic, CD-ROM, 900-FIND-THEM :-) or whatever (even paper). > I'd like to track down some college buddies, but I don't have clue as > to what city some of them are in. > [Moderator's Note: No, there is no single phone directory covering the > entire USA in any media. But any large metropolitan library will have > a huge collection of out of town phone books you can review. PAT] The Phone File database on Compuserve is a national database that is supposed to include information from all US phone directories. It is also supplemented from other public domain sources. It can be searched for a name on a state by state (but not national) basis. I've used it to successfully track down people and for geneology research on several occasions. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #460 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20675; 16 Jun 91 17:22 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29756; 16 Jun 91 15:49 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03115; 16 Jun 91 14:43 CDT Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 14:39:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #461 BCC: Message-ID: <9106161439.ab03315@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Jun 91 14:38:54 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 461 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [Jeff Sicherman] Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? [Bill Huttig] Re: Sources Wanted for Punchdown Tools [Patton M. Turner] Re: Telephone Keypad for Alphanumerics [Patton M. Turner] Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO [Macy Hallock] Re: New AT&T Calling Card PIN [Steven A. Minneman] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Mike Morris] Wireless Phone Security [Thomas Farmer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 00:10:06 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article John Higdon writes: > On June 13, the {San Jose Mercury} ran a story about Ms. Bigley's > courageous efforts. The writer, Alex Barnum, did a little more > investigating and presented a little more balanced picture than Ms. > Christian. Excerpts below: > "A year ago, Thrifty Tel Inc. won approval from the state Public > Utilites Comission ot charge unauthorized users of its long-distance > lines a 'special' rate: a $3,000 'set-up' charge, a $3,000 daily line > fee, $200 an hour for labor and the costs of investigating and > prosecuting the offender. > "Even a single call can cost a hacker more than $6,000. And Thrifty > Tel charges an extra $3,000 for every access code the hacker uses. > Since about half of Thrifty Tel's hacker 'customers' are minors, their > parents usually wind up footing the bill. Ethics aside, I wonder if the PUC is doing *its* job in this scenario. If Thrifty Tel is a regulated entity, doesn't its charges have to have some relationship to costs plus a reasonable profit? It's hard to see how these numbers satisfy that, not to mention the apparent fact that a setup is not really performed. If it is, are these rates even vaguely consistent with its normal ones or are they practicing discriminatory pricing with its 'users' ? I also wonder about the element of civil damages with respect to minors using this enforcement concept. If TT is, in effect, establishing a relationship post-facto, they are making (involuntary) contracts with people (the minors) who may not have the ability to enter into such contracts and make them unenforceable. Any lawyers out there (real or self-imagined) ? Jeff Sicherman [Moderator's Note: The minor entered into the contract when he manipulated the telephone connection. TT's 'post-facto' response is merely handling the paperwork involved at that point. Now the contract may indeed be unenforceable since the minor entered into it without his parent's knowledge or consent -- AND -- the transaction has nothing to do with the minor's basic 'life-needs'. Parents can be held responsible for contracts entered into by their minor children for such things as simple clothing, food and shelter, school supplies, etc, since it is the parent's responsibility to meet these requirements anyway. But I'm not sure they can be held legally responsible for long distance phone charges which arose as part of the child's entertainment. TT could claim their published rates in these cases correctly reflect the additional cost involved in locating the 'customer', setting up the account after the fact and effecting collection. They might be right. Still, it seems to me like a kind of sleazy approach if they are deliberatly making it easy to steal from them. There is a requirement in the law that victims make every effort to mitigate their losses; courts are not in the business of being collection agencies; and TT does not seem to be acting in the best of faith. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? Date: 16 Jun 91 03:24:08 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article ole@csli.stanford.edu (Ole J. Jacobsen) writes: > not been fully divested until now. The new calling card system is the > final stage of divestiture as required by law.." As far as I know it is true that this was one of the requirements. > 1. Old AT&T cards are now being accepted by other carriers. I have The old AT&T cards are not accepted by other carriers. The LEC cards are accepted by the other carriers. They contain the same PIN as the AT&T card did. > 2. As metioned in the Digest already, with the new cards, billing will > be (I presume) handled by AT&T directly and thus no (costly) > arrangements with the RBOCs need to be in place. The new cards will be billed along with your AT&T 1+ charges to the LEC if that is where you requested billing. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 22:46:34 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Sources Wanted for Punchdown Tools Christopher Davis writes: > Where can things like this [punchdown tools] be ordered? There are two kinds of punchdown tools: impact and non-impact. If you have any serious use for it I would recommend an impact tool. They make more reliable, consistant connections than a non impact tool. There are two impact punchdown tools that I know of: The Harris/Dracon 714 and 814. The 714 is the standard yellow and black punchdown tool for 66 blocks. The 814 is a newer model and features interchangable blades, as well as easier adjustment of impact. A spare blade will store in the handle, a feature I really appriciate. Blades can be had for 66 and 88/110 blocks as well as for 630A and GTE jacks. A center punch blade is also available (70$ center punch interest anyone? :-) ). The cost is about the same for the two tools (66 blade included) although the replacment blades are cheaper for the 714 tool. If you plan to do much work on punchdown blocks obtain a few of the "taps" avaiable from most of these companies (cost: $10-$20). They're nice on 66's and esential on 110's. Sources: Graybar [local office] 345 Harrison Ave Boston, MA 02118 (617) 482-9392 714, 814, non-impact Time Motion Tools 410 South Douglas St El Segundo, CA 90245-4662 (619) 689-7272 714-$49.95, 814-$52.95 Jensen 7815 South 46th St Phoenix. AZ 85044-5399 (602) 968-6231 FAX 800-366-9662 714-$50.00, 814-$53.00, non-impact $21.93 Techni-tool 5 Apollo Rd, Box 368 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 (215) 941-2400 FAX (215) 828-5623 814-$52.10 w/66 blade, $61.90 wo/66, non-impact $14.95, impact (714 ?) $64.95 Black Box Co PO Box 12800 Pittsburgh, PA 15241-0800 (412) 746-5530 FAX 800-321-0746 714 $75.00 non-impact $25.00 Specialized Products Co. 3131 Premier Dr Irving, TX 73062 800-527-5018 714, 814, non-impact I don't have current catalog with me but SPC is competitive. I`ve dealt with Jensen, Black Box, SPC, and Graybar and had excellent luck. The others I can't comment on. I included them because they may be of future use to you. I have no connection to any of these companies or to Auburn University Educational Television/Telecommuncations. Patton Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 23:34:32 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Telephone Keypad for Alphanumerics Bernie Roehl writes: > I'm working on a project in which touch-tone users will have to enter > names, addresses and so on. > Is there a standard way of encoding these? (One scheme that pops to > mind would be "key,position" (for L you would type 53 since 'L' is on > the 5 key in the third position). A standard code (cipher?) is for a 0 to represent the first letter on the key and a 1 to represent the last letter on the key. The absence of a 0 or 1 represents the middle letter on the key. The next number is the number of the key. This works for all letter except Q and Z. Prehaps thay can be represented by 00 and 11. Patton Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 09:39 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 In article : > I may be moving my office soon, and because I entertain fantasies of > my own leased line connection to the Internet, I'd like to move right > next door to my CO. Comment: In most areas, the rate you pay for a circuit will not be reduced by living next to the CO. In some areas, circuits are costed by the length, but usually that's only between CO's, and the local end of the circuit is at a flat rate. I'll say that I'm not familiar with CA tarriffs, but I've done my share of work with AT&T facilities. Now, living next to the CO may have other advantages: - The phone company is far less likely to delay the circuit due to unavailable local facilities. - Transmission problems due to poor local loop design may be less likely. - Finding a CO repairman may be easier (just provide the coffee...) - Reliablility may be better, since there is no local loop to go bad... I don't think you are going to save much money, though. In fact, you might even have to reduce the levels on your modem due to abnormally high loop current and 0db loss to the CO! I've had to modify several telephone systems and a couple of modems to increase loss when they were within a couple of blocks of the CO. > I live in a small (5k) suburb of San Diego, and I *know* that I have a > CO inside the town limits. I even know it's a 1AESS. (619/259) For > some reason or other, TPC considers the physical location of its > plants to be some kind of top secret information -- probably so that > saboteurs won't come ashore and blow them up. Could be. In Ohio, the PUCO requires exchange area maps to be published as part of the telco's tariff. Inspection of these is as simple as going to a telco business office and asking ... it is required by the PUCO to be publicly available. Many libraries have tariff info also. But ... there's a hitch! I have found several exchange areas in which the telco has consolidated two central offices into one ... and the maps still show the old CO's! I asked the PUCO what the story was ... and was told that these consolidations were done at telco discretion, so the CO's still existed at their old location for rate/area purposes. The telco would eventually have to file for permission to redefine the CO locations for ratemaking purposes, but that was generally done only when the tariff was to be given a major overhaul ... about every ten years or more. > I used to think I knew approximately where the CO was, but there's > been a fair amount of building in the last five years, and the other > day when I went to hunt it down (after the business office wouldn't > tell me where it is) I couldn't find it. Look for brick buildings, kinda square, usually one story, with no windows ... the older buldings for SxS were usually two or three story in larger areas and did have windows ... these were usually in downtown areas .... or ask a craftsman. > Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 > rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757 Well, there's the problem ... Rick's a radio person and just cannot understand the world of 600 pair cables and ten mile long copper loops! He must think all those wires on the poles are just HF antennas! [grin] Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 macy@fmsystm.uucp macy@fmsystm.ncoast.org [No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 17:41:50-1795 From: "Steven A. Minneman" Subject: Re: New AT&T Calling Card PIN Reply-To: stevem@fai.fai.com (Steven A. Minneman ) Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc. In article DREUBEN@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 411, Message 7 of 12 > She said that they were issuing new cards without your phone number, > ie, a la Sprint/MCI/ et. al. Very much like the AT&T Universal > *Calling Card* number, like in the format of: 507 001 5555 1234. > The AT&T rep said that AT&T was doing this for a few reasons, mainly > fraud, AOSs, ... ^^^^ > When I asked why I should even bother trying to remember the new AT&T > card when my old BOC card works fine, she said "Hmmm ... I don't really > know ...", so that's as good a reason as any I've heard for ignoring > this most recent and annoying divestiture-related change. Why should you use it? I think this is the card I heard about a couple of years ago. If only AT&T has the number, then an AOS can't accept the card number for a call; hence, you or your family won't place calls over AOSs or similar high-priced agencies by mistake. Great idea in my opinion! ------------------------------ From: Mike Morris Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1991 06:54:47 GMT TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) writes: > Rolf Meier wrote: > [recommendation for using garden hose as conduit] >> [story about the problems with garden hose and decision to use >> real direct burial cable next time] > What you need is wire pulling compound. It's usually gloopy yellow > stuff that comes in a giant squeeze bottle or a can. You can, of > course, use almost anything slippery, but grease etc. may damage the > insulation over time. You're speaking of Scotch "Yellow-77", sometimes referred to with other names (one of the more polite ones is "Gorilla Snot"). But please note that "almost anything slippery" may cause some serious problems. I had a very difficult time at one site where someone had used liquid dish soap as a pulling compound. We ended up having to pull the old 75-pair out with a winch on a four-wheel drive vehicle. If you need to use a pulling compound, use a real pulling compound. And by all means use a conduit large enough for the job and pull a piece of 1/8" nylon with the cable. At one job the previous contractor had pulled cotton kite string with the cable. When we went to pull a pull rope in place with the kite string we discovered it had rotted. Fortunately there was enough room in the conduit that we were able to suck a cotton ball through with a new kite string and pull the nylon rope with it (and then the new cable with a new rope). Mike Morris WA6ILQ PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 | All opinions must be my own since nobody pays 818-447-7052 evenings | me enough to be their mouthpiece... ------------------------------ Subject: Wireless Phone Security From: Sleeping Beagle Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 15:52:59 NZD Organization: Orb Systems Unlimited, NZ Paul Elliott x225 writes: > All this is kinda disappointing, since a good friend of mine has been > trying to develop an encrypted handset/base-station. I *told* him > that it would just be a matter of time before the big boys (like > Fujitsu) introduced a similar product, but hope springs eternal, and > all that. > Definitely products whose time has come. Maybe now we can get the > legislature to stop the ridiculous "anti-scanner" type of regulations > [author's editorial comment there]. I wonder if Congress will demand > a "back door" into these schemes? Land of the free. Hahahahahahaha! (Gratuitous flame off) Well, currently I'm trialling a CT2 type phone. These are meant to be the next generation for home/office cordless phones and they can be used like payphones near special aerials in the street. (If anyone's interested, I'll mail them the not-to-technical article I wrote about CT2 to them.) This doesn't have encryption either, but the people at Telecom NZ tell me that as it uses digital communications, there aren't any gadgets around that can pick it up anyway. Does anyone know if this is true? How easy is to decode digital comms (it's not packet) with currently available (in the shops) hardware? Sleeping Beagle (aka Thomas Farmer) sbeagle@kennels.actrix.gen.nz Ph. +64-4-796306 (voice) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #461 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23948; 16 Jun 91 18:33 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17269; 16 Jun 91 16:56 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29756; 16 Jun 91 15:49 CDT Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 15:30:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #461 BCC: Message-ID: <9106161530.ab01678@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Jun 91 15:30:40 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 462 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Karl Denninger] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Mike Godwin] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Bob Peterson] Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison [John R. Schutz] Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison [David Lesher] Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) [Miguel Cruz] Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? [Sean Williams] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karl Denninger Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Wheeling, IL Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 05:55:25 GMT In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > The Len Rose saga came to an end this past week when a federal judge > considered the circumstances involved and chose to impose punishment > by placing Len in the custody of the Attorney General of the United > States, or his authorized representative for a period of one year. Of course, the court did NOT find Len guilty. He pled guilty after being browbeat and otherwise harassed to the point where he likely decided that there was no way to win -- even if he was to defend himself successfully against the current charge(s), the government would have found more. That is, he had object examples that they weren't going to leave him alone until and unless they managed to make an example out of him. Note too that his violation (copyright violations primarially as I understand it) is normally a CIVIL matter, not a criminal one. Corporations who do this kind of thing (software piracy) are sued and forced to pay damages -- NOT jailed! > Speaking of the kids, I wonder if Len has explained all this to them > yet. I wonder if they know, or are old enough to understand their dad > is going to prison, and why ... Yeah, I'd explain it to my kids all right. The fact that "my" government decided for reasons unknown to turn a civil matter into a criminal one, that they hounded me from state to state until they finally wore me out, and the insanity of the "Crime" which I was accused of in the first place. The fact that they couldn't manage to find a shread of evidence of the violation they wanted to pin on me, so they kept looking -- and confiscating equipment in an unconsti- tutionally-broad search procedure until they managed to find something they could "use". I'd explain to them the reasonableness of being held essentially at gunpoint in our own home during these search proceedings when I was (and am) no danger to the officers doing the search. And I'd explain to them the insanity of a corporate presence which has gotten so large that it commands the powers of the government of the USA itself. Yes, I would have a lot to explain. I wonder if my kids would decide to be revolutionaries when I was done. Anyone want to take bets? Shall we talk of Steve Jackson Games? A company that was (and is) persecuted for no valid reason at all? A search warrant that was unconstitutionally vague? A company (a RBOC again) that perjured itself in front of more than one court, yet has not been charged with that perjury or punished? Perjury is a CRIME! Not a petty little crime, but a real one with real penalties! I would like to see justice for all -- and those penalties imposed. It'll never happen -- as long as the guilty party works for a quasi-governmental organization like the almighty "phone company". Thank the Gods that Steve Jackson Games has finally decided to file a nice fat lawsuit against the government and all individuals involved. This time, the government and all who were participants in that fiasco deserve to get nailed to the wall. > The point is, some of us are simply getting very tired of the > break-ins, the fraudulent messages, the fact that in order to telnet > to a different site we can no longer do so direct from dialup servers > without a lot of rig-a-ma-role because computer (ab)users have stolen > all the trust which used to exist between sites, and the increasing > scarcity of 'guest' accounts on various sites because the sysadmins > are tired of being eaten alive with fraudulent and destructive usage. Well, I'm glad of that. Now let's apply the law with some consistency. Let's take the case of Bill Vajk, who allegedly CAUGHT a person snooping around on his system not long ago. He's reported it on the net and to the people he believed responsible for that person's behavior. They weren't interested in persuing the matter, although he believed that it was one of their EMPLOYEES who was doing the snooping. Yes, there was a REAL LIVE hacker -- which is, as we all know, ok as long as the hacker is a government ... oops, I meant corporate stooge! Or shall we discuss the case on ddsw1 about three years ago -- I caught an AT&T employee (so he said) on another user's account -- a person who had obviously STOLEN a valid user password. I caught him red-handed I might add. I called the user in question and kicked the phony person off the system -- and changed the real user's password. That person said they were "investigating improper use of a dialout". Oh really? Investigating it by tapping the line, recording the password, and THEN USING IT TO BREAK INTO MY MACHINE? Too bad that wasn't a felony then, as it can be now. I was unable to get the call traced -- and I did try. What I would have given for a valid trace back to someone's desk! Today I would certainly insist on prosecuting the person(s) responsible, and possibly file a civil suit as well. Yes, I think hackers should be punished -- IF they are actually guilty of some crime. My difference of opinion lies in the fact that I think ALL hackers should be punished, including the corporate ones. > Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going > to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. And > please, none of your hysterical freedom of speech arguments in my > mail, thank you. No one gives an iota what you write about, but when > you get your hands in the password file, rip off root or wheel > accounts, run programs deceptive to other users designed to rip off > their accounts also and generally behave like a two-bit burglar or > con-artist, expect to get treated like one when you get caught. See above. I want to see some equity in the law. I've had my equipment abused by those same people, and so have others. I want to see ALL of them prosecuted -- including those hooligans who wear the government's insignia. A thief or assailent does not become less of one due to having on a uniform of some "power and authority". > out of the penitentiary a better person than when he went in. The > penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, at > least for the people who think about what it was that caused them to > get there in the first place. The penitentiary can be, and frequently is, a place when men get gang-raped (without recourse) and exposed to all kinds of "wonderful" influences. It's rarely a theraputic experience. Look at the recidivism ratios and reconsider your statement. Your "head-in-the-sand" knowledge level is showing, Mr. Townson. > socially irresponsible behavior (which some people who call themselves > 'socially responsible' seem to condone or wink at) has to stop. Now. Yes it does. Including what appears to be libel of a person who is in no position to defend himself right now. > And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the > government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning > another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? Yes, you MUST say more. Since you want to fly this flag, here is what you must do: 1) Name your source. We all ought to know just who this "cooperating" sysadmin is. After all, we all saw just what happened to the last "cooperating" sysadmin, didn't we (Jolnet)? Or what kind of false accusations and pretenses the last "cooperating" company had to do with this (SWBT in this case). There are groups, the EFF being one, which are trying to stop this kind of fraudulent use of the criminal system. How about it, Pat? Name your source! (I could take a likely guess, but that might constitute libel or slander -- so I won't. I could easily be wrong on this one). 2) If you know who is under investigation, name them too. Same reasons here. If the people in question have really done something wrong, the government ought to be able to prove it easily -- it's a historical fact, right? If not, let's get the machinery rolling to protect them against more unwarranted intrusions. Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T, req: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README ------------------------------ From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1991 05:35:45 GMT Our Moderator demonstrates his moral sensibility with the following comment: > [Moderator's Note: What Len Rose was *convicted* of doing was being in > possession of AT&T computer source code illegally, and transporting > the code across state lines. And Al Capone was sent to prison for > failure to pay his income tax. This is a contemptible comparison. Len Rose is Al Capone? Capone committed thousands of crimes. All Rose did was write an article showing how to hack login.c to enable the capturing of passwords. Did Rose ever use this program to gain unauthorized entry? No. Did anyone else ever use it? No. Is it ever allowable to show how code can be modified to break system security? Yes. Does Pat Townson have any moral perspective at all? Read his comparison of Len Rose to Al Capone and draw your own conclusions. I think you should be ashamed, Pat. But the kind of people who make such comments typically know no shame. > Thanks to all who wrote me on this issue; I've got more articles in > the queue to continue this thread tomorrow, and will summarize a > rebuttal of my own, also probably tomorrow space permitting. PAT] The "rebuttal" should include apologies: to Len Rose, whose worst sin was bragging in an article about his ability to modify login.c, and to "EFF supporters," who do not approve of system breakins and who have a little more regard for the First Amendment than Townson does. Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-1550 EFF, Cambridge, MA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? From: Bob Peterson Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 22:56:34 CST Organization: The Zeitgeist BBS, Plano, TX 214 596 3720 telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for > message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap > did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi- > bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself. I find your sweeping generalization and condemnation of those who support the EFF's goals unfortunate and inappropriate. Participantion in comp.org.eff.talk newsgroup discussion does not in any way imply those individuals are "EFF devotees." Using such postings to infer "... the mentality and 'social responsibility'" of EFF supports seems irresponsible and, basically, a cheap shot. Bob Peterson Waffle BBS: peterson@zgbbs.csc.ti.com P.O. Box 861686 Internet: peterson@csc.ti.com TelCo: 214/995-6080 days Plano, Tx USA 75086 24 hour BBS: 214/596-3720 @ 1200, 2400, 9600 (HST & V.32) ------------------------------ From: "John R. Schutz" Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison Date: 16 Jun 91 04:31:01 GMT Organization: Those wacky, wacky fellas at UT's CSR TELECOM Moderator Noted, in a post by Craig Neidorf: > [Moderator's Note: Mr. Neidorf was a defendant in one of the criminal > prosecutions associated with the Legion of Doom. He is (was?) the > publisher and editor of {Phrack}, an electronic journal whose name is > a contraction of the two words 'phreak' and 'hack'. Was. He has stated that he will not go back to editing {Phrack}. John R. Schutz Email&NeXTmail: A learning NeXTie john@csrnxt1.ae.utexas.edu (512)328-0587 3009 Hatley Dr., Austin, TX 78746 ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 1:01:05 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers I guess the saddest thing about the whole recent atmosphere, capped by PAT's speech, is that no one seems to remember any history. Was it that SO long ago that nobody remembers the junior Senator from Wisconsin saying: I have proof, documented proof....... and yet we never saw it. I'm still looking for that proof in Craig's case, in the Steve Jackson case, and for *all* the things Len has been accused of by PAT and others. Suppose the federal government had spent {inflation-adjusted} equal resources on jailing CB bootleggers in the 70's, or members of King Richard's 1960's political machine, or many other such heinous crimes, not to mention the S&L scandal. (I just heard a commentary that points out that we can likely rescue the USSR economy for LESS than the S&L mess!) I'll sleep better tonight knowing that I've been saved from a vicious attack by mutant ninja login.c code. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ From: mnc@css.itd.umich.edu (Miguel Cruz) Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) Organization: Univ. of Michigan ITD Consulting & Support Services Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 19:10:12 GMT In article , learn@piroska.uchicago.edu (William Vajk) writes: > There was another fax related message here the other day, and I was in > process of responding when the computer went bye-bye. It was a request > for an easy conversion to ascii from fax. Because of the graphic > nature of fax, and the fact that there is no assurance of the style > and pitch of type received, one would actually have to be at the edge > of some serious AI to achieve the goal requested. Anyone who has used > an optical scanner and worked to convert a long document to ascii from > typed sheets can attest to the difficulties of accurate conversion > given only one character set to decipher. I think "edge of some serious AI" is a bit of an overstatement. With OmniPage running on a lowly Mac I can supply a TIFF of printed text in any combination of sizes and typefaces and in a minute or two I get a text file, generally with no mistakes at all. Granted, it's not so hot with handwritten text (pretty lousy, actually, but they never claimed otherwise). But with some chips optimized for the calculations used in character recognition, and software intelligent enough to give you text when it can, and graphic data otherwise, a fax-ASCII receiver isn't so far-fetched. With a few macros and a fax modem I could basically have that now. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 18:07 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? On 12 Jun 91 13:28:53 PDT, Wally Kramer writes: > Is there a ``phonebook'' which covers everywhere in the U.S.? > Electronic, CD-ROM, 900-FIND-THEM :-) or whatever (even paper). CompuServe has a service called "Phone*File" which might be able to do the job. It can search by geographic area, name, or phone number (I'm pretty sure.) The service carries a surcharge, but it's easier than lugging a stack of phone books! Sean E. Williams seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications "I own Spectrum, so I'm really 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 just speaking for myself" Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #462 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05255; 16 Jun 91 22:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20087; 16 Jun 91 21:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17628; 16 Jun 91 19:58 CDT Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 19:17:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #462 BCC: Message-ID: <9106161917.ab17992@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Jun 91 15:30:40 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 462 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Karl Denninger] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Mike Godwin] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Bob Peterson] Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison [John R. Schutz] Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison [David Lesher] Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) [Miguel Cruz] Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? [Sean Williams] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Karl Denninger Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Wheeling, IL Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 05:55:25 GMT In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > The Len Rose saga came to an end this past week when a federal judge > considered the circumstances involved and chose to impose punishment > by placing Len in the custody of the Attorney General of the United > States, or his authorized representative for a period of one year. Of course, the court did NOT find Len guilty. He pled guilty after being browbeat and otherwise harassed to the point where he likely decided that there was no way to win -- even if he was to defend himself successfully against the current charge(s), the government would have found more. That is, he had object examples that they weren't going to leave him alone until and unless they managed to make an example out of him. Note too that his violation (copyright violations primarially as I understand it) is normally a CIVIL matter, not a criminal one. Corporations who do this kind of thing (software piracy) are sued and forced to pay damages -- NOT jailed! > Speaking of the kids, I wonder if Len has explained all this to them > yet. I wonder if they know, or are old enough to understand their dad > is going to prison, and why ... Yeah, I'd explain it to my kids all right. The fact that "my" government decided for reasons unknown to turn a civil matter into a criminal one, that they hounded me from state to state until they finally wore me out, and the insanity of the "Crime" which I was accused of in the first place. The fact that they couldn't manage to find a shread of evidence of the violation they wanted to pin on me, so they kept looking -- and confiscating equipment in an unconsti- tutionally-broad search procedure until they managed to find something they could "use". I'd explain to them the reasonableness of being held essentially at gunpoint in our own home during these search proceedings when I was (and am) no danger to the officers doing the search. And I'd explain to them the insanity of a corporate presence which has gotten so large that it commands the powers of the government of the USA itself. Yes, I would have a lot to explain. I wonder if my kids would decide to be revolutionaries when I was done. Anyone want to take bets? Shall we talk of Steve Jackson Games? A company that was (and is) persecuted for no valid reason at all? A search warrant that was unconstitutionally vague? A company (a RBOC again) that perjured itself in front of more than one court, yet has not been charged with that perjury or punished? Perjury is a CRIME! Not a petty little crime, but a real one with real penalties! I would like to see justice for all -- and those penalties imposed. It'll never happen -- as long as the guilty party works for a quasi-governmental organization like the almighty "phone company". Thank the Gods that Steve Jackson Games has finally decided to file a nice fat lawsuit against the government and all individuals involved. This time, the government and all who were participants in that fiasco deserve to get nailed to the wall. > The point is, some of us are simply getting very tired of the > break-ins, the fraudulent messages, the fact that in order to telnet > to a different site we can no longer do so direct from dialup servers > without a lot of rig-a-ma-role because computer (ab)users have stolen > all the trust which used to exist between sites, and the increasing > scarcity of 'guest' accounts on various sites because the sysadmins > are tired of being eaten alive with fraudulent and destructive usage. Well, I'm glad of that. Now let's apply the law with some consistency. Let's take the case of Bill Vajk, who allegedly CAUGHT a person snooping around on his system not long ago. He's reported it on the net and to the people he believed responsible for that person's behavior. They weren't interested in persuing the matter, although he believed that it was one of their EMPLOYEES who was doing the snooping. Yes, there was a REAL LIVE hacker -- which is, as we all know, ok as long as the hacker is a government ... oops, I meant corporate stooge! Or shall we discuss the case on ddsw1 about three years ago -- I caught an AT&T employee (so he said) on another user's account -- a person who had obviously STOLEN a valid user password. I caught him red-handed I might add. I called the user in question and kicked the phony person off the system -- and changed the real user's password. That person said they were "investigating improper use of a dialout". Oh really? Investigating it by tapping the line, recording the password, and THEN USING IT TO BREAK INTO MY MACHINE? Too bad that wasn't a felony then, as it can be now. I was unable to get the call traced -- and I did try. What I would have given for a valid trace back to someone's desk! Today I would certainly insist on prosecuting the person(s) responsible, and possibly file a civil suit as well. Yes, I think hackers should be punished -- IF they are actually guilty of some crime. My difference of opinion lies in the fact that I think ALL hackers should be punished, including the corporate ones. > Users had better wise up to one fact: the federal government is going > to continue to crack down on abusers of the net and this media. And > please, none of your hysterical freedom of speech arguments in my > mail, thank you. No one gives an iota what you write about, but when > you get your hands in the password file, rip off root or wheel > accounts, run programs deceptive to other users designed to rip off > their accounts also and generally behave like a two-bit burglar or > con-artist, expect to get treated like one when you get caught. See above. I want to see some equity in the law. I've had my equipment abused by those same people, and so have others. I want to see ALL of them prosecuted -- including those hooligans who wear the government's insignia. A thief or assailent does not become less of one due to having on a uniform of some "power and authority". > out of the penitentiary a better person than when he went in. The > penitentiary can be, and frequently is a therapeutic experience, at > least for the people who think about what it was that caused them to > get there in the first place. The penitentiary can be, and frequently is, a place when men get gang-raped (without recourse) and exposed to all kinds of "wonderful" influences. It's rarely a theraputic experience. Look at the recidivism ratios and reconsider your statement. Your "head-in-the-sand" knowledge level is showing, Mr. Townson. > socially irresponsible behavior (which some people who call themselves > 'socially responsible' seem to condone or wink at) has to stop. Now. Yes it does. Including what appears to be libel of a person who is in no position to defend himself right now. > And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the > government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning > another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? Yes, you MUST say more. Since you want to fly this flag, here is what you must do: 1) Name your source. We all ought to know just who this "cooperating" sysadmin is. After all, we all saw just what happened to the last "cooperating" sysadmin, didn't we (Jolnet)? Or what kind of false accusations and pretenses the last "cooperating" company had to do with this (SWBT in this case). There are groups, the EFF being one, which are trying to stop this kind of fraudulent use of the criminal system. How about it, Pat? Name your source! (I could take a likely guess, but that might constitute libel or slander -- so I won't. I could easily be wrong on this one). 2) If you know who is under investigation, name them too. Same reasons here. If the people in question have really done something wrong, the government ought to be able to prove it easily -- it's a historical fact, right? If not, let's get the machinery rolling to protect them against more unwarranted intrusions. Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T, req: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README ------------------------------ From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1991 05:35:45 GMT Our Moderator demonstrates his moral sensibility with the following comment: > [Moderator's Note: What Len Rose was *convicted* of doing was being in > possession of AT&T computer source code illegally, and transporting > the code across state lines. And Al Capone was sent to prison for > failure to pay his income tax. This is a contemptible comparison. Len Rose is Al Capone? Capone committed thousands of crimes. All Rose did was write an article showing how to hack login.c to enable the capturing of passwords. Did Rose ever use this program to gain unauthorized entry? No. Did anyone else ever use it? No. Is it ever allowable to show how code can be modified to break system security? Yes. Does Pat Townson have any moral perspective at all? Read his comparison of Len Rose to Al Capone and draw your own conclusions. I think you should be ashamed, Pat. But the kind of people who make such comments typically know no shame. > Thanks to all who wrote me on this issue; I've got more articles in > the queue to continue this thread tomorrow, and will summarize a > rebuttal of my own, also probably tomorrow space permitting. PAT] The "rebuttal" should include apologies: to Len Rose, whose worst sin was bragging in an article about his ability to modify login.c, and to "EFF supporters," who do not approve of system breakins and who have a little more regard for the First Amendment than Townson does. Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-1550 EFF, Cambridge, MA ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? From: Bob Peterson Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 22:56:34 CST Organization: The Zeitgeist BBS, Plano, TX 214 596 3720 telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > The fact that the debate could go on endlessly for > message after message actually questioning what, if anything the chap > did wrong tells us plenty about the mentality and 'social respsonsi- > bility' of EFF devotees, but that is a whole new topic in itself. I find your sweeping generalization and condemnation of those who support the EFF's goals unfortunate and inappropriate. Participantion in comp.org.eff.talk newsgroup discussion does not in any way imply those individuals are "EFF devotees." Using such postings to infer "... the mentality and 'social responsibility'" of EFF supports seems irresponsible and, basically, a cheap shot. Bob Peterson Waffle BBS: peterson@zgbbs.csc.ti.com P.O. Box 861686 Internet: peterson@csc.ti.com TelCo: 214/995-6080 days Plano, Tx USA 75086 24 hour BBS: 214/596-3720 @ 1200, 2400, 9600 (HST & V.32) ------------------------------ From: "John R. Schutz" Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison Date: 16 Jun 91 04:31:01 GMT Organization: Those wacky, wacky fellas at UT's CSR TELECOM Moderator Noted, in a post by Craig Neidorf: > [Moderator's Note: Mr. Neidorf was a defendant in one of the criminal > prosecutions associated with the Legion of Doom. He is (was?) the > publisher and editor of {Phrack}, an electronic journal whose name is > a contraction of the two words 'phreak' and 'hack'. Was. He has stated that he will not go back to editing {Phrack}. John R. Schutz Email&NeXTmail: A learning NeXTie john@csrnxt1.ae.utexas.edu (512)328-0587 3009 Hatley Dr., Austin, TX 78746 ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Len Rose Sent to Prison Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 1:01:05 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers I guess the saddest thing about the whole recent atmosphere, capped by PAT's speech, is that no one seems to remember any history. Was it that SO long ago that nobody remembers the junior Senator from Wisconsin saying: I have proof, documented proof....... and yet we never saw it. I'm still looking for that proof in Craig's case, in the Steve Jackson case, and for *all* the things Len has been accused of by PAT and others. Suppose the federal government had spent {inflation-adjusted} equal resources on jailing CB bootleggers in the 70's, or members of King Richard's 1960's political machine, or many other such heinous crimes, not to mention the S&L scandal. (I just heard a commentary that points out that we can likely rescue the USSR economy for LESS than the S&L mess!) I'll sleep better tonight knowing that I've been saved from a vicious attack by mutant ninja login.c code. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ From: mnc@css.itd.umich.edu (Miguel Cruz) Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) Organization: Univ. of Michigan ITD Consulting & Support Services Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 19:10:12 GMT In article , learn@piroska.uchicago.edu (William Vajk) writes: > There was another fax related message here the other day, and I was in > process of responding when the computer went bye-bye. It was a request > for an easy conversion to ascii from fax. Because of the graphic > nature of fax, and the fact that there is no assurance of the style > and pitch of type received, one would actually have to be at the edge > of some serious AI to achieve the goal requested. Anyone who has used > an optical scanner and worked to convert a long document to ascii from > typed sheets can attest to the difficulties of accurate conversion > given only one character set to decipher. I think "edge of some serious AI" is a bit of an overstatement. With OmniPage running on a lowly Mac I can supply a TIFF of printed text in any combination of sizes and typefaces and in a minute or two I get a text file, generally with no mistakes at all. Granted, it's not so hot with handwritten text (pretty lousy, actually, but they never claimed otherwise). But with some chips optimized for the calculations used in character recognition, and software intelligent enough to give you text when it can, and graphic data otherwise, a fax-ASCII receiver isn't so far-fetched. With a few macros and a fax modem I could basically have that now. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 18:07 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? On 12 Jun 91 13:28:53 PDT, Wally Kramer writes: > Is there a ``phonebook'' which covers everywhere in the U.S.? > Electronic, CD-ROM, 900-FIND-THEM :-) or whatever (even paper). CompuServe has a service called "Phone*File" which might be able to do the job. It can search by geographic area, name, or phone number (I'm pretty sure.) The service carries a surcharge, but it's easier than lugging a stack of phone books! Sean E. Williams seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications "I own Spectrum, so I'm really 333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227 just speaking for myself" Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #462 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07876; 16 Jun 91 23:50 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17904; 16 Jun 91 22:08 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20087; 16 Jun 91 21:03 CDT Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 20:22:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #463 BCC: Message-ID: <9106162022.ab12799@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 16 Jun 91 20:22:02 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 463 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [TELECOM Moderator] What the Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Mark Miller] Voice-Mail Addition to PBX [Dave Levenson] Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? [Bob Sherman] Administrivia: A Couple Messages Lost? [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 18:40:46 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common My Sunday Sermon for this week will discuss recent allegations here that Len Rose has been unjustly picked on by the federal government. Two texts come to mind as a preface to my comments: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." (From St. John, 8:32) "Injustice? Oh, I've never been too upset by injustice ... I've seen a lot of it in my lifetime, much of it directed to me. Injustice doesn't really hurt ... it is *justice* that stings." (Oscar Wilde, writing from Reading Jail to a friend.) And who exactly knows the complete truth in the Len Rose matter? Len, and Len alone. His attorney might know most of it. I would never claim to know it all, but I know I've heard a lot of conflicting stories, ranging from Len the meanest hombre in the history of the net to Len the innocent victim of a plot by the (official) government and the (quasi-official) government AT&T, and everything in-between. Al Capone was accused of plotting and engineering, or direct participation in many crimes. So was Leonard Rose. The government decided to charge Al Capone with a small selection of the crimes in which they believed he was a direct or indirect participant. The same stance was taken toward Leonard Rose. As the prosecution of Capone moved through various stages to his trial, the government decided all they could prove with absolute certainty -- and that burden on the government, the constitutional requirement for absolute proof being paramount in the United States -- was that Capone had lied when filing his income taxes. They had his signature on tax documents after all, and could easily demonstrate that two plus two did not equal three. So a man of Capone's 'reputation' went to the federal penitentiary about 1931 based on a single count of tax evasion. And a man of Rose's reputation is going to prison on a single count of possessing unlicensed source code. Unlike Capone, who did not plead guilty, but rather was proven guilty to the court's satisfaction, Leonard Rose chose to plead guilty to a single count of several original counts in his indictment. Like Capone, the government (official or quasi) investigators had plenty of complaints about Rose. There were allegations of hacking and phreaking a-plenty. There were allegations that the login.c code was in fact foisted off on at least a couple of unsuspecting (new on the job? less experienced?) sysadmins. Like Capone, seeing it, believing that it happened and wanting to do something about it are a lot different than absolutely proving that it did happen and that Len Rose made it happen. And Len Rose, like Al Capone, are entitled to the protection afforded by the Constitution of the United States. Unlike Capone, where his attornies granted the government nothing, and forced the trial to continue even with a single count of tax evasion, Rose agreed to a single concession, and everyone involved benefitted from it. To Rose, this expidited the process and got it over with that much sooner. To the government, perhaps the thinking was a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush ... or a single guilty plea is worth a dozen that may or may not be proveable to the court. Unlike Rose, who got a year in prison, Capone got several years in prison; but I realize in part this is due to differences in sentencing guidelines in the federal courts in recent years. And yes, there were people in 1931 who swore that Capone was not guilty of the many things he had been accused of. Many folks thought it was purely his ancestral background which got him convicted out of prejudice by prosecutors. Some of you responded to me saying "Rose was not FOUND GUILTY, he chose to PLEAD GUILTY." Actually what happened was that based on his plea of guilty, the court found him guilty ... but ... even that was not all that cut and dried. First off, I think the government was also interested in expediting the case. Had it been easier for them to prove the additional counts, they would have pushed for it. The only reason the government usually cuts deals is when the burden of proof is too hard for them. That's not to say the various crimes were not committed, or that Len had nothing to do with the crimes ... just that the government cannot easily prove it, if they could at all. Then again, maybe Len didn't have anything to do with the mess other than what he confessed to. Second, did Len Rose concede on one count because as some of you claimed, he was worn out from fighting, so depressed and demoralized he could not continue? I don't think so. I think he chose to concede on the one count because he acknowledged that much guilt and knew he would get a better deal than by holding out. Neither the government or your attorney can ram a guilty plea down your throat if you do not want to go along. Check out the Federal Court Rules of Procedure: 1) The court is not required to accept your plea of guilty. 2) The defendant will be questioned at length about the reasons he wishes to plead guilty -- a) did his attorney or the government promise 'to cut a deal'? b) did police or other investigators make some sort of promise to put in a good word for him if he 'made their job easier'? c) was he mistreated by the police or government while in custody? d) has he been treated with courtesy and fairness by court personnel? e) were his rights explained fully to him from the beginning? f) has he been under mental stress so that his thinking might be affected? does he realize the consequences of his guilty plea? g) did anyone tell him the court would 'go along' with what the government and his attorney decided to do? h) does he understand that by pleading guilty the court will listen to recommendations from the government and his attorney but is not bound by them in any way? i) does he understand that if the court chooses to accept his plea of guilty, the court may be prejudiced from that point onward, yet a later appeal from the court's decision will be difficult or impossible? j) finally, is he aware that the court can reject his plea of guilty and enter a plea of 'not guilty' automatically if the court feels the best interests of justice would be served by having a trial? 3) If the defendant persists in pleading guilty, the court can if it wishes accept his plea, and base its findings accordingly. So Len had his reasons for pleading guilty, and it was mutually convenient for the government. But the court did choose to find him guilty, and did decide there was no 'forced confession' from Len. In a phone conversation with Len some time back, he asked me what I thought he should do. I suggested that if he was completely innocent he should fight the charges. If he felt the government could prove one or more of the charges it might be to his advantage to plead guilty. I told him he and his attorney would have to decide what to do. Some of you said Len was a first time offender and should have received federal probation. Others of you said it should have been handled as a civil, rather than criminal matter. While it is true this was, to my knowledge, Len's first federal offense, the court is permitted to take an overview of Len's social history in detirmining an appropriate punishment. Len's history included: 1) An arrest and pending matter (or had he been convicted?) in state court pertaining to the burglary of the computer warehouse. I assume you all knew about that case ... 2) An arrest and pending matter here in Illinois based on the transfer of code from his new (one week!) employer's computer to his own. I presume the State of Illinois dropped those charges when Len was convicted in federal court. Or did they? 3) Fleeing the jurisdiction of the federal court in Maryland. (see point two above.) Len did NOT have permission from the federal court to leave Maryland and come to Illinois ... yet he showed up here with his family at a new place of employment while his case was pending in Baltimore. Supposedly, this was all a paperwork 'mixup', but I am told it was quite after the fact that Len got 'post facto' permission to stay here. How long afterward? Well, when he got arrested here a week after he arrived with his family, DuPage County Jail ran him through NCIC and found there was a Federal Pretrial Services hold on him in Maryland ... in other words, the federal court found out he had left Maryland once he got arrested over here on computer misuse (but unrelated) charges! 9o the court can consider all this; his prior state conviction, his current case in Illinois, and the fact that he flew the coop while on trial in Baltimore in deciding what to do. Then some of you commented on my use of the term 'therapeutic' as a possible outcome of Len's stay in prison. At least a couple of you brought up the 'gang rape' scenario, but let's view this realistically: Federal prisons are NOT like state insitutions, and state institutions are NOT all medium/maximum security places run by gangs of inmates instead of the staff. In minimum security institutions, state or federal (but the federal places are MUCH more professionally operated), the inmates tend to behave themselves quite well. They are white collar, and for the most part professional people on the outside. They may have been foolish enough to wind up in prison, but they are not foolish enough to screw up inside prison and wind up with a fresh sentence in a tougher environment. As Jim Thomas pointed out, there are no 'country club' federal prisons, but the worst of the Level 1 and Level 2 federal prisons are far superior (to an inmate's point of view) than their state counterparts. I don't think the possibility of Len Rose getting 'gang-raped' warrants serious consideration. Level 1 and 2 federal prisoners are all in the same boat as Len: they'll be getting out in a few months or a year ... they don't screw up; they don't assault each other. At the MCC here in Chicago, many inmates have passes to leave the building during the day for work, etc ... times are tough for them, but not *that* tough ... Maybe you would not have complained had I used the word 'catharsis' instead. A message said the law should be applied equally to all, and I quite agree. The proprietors of 'igloo' and 'ddsw1' both got shafted. Just think if you had been allowed to have Caller ID on those dialups and been able to trace the call back to the desk of a telco employee, or to the modem of a specific user ... Yes, I agree completely. Let's have prison terms for one and all when convicted. No more game playing where computer access fraud is concerned. A few of you 'complimented' me for my feelings of sympathy toward Len. Whether you believe it or not, I *do* feel sorry for the mess he has gotten himself into. But he got himself into it, and he has to pay for it. Likewise, I feel sympathy for most of the folks who get caught hacking and phreaking. Why? Not because hacking and phreaking is right, but because for the most part the people doing it don't even have the belief that they did anything wrong! Like Len, they just can't see what it was that was so wrong about what they did. I can appreciate and sympathize with the way they feel, but they had better wise up: computer fraud and abuse is just as wrong as the more 'traditional' crimes which they DO recognize as bad. The EFF: I think they *mean well*, a lot like the ACLU. But they fail to realize the huge number of freeloaders going along for the ride, for whom social responsibility in computing is a big laugh. Like the ACLU, they have a lot of hangers on for whom the First Amendment is merely coincidental to their world, but a nice coincidence at that. I think comp.org.eff.talk should either be moderated OR the 'eff' should be taken out of the name of the group. It does NOT do them justice. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Mark Miller Subject: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 15:23:13 EDT OK, this one has been bugging me for some time, but what is the highly touted "Fiber Optic Quality"?? Now as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in a digital format. Last time I checked, digital data didn't really care whether it was sent by copper, microwave or fiber. So if the proceeding assumption is correct, then I should be able to "hear a pin drop" regardless of the transmission media. Now of course I understand the benefits of fiber to the LD carrier, in that they can send many more calls, cheaper. So, is this "fiber optic quality" spiel just some marketing drival intended to mislead the consumer, or did I miss the point somewhere?? Mark T. Miller miller@dg-rtp.dg.com ...uunet!xyzzy!miller ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Voice-Mail Addition to PBX Date: 16 Jun 91 20:06:28 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , Bob_Frankston%Slate_ Corporation@mcimail.com (Bob Frankston) writes: > The issue of protocols raises its ugly head. > Pac*Bell is able to provide some compelling features because it owns > the network... > [Moderator's Note: One of the nicest features of telco-operated voice > mail is the stutter dialtone which advises the subscriber of new > messages waiting. It should not be that hard for telco to provide this > to the competitors:... A few years ago, I developed a voice-mail add-on for a PBX. Our machine interfaced with the host PBX over nothing more than a Tip/Ring station line. A feature-addition to the PBX created a station class-of-service for this purpose. The protocol? Very simple: The PBX would forward calls to one of our station lines if the called station was busy or did not answer. When we went off-hook, the PBX would send us DTMF, telling us who was calling, who was being called, and why we got the call. After taking a message, we could go off-hook on one of our special lines, and enter a sequence of DTMF digits which caused the PBX to light the 'message waiting' indicator on a station, or to enable 'stutter tone' if the station was not equipped with a visual indicator. Our voice mail package would work fine with any CO or PBX capable of providing a similar feature set! Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Bob Sherman Subject: Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? Organization: Not much! Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 20:41:51 GMT In Wally Kramer writes: > Is there a ``phonebook'' which covers everywhere in the U.S.? > Electronic, CD-ROM, 900-FIND-THEM :-) or whatever (even paper). > I'd like to track down some college buddies, but I don't have clue as > to what city some of them are in. There is a national phonebook of sorts available on Compuserve. You can get it by "go phonefile". It is a subset of the metromail service, and is quite watered down from the original product, but should serve the purpose you mention providing your buddies have listed numbers. bsherman@mthvax.cs.miami.edu | MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 19:27:02 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: A Couple Messages Lost? Due to a slight problem Sunday afternoon connected with issue 462, it was sent out with 462 in the body of the Digest and 461 in the header. It was then transmitted correctly as 462 (in both references) about 7:15 PM. But in the process, it *may be* that a couple (two or three) messages got trashed accidentally. I'm not sure. I am sort of sensitive to this right now because of all the messages coming in regards Len Rose. So if your ACK was prior to 7:00 PM Sunday night and you have *not* been printed in this issue or 461/462, then please send it again because it got trashed. Thanks. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #463 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21477; 18 Jun 91 2:11 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31822; 18 Jun 91 0:25 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24367; 17 Jun 91 23:17 CDT Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 22:29:09 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #464 BCC: Message-ID: <9106172229.ab00367@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Jun 91 22:29:04 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 464 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Barry Margolin] Re: Tokyo Moving to Eight Digit Phone Numbers [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit [Dave Leibold] Re: German Telephone Unification [Ralf Wichary] Re: Fax/Phone Switch Information Wanted [Lou Kates] Re: Sources Wanted for Punchdown Tools [Carl Moore] Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? [Andy Sherman] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Barton F. Bruce] Re: CATV Company Rate Comparisons [Ralph W. Hyre] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Reply-To: think!barmar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 05:24:04 GMT In article miller@dg-rtp.dg.com (Mark Miller) writes: > OK, this one has been bugging me for some time, but what is the highly > touted "Fiber Optic Quality"?? > Now as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in > a digital format. Last time I checked, digital data didn't really > care whether it was sent by copper, microwave or fiber. Of course it does. Digital data can be corrupted by static or crosstalk on the line, just as analog data can. Computer communication generally uses error detection and retransmission on top of the digital medium in order to produce error-free transmission. Audio telephone communication is generally more concerned with transmission speed than fidelity, because listeners are able to deal with minor errors. Higher fidelity lines mean fewer such errors. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: Tokyo Moving to Eight Digit Phone Numbers Date: 17 Jun 91 06:20:44 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > Has anyone noticed that Tokyo is now fully converted to eight digit > numbers? I recently phoned a friend in Japan (I'm in Ithaca) at +81 3 > 701-xxxx and got a hurried message that the number was now +81 3 3 > 701-xxxx. The big "Year of the Sheep, Night of the Telecom Wolves" changeover occurred at 2am, Jan 1, 1991. All the old seven digit numbers got a 3 prepended to them. The "area code" is still 03. Estimates vary widely, but some pundits claim that the cost to the Japanese economy caused by the switchover (reprogramming autodialers, fax machines and the like, plus a 14% increase in the number of phone buttons pushed in the Tokyo area [which means 14% more buttons breaking, etc ..]) is in the trillions of yen, and may yet cause major damage to the Japanese economy. Planners at the phone company here are already preparing for the upcoming switchover to nine-digit local numbers, expected to occur Tuesday next... ;^) Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 19:10:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Re: Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com bill@eedsp.gatech.edu sez.... > The U.S. Army Signal Corps operates a very respectable museum at their > Signal Center at Fort Gordon, Georgia. Fort Gordon is on the > outskirts of Augusta, home of the Masters (golf) Tournament. Plus Nigel Allen's previous mention of a Canadian military museum with communications goodies... There has also been a telephone museum in downtown Edmonton run by Alberta Government Telephones (AGT, changing its corporate name to Telus) called "Vista 33", named after the floor in the AGT Tower where the museum/exhibits are located. Last I checked there was an admission charge to go up there. I don't have the specific address of the AGT Tower offhand; Vista 33 is usually mentioned in Alberta phone books, or it can be determined from Alberta Government Telephones' listings in Edmonton. While at the AGT Tower, AGT's library is on the 23rd floor, and contains some interesting telecom books and that. You could call it "Vista 23", assuming they haven't changed floors in recent months. dleibold@attmail.com Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ Date: Monday, 17 Jun 1991 11:41:04 CET From: RWICHARY%ESOC.BITNET@vm1.gatech.edu Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification Situation of Unified German Telephone System: Basically, the two parts of (unified) Germany are still two different states, telephonewise. Calling from West to East is still an international call at international rates (and vice versa). What has improved: The PTT is constantly expanding the numbers of lines between the two parts. They are planning (and probably working) on giving the eastern part of Germany [I have to get used to not calling it East Germany myself after 45 years :-)] "the most advanced telecommunications system in the world by 1997". How they are going about it, I don't have competent infos. What has gotten worse: Basically, the load on the system. With the opening of the wall, even before the official unification, businessmen streamed into the east and with them the need for communication (of course, the interest of East Germans to communicate with the West also increased). There are several crucial shortcomings on the eastern phone system: - Low number of private phones. Normally you had to prove the need of having a telephone and then wait several years to get one, unless the party or government officials approved and helped you get one. - Disastrous quality of phone equipment. With data communication just starting in the eastern part, we are beginning to see the LOOOOW quality of the system: high noise and frequent interruptions of lines are symptoms of overaged equipment. More than 300 Baud are rarely possible (even if you have the equipment), and you better have error correction on that, as well. Line interruptions after a minute or two are quite frequent. All this is worked on, but my guess is, it will at best take several years to build up a reliable infrastructure. The connections between the two parts of Germany are heavily overloaded. Calling a number in the East is practically impossible during working hours, since all the lines are busy. Chances are you can reach people at 6 a.m., but then they are not in their office, and who has a private phone? Furthermore, direct dialling is not 100% possible in the East; the major cities can now be dialled direct, but for smaller places you have to go through the operator. [To be fair, the number of places you can dial direct has almost doubled in the last year, the PTT is surely working hard on that as well.] There have been strange side effects of this situation: West German car phones are used widely and barely legal along the border regions. The cellular phone system is expanding along the former transit routes between West Germany and West Berlin. A cellular phone transponder that was put up provisionally during the Leipzig Fair (East), and that provided a direct link to the Western net has been kept running since. A national TV satellite, that was launched far too late and probably wouldn't fit into the European TV satellite scene anyway [but that's a different story], has been rescheduled to provide additional phone lines between East and West. The PTT has introduced "loan numbers", i.e. certain telephone numbers in Frankfurt (West) are actually hooked up to telephones in Leipzig (East). There are, I think, six such "couples" between East and West cities with a maximum capacity of 300 lines each. On the other hand,the PTT is opposing private companies that offer satellite links; let's wait and see how this works out ... There is a personal courier service: A lady living near the former border is taking messages in her West German home, gets in a car, goes five kilometers to a East German town, where she has rented a back room with an Eastern telephone and delivers the message ... and vice versa. What additionally complicates the situation: With the Unified European Market around the corner (1993) the PTT is transforming from a federal institution to a private company with new competitors. The transition is at times confusing: which parts of the system still need PTT approval, which don't ... ??? So we are in a state of transition and the situation will be split for a while. The observations above are that of a private user, not an official statement; I may be wrong in some accounts, but then, the situation is changing day to day. Ralf Wichary (RWICHARY@ESOC.BITNET) ------------------------------ From: Lou Kates Subject: Re: Fax/Phone Switch Information Wanted Date: 17 Jun 91 11:03:23 GMT Reply-To: Lou Kates Organization: Teleride Sage, Ltd., Waterloo In article caserta@athena.mit.edu (Francesco Caserta) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 437, Message 1 of 8 > In article , hv@uwasa.fi (Harri Valkama) > writes: >> Who can recommend for me an automatic fax/phone switch that has a > Before I start the list, I should premise a few considerations. I've > been told that even among G3 fax machines there is no guaranty that > they will issue a CNG tone when calling. This has been mentioned in this newgroup before but in case you missed it, you can get around this by getting a feature variously known as Ident-A-Call, Distinctive Ringing, RingMaster, etc. It may be called something else by your telco but it basically allows you to get multiple phone numbers associated with the same line with each number having a distinctive ringing pattern. Hello Direct and Lynx Automation (2100 196th St SW #144, Lynnwood, WA 98036, 206-744-1582) will sell you a device which listens to the ringing pattern and sends the call to different devices according to the ringing pattern. Since everything takes place BEFORE the call is connected you avoid having to depend on being able to recognize the CNG tone. Lou Kates, Teleride Sage Ltd., louk%tslwat@watmath.waterloo.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 9:49:23 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Sources Wanted for Punchdown Tools > Specialized Products Co. > 3131 Premier Dr Irving, TX 73062 > 800-527-5018 Doesn't Irving zipcode start with 750 instead of 730? [Moderator's Note: Thanks for catching this typo error. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 12:05:37 EDT In article is written: > I'm not convinced. I think there are two basic reasons for why they > did this: > 1. Old AT&T cards are now being accepted by other carriers. I have > been billed by all sort of outfits from MCI to Joe Random carrier by > simply using the good 'ol 10-digit + PIN scheme. AT&T obviously hates > this and wants the new "proprietary cards" to secure their revenue. Please note that it is not just a matter of securing our revenues. Consider this: every time a customer thinks they are using an "AT&T Card" and gets billed by an AOS it creates a customer relations problem for AT&T with "brand loyal" customers. Many of these customers have a hard time understanding that use of the LEC issued billing number is not under AT&T's control, even though the number appears on a credit card with the AT&T logo on it. The best way to deal with that is to issue card numbers that AT&T *does* control. There has been overwhelming customer unhappiness with the old calling card scheme that left them with big charges from companies with whom they had no intention of doing business. Yes the new system is good for AT&T. It is also good for most customers. > 2. As metioned in the Digest already, with the new cards, billing will > be (I presume) handled by AT&T directly and thus no (costly) > arrangements with the RBOCs need to be in place. The new calling cards (other than Universal Cards) do *not* change the method of billing. Billing methods are determined by the ultimate billing telphone number for your AT&T account. In most LATAs residence billing is still handled by sending call detail back to the LEC to bill. Changes to the billing system are a separate issue. What *does* change is the customer-supplier relationship for card verification services. Instead of buying verification from the LEC for use of their card numbers on long distance calls, for the new cards AT&T will sell verification for it's card numbers when used for local calls. Yes, this is a cost saving. This is bad? |> Anybody know how much of a "grace period" they are going to give us |> with the old cards? I assume that a valid LEC card number will always be accepted, but I have no good information on this. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Date: 17 Jun 91 18:52:37 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. In article , mitel!Software!meier@ uunet.uu.net (Rolf Meier) writes: > In article mailrus!ulowell!wex@uunet. > uu.net writes: > [recommendation for using garden hose as conduit] >> Anyhow, the hose provides very good protection from shovels provides a >> conduit for pulling/replacing wire ( if you put in an extra pull wire, > It turned out that I was unable to pull the wire more than about 25 > feet before it started to bind against the hose. Since I had already Real rubbery hose would probably be the worst. The cheap vinyl hoses would be better, if large enough. The quite inexpensive polyethylene pipe often used for buried lawn sprinklers works well and comes in very long coils -- 400' or even 1000' are easy to find. The real key to easy pulling is LOTS of good commercial wire pulling compound liberally slathered on the cable. ------------------------------ From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: Re: CATV Company Rate Comparisons Date: 17 Jun 91 16:08:56 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati In article mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 456, Message 6 of 9 > pay-per-view channel, but it's on two pieces of coax, which makes > cable-ready equipment capable of only 'seeing' half the channels at a > time. A converter to solve this problem costs $2/mo, a remote control. > is another $1, the first pay channel is about $10, and additional pay > channels have decreasing costs. If your basic channels are unscrambled, then you can try what I did: (worked on a TCI system in Pittsburgh, and Warner in Cincinnati.) RUN, don't walk to a store where you can buy what's reffered to as a block converter. It shifts the cable channels up around 400Mhz, to the UHF band, where you can combine with the VHF and cable band channels into a single piece of coax. Your cable-ready set (and VCR) should be happy to accomodate it. Total cost around $30 (I got mine a Radio Shack). A cable ---------------------------+ +Coupler/combiner+----- single cable B cable -block converter+----------+ You will need to find the B cable channels on your TV/VCR. There is also potential conflict, since the box SUBTRACTS 400Mhz from the B cable channels, causing potential conflicts with the 'A' cable channels. In general if you put the least-loaded cable through the converter box, you will be OK. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #464 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24054; 18 Jun 91 3:15 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29125; 18 Jun 91 1:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31822; 18 Jun 91 0:25 CDT Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 23:57:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #465 BCC: Message-ID: <9106172357.ab01014@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 17 Jun 91 23:40:35 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 465 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CI$ Phone*File and Metromail [Bill Berbenich] Re: Local Calling Areas (was Surprise!!) [Stephanie da Silva] Re: German Telephone Unification [Richard Budd] John Cooperated With the Mercury? [Todd Inch] MCI Telecom Consultant BBS: What's Up? [Dave Leibold] Land Line Obselete? [Bill Gundry] Now Repair is Computerized [J. Philip Miller] Smart Phones, Smart Network, Dumb Company? [Bob Frankston] External ISDN TAs for 64kbps Operation [Dick Jackson] Call Completion by Directory Assistance [Carl Moore] Radio Shack Call Forwarding System [Dan Veeneman] Disarmingly Curteous and Friendly US West [Paul Schleck] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu Subject: CI$ Phone*File and Metromail Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 10:41:25 EDT Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu I've seen a service called Metromail mentioned in the Digest occasionally. I, too, realize that the Compuserve service called Phone*File is a subset of Metromail. My question: What is the name and address of the company that provides Metromail? Either posted or e-mailed replies are fine. Thanks in advance. Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab | Telephone: +1-404-894-3134 Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 | uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill | Group 3 fax: +1-404-894-8363 Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu | or: +1-404-853-9171 ------------------------------ From: Stephanie da Silva Subject: Re: Local Calling Areas (was Surprise!!) Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1991 05:57:16 GMT In article , gs26@prism.gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) writes: > The Metro Atlanta calling area extends for 80 some miles in a couple > directions ... it'll be in its own area code in March, 1992. > Can anybody top that? I'm surprised no one has mentioned Houston. I thought we had the largest local calling area in the US. The reason why so many local BBSs have sprung up around here. Stephanie da Silva Taronga Park -- (713) 568-0480 arielle@taronga.hackercorp.com Houston, Texas arielle@hackercorp.com (Not the zoo... my Unix system...) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 12:12:18 EDT From: Richard Budd Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification Linc Madison wrote in Telecom Digest V11 #448: > But anyhow, the other thing I noticed is that in the International > calling section, they still list "German Democratic Republic" and > "Germany, Federal Republic of" as separate countries. > Beyond that, though, what are the plans for bringing Germany under a > single country code? Have the plans been finalized and a date set, or > is it all still up in the air? It seems clearly unacceptable to have > Berlin a united city in a unified German nation, but with two country > codes. At last check, Germany was still divided into two country telephone codes and two series of postal zip codes (49 and "W" respectively for western Germany, 37 and "O" for eastern Germany). There are two difficulties holding up the unification of post office and telephone coding. First is the state of the eastern German telephone system. It is going to take several years and hundreds of millions of deutsch marks to bring a telephone system with no major improvements since the 1950's up to western German telecom standards. There is also the fact that the East German telephone system was designed to allow the Stasi (the secret police) easy access to conversations from any East German lucky enough to have recived permission from the government to have a phone. Secondly, there is the problem of redundant zip and area codes between the eastern and western portions of the country (i.e. 8000 is both Munich and Dresden). We have heard so much about the time required to split northern New Jersey into 201 and 908 area codes, and 908 had not been used anywhere else. Because the Deutsche Bundespost (the post office) also operates the telephone system, it would be in the best interest to solve the zip and area code problem together and allow a decent period of time to have 78 million Germans and God knows how many others accommodate themselves to it. Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt has said it would take Germany at least twelve years to incorporate the five new federal states from what was once East Germany into the Federal Republic, twice the time it took West Germany to integrate the Saar in 1951-57. Bear in mind, this week the Parliament is finally going to decide whether to put the national government and ministries in Bonn or Berlin! I will check my German contacts from time to time on the status of the unified German telephone system and will report back to TELECOM Digest. Richard Budd | Internet: rcbudd@rhqvm19.vnet.ibm.com VM Systems Programmer | Bitnet : klub@maristb.bitnet IBM - Sterling Forest, NY | Phone : (914) 578-3746 ------------------------------ From: Todd Inch Subject: John Cooperated With the Mercury? Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 20:06:08 GMT In article John Higdon writes: > You may be interested to know that the {San Jose Mercur}y is about to > do a story also. However, the writer has been in close touch with > yours truly and I can guarantee the article will be somewhat more > "informed" and will carry a somewhat different slant. Perhaps this kind of slant: "Telemarketers Harrass Millions of Innocent Residents -- Law Suit Threatened" ? Seriously, I'm surprised you cooperated with the "perpetrators". ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 19:29:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: MCI Telecom Consultant BBS: What's Up? Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com I had a number for MCI's Consultant BBS from long ago: 1 800 873.5548. Is the BBS still going? Is that the right number (the number now gets a voice recording from triple-A Student Painting). Also, membership on the BBS was somewhat restricted to "consultants"; how would one qualify to be on that BBS (again, assuming that it's still going)? Replies to: dleibold@attmail.com Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Bill Gundry Subject: Land Line Obselete? Date: 17 Jun 91 16:12:48 GMT Organization: Hitachi America - Semiconductor & IC Greetings Pat, I was wondering if you, or any of your readers, had any comments regarding the explosion of cellular telephone services, such as follow-me roaming, etc. that could *possibly* make a land line obselete in some situations? If I was on the road a lot, I think I would prefer just to use a cell phone so that I could be reached at one number no matter where I am, home, next area code, or across the country. And, as the cost of the equipment and services decline -- hopefully -- over the years, this technology may extend into non-business situations, much like FAX service has extended from the business world into the home. Maybe the cell phone expansion will be the back way into the universal telephone number?? Well, just some thoughts. Regards, Bill Gundry Hitachi America, Ltd. - Semiconductor & IC Div. ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Now Repair is Computerized Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 19:22:32 CDT Due to storm damage my data line was pulled off at the pole so I got to call repair services for the first time in a while. First off it is no longer 611, but rather 1-571-1400 which then led me thru a very extensive menu where I could enter the number I was calling about, the number where I could be reached, informed me that I do not have a maintaince agreement with them, and even told me when I could expect it to be repaired. It is very clear how SWBT can be providing services less expensively than before -- it makes me do all the data entry rather than hiring an operator to do it! J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067 Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110 phil@wubios.WUstl.edu - Internet (314) 362-3617 uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP (314)362-2693(FAX) C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet ------------------------------ From: Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Smart Phones, Smart Network, Dumb Company? Date: June 17, 1991 8:56 pm EDT In response to an ATT ad for Smart Phones, I called for their brochure. What I got was a pretty and colorful brochure on expensive paper. It touts how Smart Phones ca help you find out the Mets score, balance your check book, improve your sex life and save the spotted owl. Of course, the brochure never once mentioned any technical details such as how to get more information. As a matter of fact it doesn't even mention any company names or anything concrete. Image marketing?? Ah, no wonder they needed to buy NCR. ------------------------------ From: Dick Jackson Subject: External ISDN TAs for 64kbps Operation Date: 17 Jun 91 21:03:23 GMT Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica We are running compressed video at 128 kbps over ISDN. Currently we are using Gandalf TA-1 TAs which support two V.35 ports and two RS-366 control ports. This TA has obviously been designed to be compatible with compression codecs such CLI's Rembrandt. We have the Gandalfs to be good performers, the problem is that lacking direct RS-366 control, we use the codec to do call setup and the bloody thing does the two calls in series, taking over 20 seconds (presumably it thinks it is working into the switched 56 kbps service, although I don't know why it would need to take so long). We would like to find a TA with two V.35 ports which is capable of being controlled via an RS-232 interface for call setup, etc. Fujitsu have been promising such a thing for a while but have not come through. Hayes and Northern Telecom have TAs with the Hayes command set, but only one V.35 port and I don't know how you could do Hayes commands through a synchronous interface anyway. We know of an inverse mux from Ascend Corp. which would do this job, but it is kind of pricy at over $4K. Maybe the answer is to somehow install RS-366 ports into our PC, but we don't know how to do this (i.e. don't know if there any products which support it). I would appreciate hearing from anyone who knows of any suitable products for our application. Thanks in advance. Dick Jackson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 16:08:35 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Call Completion By Directory Assistance This past Saturday, I was in Delaware and made a call to 215 directory assistance for a number in Reading, Pa., and I used the option of being connected to the number I had just requested. The recorded voice told me it would be a 30 cent charge, which I assume to be in addition to normal long distance charge. Notice that this is within the Philadelphia LATA. What if I had asked for a number on the following exchanges (in 215 but not in Philadelphia LATA)? 267 Denver 445 Terre Hill 484 Adamstown Would the direct-connect option be absent, with me being required to dial the number if I wanted to call it right away? ------------------------------ From: Dan Veeneman Subject: Radio Shack Call Forwarding System Date: Mon 17 Jun 1991 00:00:00 Hello Pat, I understand from reading TELECOM Digest that you are the (proud) owner of a Radio Shack CFS200 Call Forwarding System. I recently purchased two of the units, but after reading through the documentation have discovered that apparently the forwarded calls are limited to either three or ten minutes, depending on a switch setting. I was planning on using these units for data transfer calls that would last for as long as an hour (thus denying the ability to press the '*' key to extend the call time). Have you run across anyone or any documentation that suggests how one could extend the call forward connection time beyond ten minutes? Dan Veeneman dveenema@nis.natic.com [Moderator's Note: It might be possible to change something in the hardware to do this, but I do not know what. You should probably just use regular telco-provided call forwarding. I use my unit to turn call forwarding on and off remotely, by having the unit 'call forward' calls on one line to the number 1172-new number on the main line. If I forget to turn on call forwarding before I leave, I call the other line from elsewhere and it forwards the first line for me. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jun 91 15:20:00 CDT From: Paul Schlveck Subject: Disarmingly Curteous and Friendly US West Having just made a major career move and change of living accommodations in the Omaha, Nebraska area, it became necessary for me to disconnect and reconnect my phone service. I called US West and was on-line with a customer representative in about 20 seconds. Disconnecting was no problem, according to the rep, and could occurr on the day of my choice. In addition, I could have my choice of intercept message, either no info, or a new number of my choice. Outstanding! I gave them my mother's number back on the East Coast (being in DC, she is used to wierd phone calls :-). A call from a payphone confirmed that my service was shut off and the appropriate intercept message was inserted. Pardon me if I am surprised, but back at old Cut-Throat and Pirate Telephone (i.e. C&P) not only would I have been left hanging on the phone for an eternity, but my phone service may have been disconnected on the day of my choice, on another day, or not at all. And getting a proper intercept is like pulling teeth... Having settled my personal affairs and settled on a place for my computer to live (with me staying on as guest...<:-), I called US West again. A rep promptly answered the phone and took my information. Not only could I have my old phone number back (I was in the same exchange), there would be no charge. In all the commotion and chaos of my move, I had neglected to pay my last bill (about 20 bucks) and it was now over a week overdue (uh oh! Looks like payment in person and a large security deposit to restore service!) I sheepishly admitted this to the rep who asked me when I could make payment in full. I told her within the week. No problem, she could just mark my file that the bill would be paid shortly. (almost tempted to ask if I had a wrong number and if indeed this was the "phone company" so often parodied by Lilly Tomlin). Everything went smoothly from there on. Opted for basic unlimited. I wanted the newfangled "Voice Messaging System" that would take my calls when I was on the modem, but this won't reach my exchange till next year. Decided against the novelty of Caller ID. My phone service will be turned on this Wednesday, the 19th. Cost? About $21 a month. One thing I opted for was a listing in directory assistance, but no listing in the phone book. Can privacy-gurus on the newsgroup advise me as to whether this shields me from inclusion in so-called "reverse" directories? I haven't received any telemarketing calls in my year of having my phone number, and the last US West reverse directory I checked (1990) didn't list me. Would like to know for sure, though. Would like to avoid annoying calls from the {San Jose Mercury News} (if and when they publish a Midwestern edition) but don't wish to shut out friends and relatives who want to get my number. Another disturbing question was whether or not I required "an additional line for a computer modem ..." I asked for clarification of the question, but the rep couldn't give me any more info (reading a script, etc.). At first I thought they were trying to sell me another line, but I wonder if it is a sneaky way to monitor modem/BBS traffic for a possible Michigan Bell-style extortion racket. I of course, said "no." Any speculation? All in all, a very easy and successful dealing with the "phone company." My apologies to those that must endure in their daily lives the trials and tribulations inflicted on them by PacBell, C&P, New Jersey Bell, etc. Want to try out my number? Call (402) 555-1212. Paul Schleck ACMNEWS@zeus.unomaha.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #465 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26692; 18 Jun 91 4:29 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12892; 18 Jun 91 2:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29125; 18 Jun 91 1:32 CDT Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 1:03:56 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #466 BCC: Message-ID: <9106180103.ab26313@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Jun 91 01:03:36 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 466 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Cable Cut in Northern Virginia Causes Major Outage [Joseph Liu] Len Rose Indictment File in Archives [TELECOM Moderator] Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [Lloyd W. Taylor] Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [Rop Gonggrijp] Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [Miguel Cruz] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [William Vajk] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Jeff Sicherman] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Owen M. Hartnett] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [W.A.Simon] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Henry Mensch] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Cable Cut in Northern Virginia Causes Major Outage Date: 17 Jun 91 00:48:49 EDT (Mon) From: Joseph Liu CONSTRUCTION CREW ACCIDENTALLY CAUSES PHONE SERVICE OUTAGE IN NORTHERN VA. WASHINGTON (JUNE 14) UPI - A construction crew accidentally cut two phone cables in northern Virginia Friday, disrupting local and long-distance service for hundreds of thousands of customers during much of the day, officials said. The phone service disruption also made it impossible for several news operations that use a satellite link-up system in the area to transmit their data to domestic and Canadian clients. A construction crew working under contract for Bell Atlantic's C&P Telephone Co. cut two fiber-optic cables leading to 100,000 trunks, said phone company spokeswoman Ellen Fitzgerald. She said she could not estimate how many customers had their local phone service disrupted, but said perhaps hundreds of thousands of customers could not make long- distance calls at some point. Washington Gas & Light Co. independently estimated that nearly 200, 000 customers had their local telephone service disrupted. But all customers were able to call within their own community, and no one lost local emergency 911 service, said Fitzgerald. She said only one community - the northern Virginia community of Annandale, where the cables were cut - was not able to make any phone connections outside of the community. Fitzgerald said 90 percent of service was restored by 3 p.m., and the rest would be restored by the end of the day. The spokeswoman said it was highly unusual that two cables were cut. ''That's what made it catastrophic,'' she said. The phone company would not immediately identify the contractor whose construction crews cut the two cables. They were cut in a road-widening project. Among the major customers affected were several news organizations that use Washington International Teleport in Alexandria, Va., to send data by satellite to their clients. Jonathan Lytle, a technician at WIT, said that among the news organizations most affected because they do not have complete backup systems were United Press International, The Associated Press and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Most UPI customers in the United States and Canada were not able to receive news copy from about 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., said UPI spokesman Milton Capps. But international news clients of the agency were not affected. About 12 percent to 15 percent of AP's domestic radio network clients were without service until 2:10 p.m., according to AP's assistant chief of audio-engineering, Greg Crowley. Both Bell and MCI long-distance users initially were affected by the phone service disruption, but most long-distance calls normally going through the area of the cut cables were later rerouted, Fitzgerald said. Some mobile phone users also were affected, she said. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 0:07:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Len Rose Indictment File in Archives Jim Thomas of Computer Underground Digest has forwarded a detailed file to the Telecom Archives which is a complete copy of the indictment of Len Rose. Thiis file explains precisely what Len was *originally* charged with by the federal government. It will be filed in the telecom.security. issues sub-directory in the archives, and will be available for downloading later this week after I put it there. Jim has also agreed to take messages on Len Rose and the editorial comments here over the weekend for anyone interested in continuing the debate. This issue of the Digest contains a few more random selections from the heavy mail I received on the topic; others have been or will be forwarded to tj0jut1@niu.bitnet for consideration in CuD. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 09:18:22 -0400 From: "Lloyd W. Taylor" Subject: Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common Pat, Is there somewhere we can send a donation to Len's family, to help them get through this difficult time? Lloyd Taylor [Moderator's Note: Your concern is deeply appreciated, I'm sure. For yourself, and anyone else who wishes to contribute to the continuing expenses of Len Rose's defense or his family's welfare, I'm sure the best way to do it would be through his attorney, whose address escapes me immediatly ... perhaps one of the EFF people will provide it. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Rop Gonggrijp Subject: Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common Date: 17 Jun 91 18:43:35 GMT Organization: Hack-Tic telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) writes: > I think comp.org.eff.talk should either be moderated OR the 'eff' should > be taken out of the name of the group. It does NOT do them justice. Well, suppling (or supporting) a forum for free discussion does not mean that you have to agree with what goes on. Even in safe, clean, moderated discussions like here at comp.dcom.telecom im am quite sure that you do not agree with all the stuff posted. Newsgroups where you can speak freely are by defenition not moderated and groups that are moderated are not by defenition forums of free speech. Rop Gonggrijp (ropg@ooc.uva.nl) ------------------------------ From: mnc@css.itd.umich.edu (Miguel Cruz) Subject: Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common Organization: Univ. of Michigan ITD Consulting & Support Services Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 06:17:28 GMT In Telecom Moderator (Patrick Townson) writes: > Neither the government or your attorney can ram a guilty > plea down your throat >if you do not want to go along. Check out the > Federal Court Rules of Procedure: Have you ever been in a courtroom, Patrick? The only time the judge goes through that rigamarole is when there's a court full of reporters. I've sat through plenty of arraignments in my past life as a reporter; never unless it was a media circus with full theatrics did anyone make an issue of why the defendant was pleading guilty (aside from the judge mumbling a single sentence reminding him or her that the choice to plead guilty is a voluntary one). Likewise the idea that the government only cuts deals when there's insufficient evidence to definitely win a trial is purely idealistic fantasy. The prosecuting attorney makes deals under the following conditions: * case backlog * no political value in winning a trial * questionable political value in pursuing the matter in the first place * has no case but a scared defendant * law is unclear on the topic Our legal system bears only the palest, thinnest resemblance to what's on the books; it doesn't take long to realize that, and the longer you look, the more you see it. I'd be surprised to see Len getting a fair shake one step of the way given the appearance of his activities to a technophobic law enforcemtn community; especially when someone as well-versed in technical matters as yourself offhandedly dismisses defense of his rights with "I don't care one iota about this free speech nonsense" (very paraphrased). Peace, Miguel [Moderator's Note: Why, uh, yes ... I've been in federal courtrooms here in Chicago a few times, and one of the finest federal judges in the nation, George Leighton (he has since left the federal bench) almost invariably insisted upon examining defendants at length prior to accepting guilty pleas, plea-bargains or deals, etc. He was very conscious of how the Federal Defender's Office and the US Attorney would put their heads together for their mutual benefit ...and sometimes to hell with the defendant in the process! PAT] ------------------------------ From: William Vajk Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 14:13:36 GMT In article Owen M. Hartnett writes: > In article TELECOM Moderator writes: >> When Len is released, he'll be 'allowed to' carry the tag "ex-con" >> with him when he applies for work and tries to make new friends. One >> part of his punishment is that in the future he must reveal his status >> to prospective employers. > Something about the above bothers me, from a legal standpoint. Wasn't > there a movement quite a few years ago that said, in effect, that > since ex-cons have little chance of employment once they've told their > prospective bosses that they're ex-cons, that requirements to do so > were being mitigated, so that they would stand a better chance of > rehabilitating once they got out? > [Moderator's Note: (portion deleted for brevity) > In the case at hand, I quoted the court's decision without really > agreeing with it. If Len goes into non-computer employment, it should > not have to be discussed. If he goes into computer-related employment, > well ... I'd be reluctant to make him wear that ball and chain his > whole life. PAT] One of the discoveries I've made in following the "hacker" discussions on the net in the past couple of years is just how badly misinformed so many people are regarding matters on which they feel it appropriate to comment. It becomes relatively obvious in short order that the press on which we have historically depended for information has, at least in this realm, fallen sadly short of being informative to the level of detail one should be able to expect reliable. It is my understanding that the "reporting bad-boy details" extends past the end of his incarceration only for the duration of probation, a three year period. And if I am not mistaken, the mandate requires Len to divulge this information only to potential employers who have source code on their computers. On the issue of rehabilitation for Len, I don't understand what is being discussed here. Len's case is a direct consequence of his then good friend Rich Andrews being a model citizen and reporting the fact that some troublesome text was on his public access Unix system. I believe something important needs mention here, and that is a review of the cases which stemmed from that incident, and just how it was they were closed out. The only trial in the string of prosecutions was that of Craig Neidorf. That trial ended abruptly when the prosecution folded its tent and went home in the first week. Please take note that in spite of the many issues raised by the cases, none of the important ones has received a proper judicial review. Hardly coincidental, I dare say. Bill Vajk ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 14:46:06 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article telecom@eecs.nwu.edu >(TELECOM Moderator) writes: [ most of the story deleted ] I did find the tone of this 'report' rather preachy and superior but everyone's entitled to his opinion. I would feel more comfortable if PAT would label such things as 'Editorials' rather than imply they are factual reports, but I guess we all can tell. I am not at all familiar with the detailed history of this case or Len Rose, but one thing about it, as reported here, bothered me: If Mr. Rose is being selectively prosecuted for an action which others have committed without this response, either by the RBOC's or the US Government, it would appear that his connection, tenuous as it may have been, to Phone Phreakers was likely a principle motivation to 'go after him', perhaps as an example to those evil people. This smacks of 'guilt by association' or at least prosecution by association. I'm old enough to know that this borders on McCarthyism. There's enough escaping responsibility for who you know in this country without it being the basis for criminal prosecution too. I guess the Justice Department has caught all the Savings and Loan looters and needs something to keep busy. finally, another comment by PAT caught my eye: > And a knowledgeable sysadmin who is quietly cooperating with the > government tells me a federal grand jury is to returning > another cycle of indictments. Need I say more? I'm not sure about your state, but I believe in ours (California) it is a crime (felony?) to reveal or discuss information about the deliberations of a grand jury. I would expect there are similar laws for federal ones also. You 'knowledgeable sysadmin' could be violating some federal statutes himself by talking about them. You might even be in a grey area yourself, PAT, by passing them along, though I doubt it, Maybe you're protected as a 'reporter' though I'm not sure newsgroups and their editors constitute journalism or the press. I guess we should just hope the government is monitoring usenet or the internet too carefully ... Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: "Owen M. Hartnett" Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: 17 Jun 91 02:31:09 GMT Reply-To: "Owen M. Hartnett" Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science > [Moderator's Note: In your example, it probably would be unreasonable > to force a garage mechanic to tell a prospective employer he had > robbed a bank. It would not be as unreasonable to force the same > person to reveal this if he applied for employment as a bank teller. I guess my point is that currently the bank robber isn't forced to reveal that he was, even if he does apply for the bank teller position. Whether it is reasonable or not, I've heard of no other criminal sentence which required any criminal to reveal past criminal activity before being asked about it. (Of course, if asked, either as part of an employment application or directly, and he lies, this is wrong, but in most employment contracts, it's the employer beware, why is this one different?) It seems kind of funny when convicted murderers do not have reveal the past when not asked and why computer crackers are. Owen Hartnett omh@cs.brown.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 18:39:49 EDT From: "W.A.Simon" To Moderator: I guess you have been roasted over quite a few times by now, by Mike and a few others. I will nevertheless add my five cents worth. I feel you are doing a great job and I am sorry to see you jump to conclusions and accept so easily what our enlightened elites have to say about this case. You realize, I hope,this was a witch hunt all along, and that even if Mr Rose had committed some unspeakable act, justice was not the purpose of the exercise. As a rule, distrust the suits... Alain Home Sweet Office: (514) 934 6320 UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP ------------------------------ From: Henry Mensch Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 14:33:33 -0700 Subject: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Reply-To: henry@ads.com I find this sort of moralization really objectionable. i thought we were here to talk about telecommunications and not to be sermonized. Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / [Moderator's Note: Good point, Henry. So with this latest round of messages let's call the thread quits in so far as TELECOM Digest is concerned. Jim Thomas has agreed to take overflow discussion in a future issue of Computer Underground Digest (tk0jut1.niu.bitnet) for interested parties. My thanks to all who wrote me. Even if you did not get included here, I hope your point of view was fairly presented by one or more other writers. If someone will supply a mailing address for Len, his family or his attorney I will publish it for anyone who wishes to provide further financial assistance. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #466 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28768; 18 Jun 91 5:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20115; 18 Jun 91 3:46 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12892; 18 Jun 91 2:38 CDT Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 1:47:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #467 BCC: Message-ID: <9106180147.ab21529@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Jun 91 01:46:33 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 467 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [Eric Hildum] Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question [Laird Broadfield] Re: Wireless Phone Security [Dave Levenson] Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? [Ken Abrams] I Need Opinions on These PBX's [Laird Broadfield] Mich Bell Second Line Promo [Ken Jongsma] Historical Note - First Transcontinental Phone Line [haynes@cats.ucsc.edu] Comsec Data Security [Sam Parker] Netiquette and the Telecom Newsgroup [Tod McQuillin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 15:27:30 PDT From: hildum@ariel (Eric Hildum) Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus Reply-To: ntmtv!hildum@amdahl.com (Eric Hildum) Organization: Northern Telecom (Mountain View, CA) In article covert@covert.enet.dec.com (John R. Covert 05-Jun-1991 1440) writes: > Specifically, 416 392-7715 rings with double ring, but you are not > billed until someone answers. I have verified this from a trunk which > provides positive indication of answer supervision. Soon, this will no longer neccesarily be true (at least in the USA.) According to recent changes to FCC Part 68.314(h), when a DID call is forwarded out of the receiving switch, answer supervision will generally be returned after about 15-20 seconds (final value yet to be determined), regardless of the actual state of the call. This change was made at the request of the service providers; they felt that they were losing significant sums of money delivering DID calls to PBXes which, due to misprogramming or forwarding of calls over nonsupervisory trunks (eg, out to the public network again), did not return answer supervison when the call was actually answered. The upshot of it all is that you will no longer be able to tell from the call progress tones what the billing status of the call actually is. Eric Hildum Standard disclaimer here (I really don't know what I'm talking about) ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question Reply-To: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 03:35:35 GMT Okay, here it is: Can you have two cellphones (I guess you can't call them "desk sets", can you?) on the same number? I'm sure you could get ring-no-answer and busy-forward from one to another, but I'm talking about for-real both sets on one 7digit. What happens if they're in the same cell? What happens if they both originate a call? What happens if they both *answer* a call at the same time? I can mentally make a case that this would work, but I can also make a good case that it wouldn't. It all depends on how the interaction between the 7digit and the ESN works; does the switching equipment broadcast on the control channel for a particular device, or does it say "Would anyone like to be 555-1212 today?" and listen for replies? I'd appreciate it if one of you in-the-know people would give the $0.05 lecture on how this all works, and/or point me toward a cellular primer. (P.S. U.S. West is the B carrier out here; does anybody know if they have sales offices anywhere where bundling *is* legal?) Laird P. Broadfield UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Security Date: 18 Jun 91 03:13:30 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , sbeagle@kennels.actrix. gen.nz (Sleeping Beagle) writes: > This doesn't have encryption either, but the people at Telecom NZ tell > me that as it uses digital communications, there aren't any gadgets > around that can pick it up anyway. You apparently have one such gadget in your posession! The portable set, itself, contains whatever it needs to receive and decode the digital signals. Someone with another such phone could probably listen to your transmissions, by reverse-engineering and 'hacking' the phone, or perhaps by discovering how to put it into its maintenance or technician mode by entering a magic number into its keypad. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Ken Abrams Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, Illinois Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1991 21:28:10 GMT In article andys@ulysses.att.com writes: > In article you write: > Obviously, you missed the followup traffic from AT&T people, including > me, on this. AT&T now buys card verification services from the LECs Apparently I did miss some articles. I didn't even see MY post and only realized it had been published when I started receiving mail. > I hope we don't lose you as a customer. Certainly, the new card > should be a plus, not a minus, once you understand what it can do. And > it *CAN* do your local calls. I have received about five mail messages and have seen a couple of posts but so far, nobody has been able to tell me what the "government rules" are which "forced" AT&T to make this change (or so the literature implied). Some folks have been nice enough to tell me what the "real" reasons are for the change. Why were some of those things not mentioned in the announcement instead of the tripe about government rules?? I dislike being deceived even more than I dislike shoddy service! Several people have mentioned that the "old" (LEC) card number will still work for some unknown period of time. If this is true, the (potential) confusion with OCCs will still exist. I strongly suspect that there will be a cut-off for using the old numbers and it will not be in the too distant future. To achieve some of the aforementioned benefits, AT&T must stop accepting the LEC card numbers. After this happens, I suspect the the RBOCs will stop accepting AT&T cards for local calls since they will then be paying to access AT&T's data base for verification. The business benifits for AT&T are fairly obvious; the benefits to the consumer are not quite so obvious, however. As long as I can place a credit card call to my home number by dialing only 4 additional digits, I will stay with AT&T. If, and when, they force me to use the new number, my decision will probably go the other way if I can find a carrier that will let me use my phone number for credit card calls. Ken Abrams nstar!pallas!kabra437 Illinois Bell kabra437@athenanet.com Springfield (voice) 217-753-7965 ------------------------------ From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Subject: I Need Opinions on These PBXs Reply-To: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 03:48:49 GMT Over the last couple of years we've experienced "explosive growth" as they say, and while Centrex made sense once, it doesn't any more. Right now, we're looking at the following PBXs: AT&T System 25 (soon to be discontinued? that's the rumor...) Mitel SX-200D Toshiba Perception EX Meridian Option 11 (not quite out yet, doesn't seem mature...) The business has about 60 employees at this building, with about 80 lines among us, the intention is to bring in a T1 from AT&T for all the LD and 800 traffic, plus some DID trunks from Pac*Bell. We already have an Octel voicemail system, but that'll integrate with nearly anything. I'd appreciate any opinions pro, con, or neutral on the above list, and will accept (for a limited time!) pointers to anybody else I should look at. Thanks! Laird P. Broadfield lairdb@crash.cts.com (800)367-9947x9483 +1 619 792 9483 ------------------------------ Subject: Mich Bell Second Line Promo Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 22:04:02 EDT From: Ken Jongsma I just received some interesting marketing material from Michigan Bell. It would seem they are taking Pac Bell's lead in marketing second lines to residential customers for business purposes. Only MB is going Pac Bell one better. They want full business line rates! The flyer is entitled "Introducing Second Line from Michigan Bell" The letter and flyer are printed on very nice coated stock and go on at great length how one can save $35 off normal installation if one gets a "Second Line" installed. They also want to know if one plans on using an answering machine, FAX machine or modem on the line. (Why? To market future services?) They continue on about all the supposed advantages of a "Second Line" (emphasis theirs). Normal residential installation is around $40 from MB, so I thought the $35 off sounded pretty good. Then I reread the material very closely. They are definitely selling a business rate line as the $35 reduction is only 30% off the installation. Since business rates are higher and are all measured service, this is no big bargain. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries ken%wybbs@sharkey.umich.edu Grand Rapids, Michigan ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: Historical Note -- First Transcontinental Phone Line Date: 18 Jun 91 05:48:54 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Open Access Computing "Transcontinental telephone line is 75 years old" by Philip I. Earl, Nevada Historical Society published in The Record-Courier, Minden/Gardnerville, NV, July 13, 1989 "The Nevada Historical Society in Reno is currently featuring a new exhibit commemorating the 75th anniversary of the completion of the first transcontinental telephone line. "Sponsored by Nevada Bell and making use of photos from the archives of the Nevada Historical Society, the exhibit will run through the end of August [1989]. Call the Society at 789-0190 for further information. "The telephone in Nevada dates back to the installation of a set of instruments in the Consolidated Virginia Mine in Virginia City in November of 1877 by Frank Bell, a cousin of Alexander Graham Bell. He subsequently established the first central offices and household service in Virginia City and Reno, but the telephone business did not catch on. "In later years, he served a term as Warden of the Nevada State Prison, was appointed Lieutenant Governor on Nov. 30, 1889 and moved up to the Governorship on Sept. 1, 1890. "Telephone linkages with other communities were established as the years passed and long distance service between New York and Salt Lake City was in operation by 1911. In 1910, Theodore Vail, President of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, began planning for the bridging of the final gap across the Great Basin. "On Jan. 13, 1913, Bell Telephone Company of Nevada was incorporated as a holding company of Pacific Telephone & Telegraph for the construction of the last link. John J. Carty, chief engineer for AT&T, headed a team which developed the vacuum tube repeater and three survey crews were put in the field in Noverber, 1913 to lay out a line between Wadsworth, Nevada and the Utah line at Wendover. "Within five months, the surveyors had staked the entire line - over 400 miles - and right-of-way agents had determined property lines and purchased easements. "An army of 100 men, 34 wagons, 116 horses, four trucks, three automobiles and a crawler tractor had meanwhile descended upon Nevada, but a worse time could not have been picked. The spring of 1914 was one of the wettest in 30 years and crews often found the stakes under water when they arrived. Roads had to be built the whole way to haul in poles and wire as well as every crumb of food, piece of bedding and drop of water. "In some areas, the vehicles bogged down in the sand; in others they mired in the mud. Mosquitos swarmed out of the sagebrush in such numbers that the men had to make blankets out of barley sacks to keep the horses from being eaten alive and they had to be constantly on guard against rattlesnakes. There were also personal hardships aplenty, but the men persisted since each and every one of them felt a sense of mission and history as they went about their daily tasks. "A total of 13,900 poles were erected; each man had perhaps taken a million steps in the course of the four-month project and the linemen had climbed another half-million steps up and down the poles. "As the end of the line near Wendover was reached in the summer of 1914, Bell of Nevada crews met their counterparts from the Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company who had been working west from Salt Lake City. On June 17, a "Golden Spike" ceremony was held. "Telephone executives in dark, heavy business suits were on hand that day, as were townspeople, visitors who wanted to be present on that historic occasion, photographers and movie cameramen. When the last pole went up, the ground was tamped. A lineman then climbed up and nailed an American flag to the crossarm. He also attached a banner lettered: S.F. - N.Y. Toll Line Completed June 17, 1914 "The foreman signaled their crews and two teams and wagons crossed under the last pole as a movie cameraman cranked away. The final strands of wire were reeled off and linemen completed the final splice in the line which extended across 13 states. "For the next three days, the men celebrated, dining on roast duck, catered gourmet delicacies and champagne. As it happened, the dining tent was set up on the Utah side, so there was a beaten path across the line into Nevada where the bubbly wine and other libations were served in glass insulators. "Following several weeks of testing by telephone engineers, the line was declared to be ready for service on July 29, 1914. The first official coast-to-coast call was made on Jan. 15, 1915 at the opening of the Panama-Pacific Exposition. The call featured a conversation between Alexander Graham Bell in New York and his old collaborator, Thomas Watson, in San Francisco. [I've read elsewhere that Bell said, "Mr. Watson, come here. I want you." and Watson replied he would, but it would take him a lot longer than it did when Bell said those same words into the first successful telephone.] "A scant three-quarters of a century later, long distance telecommunications account for more than 40 million calls a day, 1.5 million of them from coast-to-coast." haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@ucsccats.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Thanks for an excellent article marking the 75th anniversary of this occassion. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Sam Parker Subject: Comsec Data Security Organization: NIA - Network Information Access Magazine Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 22:37:33 GMT I would like to know, what are ya'lls opinions on Comsec Data Security? Judge Dredd Editor - NIA Magazine samp@nuchat.sccsi.com ..!uunet!nuchat!samp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1991 0:25:34 EDT From: TM1D@nike.cheme.cmu.edu Subject: Netiquette and the Telecom Newsgroup Hello. I've been reading your newsgroup for some time now, and I find that it covers topics of great interest to me. However, I have never participated in a moderated newsgroup before, and I was hoping you could tell me: 1) Where to obtain information both on proper etiquette and the proper method for submitting an article for consideration. 2) Where to get the dictionary of confusing telecom acronyms. Thanks in advance for your reply. Tod McQuillin tm1d@nike.cheme.cmu.edu [Moderator's Note: (1) The new users group on Usenet has regular postings you will find of interest. But the main thing to remember is when writing to a moderated newsgroup, you must write to the moderator in email rather than attempting to reply/post direct to the newsgroup. In most cases, your direct posting would fail, and would be forwarded here anyway ... but not always. Try to edit your message in the style you see others in the group. Make sure your article has a pertinent title. Shorter articles get priority here. (2) You will find three files o finterest in the Telecom Archives which will explain the terms we use here. Use 'ftp lcs.mit.edu' and login anonymous, giving your name@site as the password. 'cd telecom-archives', and pull the three files which begin with the word 'glossary'. Be sure to get the file sent to us from {Phrack Magazine} with glossary terms. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #467 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01968; 19 Jun 91 2:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03743; 19 Jun 91 1:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22421; 19 Jun 91 0:01 CDT Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 23:48:06 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #468 BCC: Message-ID: <9106182348.ab16040@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 18 Jun 91 23:47:24 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 468 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Len Rose Assistance Fund - Baltimore Attorney [Mike Godwin] Len Rose Assistance Fund - Chicago Attorney [Brendan Kehoe] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Irving Wolfe] Re: German Telephone Unification [Wolf Paul] Re: Local Calling Areas (was Surprise!!) [Mark W. Wheatley] Re: John Cooperated With the Mercury? [John Higdon] Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Paul Wexelblat] Re: I Need Opinions on These PBXs [Jim Langridge] Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? [Andy Sherman] Re: Wireless Phone Security [Dan Jacobson] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Godwin Subject: Len Rose Assistance Fund - Baltimore Attorney Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 11:42:42 GMT > [Moderator's Note: Your concern is deeply appreciated, I'm sure. For > yourself, and anyone else who wishes to contribute to the continuing > expenses of Len Rose's defense or his family's welfare, I'm sure the > best way to do it would be through his attorney, whose address escapes > me immediatly ... perhaps one of the EFF people will provide it. PAT] Len's attorney is Jane Macht of Baltimore. Although I don't have her address at my terminal here, her phone number is 301-294-0461. Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-1550 EFF, Cambridge, MA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 09:18:47 -0400 From: Brendan Kehoe Subject: Len Rose Assistance Fund - Chicago Attorney Reply-To: brendan@cs.widener.edu From CuD 2.10: Sheldon Zenner, the attorney who successfully defended Craig Neidorf, has agreed to channel donations to Len for those wishing to support him. *THIS IS NOT* a legal defense fund, but humanitarian assistance to provide food, rent, and utilities for wife and family. Contributing even a few dollars, the cost of renting a video tape, is one means of supporting one who appears to be bearing the brunt of the hostility of government toward the CU. Len Rose Donation c/o Sheldon Zenner c/o Katten, Muchin and Zavis 525 W. Monroe, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 Brendan Kehoe - Widener Sun Network Manager - brendan@cs.widener.edu Widener University in Chester, PA A Bloody Sun-Dec War Zone [Moderator's Note: So here are two contacts where one may assist in helping Len and his family for those who wish to do so. Even a dollar from each person reading this would result many thousands of dollars to insure the kids are fed and the rent is paid, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Date: 18 Jun 91 02:58:06 GMT Reply-To: Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island I missed the original article in this thread, but I have some 700 feet of direct burial 25-pair, left over from a temporary job the local phone company did here for me until they could do the real job with 50-pair. (I had to pay for, and got stuck with, the 25-pair.) I honestly don't remember the exact price, but I think I paid 48 cents a foot, which checks with local supply houses suggested is a good price to begin with. If someone would take the whole thing and pick it up here, I'd sell it for just 30 cents a foot, assuming all this happens soon. Please get in touch with me if you're interested. I'm not interested in shipping it or selling little pieces, but I'd have a guy drive it to Seattle or Tacoma for you if you don't have a truck and want the whole thing and will pay the full 48 cents. Then I'll take the loss on the truck and driver instead of on the cable. ------------------------------ From: Wolf PAUL Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification Date: 17 Jun 91 13:22:47 GMT Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu (Linc Madison) writes: > First of all, I think that Pacific Bell has had more than enough > notice of the reunification of Germany that they could have made some > mention of Germany and then listed "the area formerly the G.D.R." or > something like that. Granted. But in a country that sends mail addressed to Vienna, Austria via Sydney or Melbourne, what do you expect? (I am not joking!) > Beyond that, though, what are the plans for bringing Germany under a > single country code? Have the plans been finalized and a date set, or > is it all still up in the air? It seems clearly unacceptable to have > Berlin a united city in a unified German nation, but with two country > codes. [apologies if this has been covered recently] I think it is mostly a financial problem. There are problems which ***to the citizens*** of the former GDR are much more pressing than the issue of country codes, and there does not seem enough money even for those things without raising taxes rather more dramatically than the citizens of the former FRG are willing to put up with. For the time being, quite a few things just continue as they have always been, Postal Codes and Car Tags come to mind. The former FRG and GDR continue to use their old Postal Codes, with FRG-Codes prefixed with "W" (West), and GDR Codes prefixed with "O" (Ost=East). And even newly registered cars from the former GDR are recognizable by the fact that their license tags do not look like the FRG tags, even though they now sport the international code "D" instead of "DDR". Symbolic changes were important in Germany during the year leading up to unification, and for a short time thereafter; now reality has caught up with the people, and symbols are the last thing folks worry about. W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465 INTERNET: wnp@iiasa.iiasa.ac.at FAX: +43-2236-71313 UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp HOME: +43-2236-618514 BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@aearn.BITNET ------------------------------ From: Mark W Wheatley Subject: Re: Local Calling Areas (was Surprise!!) Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 16:21:08 GMT In article arielle@taronga.hackercorp. com (Stephanie da Silva) writes: > In article , gs26@prism.gatech.edu > (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >> The Metro Atlanta calling area extends for 80 some miles in a couple >> directions ... it'll be in its own area code in March, 1992. >> Can anybody top that? > I'm surprised no one has mentioned Houston. I thought we had the > largest local calling area in the US. The reason why so many local > BBSs have sprung up around here. A local paper here (Capitol Hill Beacon) announced that the Oklahoma City calling area has been expanded to include all exchanges wthin 35 miles of the "Central Oklahoma City exchange area". The resulting area is said to to be "three times the size of Rhode Island" and the paper states the new area is the "biggest in the nation". It's about 4,000 suqre miles if I remember my formulas correctly :-). For those with a map handy, it runs from Purcell in the South to Guthrie in the North, El Reno on the West and Shawnee on the East. Of course for the ability to call this far we have to pay $25.00/month. And we still have to pay $1.50/month for tone service. You gotta love Oklahoma ... University of Oklahoma * Mark W. Wheatley Norman Campus * mwwheatl@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu BS in Computer Science May 1992 * CIS: 72417,3171 ------------------------------ Subject: Re: John Cooperated With the Mercury? Date: 18 Jun 91 11:27:26 PDT (Tue) From: John Higdon Todd Inch writes: > Perhaps this kind of slant: "Telemarketers Harrass Millions of > Innocent Residents -- Law Suit Threatened" ? > Seriously, I'm surprised you cooperated with the "perpetrators". Alex Barnum, of course, has nothing to do with the telemarketing slime at what is considered (as much as I hate to admit it) by many to be California's finest newspaper. Mr. Barnum approached me with concerns that many of the "popular" computer hacker stories were less than accurate or complete. No excrement! If there is anyone in the media who is interested in factual and complete reporting, I am most willing to offer my time and cooperation to further that end. Even if it is someone from the "dreaded" {San Jose Mercury}. Mr. Barnum, unlike Joe Abernathy, seems to have a handle on it. I was not disappointed by his latest effort. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: Paul Wexelblat Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire Reply-To: mailrus!ulowell!wex@uunet.uu.net Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept. Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 18:29:02 GMT About old garden hose as conduit, trouble pulling wire through; I have used silicone spray and/or "pulling compound" (your local electrical supply house/electrician) when the going got rough; buy I have never had trouble with short lengths (100'). The gpstwr!merv@eecs.nwu.edu (Merv Graham) suggestion of plastic water pipe sounds fine; I was suggesting a way to reuse junque. Wex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 17:03:53 edt From: jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil Subject: Re: I Need Opinions on These PBXs In Vol 11 #467 lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: > Right now, we're looking at the following PBXs: > AT&T System 25 (soon to be discontinued? that's the rumor...) > Mitel SX-200D > Toshiba Perception EX > meridian Option 11 (not quite out yet, doesn't seem mature...) Laird, I manage and maintain an SX200 (not 200D) here at my office. I like the support Mitel offers and I like the the equipment. I haven't had a whole lot of experience with any of the others though I like what AT&T equipment I have worked with. Jim Langridge | jlangri@relay.nswc.navy.mil | NICCS OA Synetics Corp. | (703) 663 2137 | jlangri 24 Danube Dr. | (703) 663 3050 (FAX) | King George, VA.| 22485-5000 | ------------------------------ From: andys@ulysses.att.com Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 18:25:11 EDT In article kabra437@athenanet.com (Ken Abrams) writes: > I have received about five mail messages and have seen a couple of > posts but so far, nobody has been able to tell me what the "government > rules" are which "forced" AT&T to make this change (or so the > literature implied). Some folks have been nice enough to tell me what > the "real" reasons are for the change. Why were some of those things > not mentioned in the announcement instead of the tripe about > government rules?? I dislike being deceived even more than I dislike > shoddy service! What we all gave you were lots of good reasons for AT&T to start using its own card numbers, even if there were no regulatory considerations. However, there is one. In short, the FCC says we have to issue cards with our own card numbers on them or get out of the card issuing business. Currently, under the terms of Shared Network Access Facility Arrangements (SNAFA) set forth by the FCC, AT&T and RBOCS are allowed to share the database and credit card numbers used for card validation. As of 1/1/92, the SNAFA come to an end, and the RBOCS *MUST* use their own database for their own cards and AT&T *MUST* use its own database for its own cards (or get out of the card business). I think that the RBOCs and AT&T are free to sell each other verification services for calls carried by one and billed to the others card, so an RBOC Calling Card should still be able to be used for AT&T calls, just as your Universal Card can be used for RBOC carried calls. Nobody is deceiving you. Come 1/1/92, any card issued by AT&T must have a different number from a card issued by the LECs. I've not seen the announcement that came with the cards, but I gather it wasn't detailed. But explaining all that stuff in the above paragraph to the general consumer LD marketplace (as opposed to Telecom Digest readers) is not an easy task. If you tell too little you get flamed in the Digest. If you tell too much, you confuse an awful lot of people with information they neither want nor need. The statement that new card numbers are being issued because of new regulatory requirements is complete and accurate. Now, if *I* were writing the enclosure, I'd sure put an "and by the way, you get these benefits as a side effect" paragraph and make it clear that local calls can be charged to the new AT&T card. But that's just a quibble. The enclosure was honest, after all (as I always hoped and expected of my employer). I hope that this can put the deception issue out to pasture once and for all. > Several people have mentioned that the "old" (LEC) card number will > still work for some unknown period of time. If this is true, the > (potential) confusion with OCCs will still exist. I strongly suspect > that there will be a cut-off for using the old numbers and it will not > be in the too distant future. To achieve some of the aforementioned > benefits, AT&T must stop accepting the LEC card numbers. After this > happens, I suspect the the RBOCs will stop accepting AT&T cards for > local calls since they will then be paying to access AT&T's data base > for verification. As I pointed out to you in private mail, unless the FCC forbids it, I'd imagine that any IXC would want to accept LEC-issued cards to pick up casual business from people who have other Dial-1 carriers. The major business benefits from the new cards in terms of relationships with regular customers still applies. Depending on the nature of the regulations, I doubt that the LECs would stop using AT&T and/or OCC verification services out of pique. They risk pissing off too many people. > The business benifits for AT&T are fairly obvious; the benefits to the > consumer are not quite so obvious, however. As long as I can place a > credit card call to my home number by dialing only 4 additional > digits, I will stay with AT&T. If, and when, they force me to use the > new number, my decision will probably go the other way if I can find a > carrier that will let me use my phone number for credit card calls. In the absence of any regulations, the consumer still benefits from protection against inadvertant AOS billing. Given the volume of customer complaints on this issue, AOS billing to what customers *thought* was and AT&T card is a customer relations problem, not to mention lost revenue. But it is good for the consumers to know that they can control with whom they do business by what card they use, which they cannot with the old cards. But all that is beside the point, in a way. The Feds require the change. This is just why it would be a good thing to do anyway. Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ AUDIBLE: (908) 582-5928 READABLE: andys@ulysses.att.com or att!ulysses!andys What? Me speak for AT&T? You must be joking! [But the regulatory information did come from reliable sources] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 18:13 CDT From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Security "Paul" == Paul Elliott x225 writes: > We have been discussing the issue of "wireless eavesdropping" on > cordless and cellular phone conversations [...] On ABC-TV's "This Week With David Brinkley" White House staffer John Sununu claimed he was `on the phone practically the whole time' as he was being chauffeur driven from Washington to New York to attend a rare stamp auction, among other things. One wonders how secure his phone was ... (those had better be all business calls, John :-)). [Replies: to the Digest.] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #468 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06850; 19 Jun 91 15:52 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31689; 19 Jun 91 14:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08232; 19 Jun 91 3:22 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29183; 19 Jun 91 2:12 CDT Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 1:51:24 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #469 BCC: Message-ID: <9106190151.ab22939@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 19 Jun 91 01:50:31 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 469 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act [Doug Fields] Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal [Doug Fields] Re: MCI Telecom Consultant BBS: What's Up? [Paul Cook] Deregulation Down Under (and Phone Cards) [David E. A. Wilson] Funny Fault [John Pettitt] Smart/Friendly Modems [Grant A. Lowe] Re: 1991 AT&T Outage [Kath Mullholand] LOD Goes Corporate - Meet the Folks at Comsec [Time Magazine via C Neidorf] 1-900-GIRLS [Dan Jacobson] Questions About Caller*ID Boxes [John Temples] CO Buildings [Robert L. Oliver] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [tanner@ki4pv.compu.com] Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? [Steve Forrette] Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [Greg Hennessy] Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common [Mark Eckenwiler] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Doug Fields Subject: Re: Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 15:59:56 GMT In article Scott Horne writes: > I'm not a lawyer, either, but I think you've been misinformed. First, > the First Amendment doesn't give anyone else the right to speak about > anything on your property. Second, the First Amendment (_q.v._) > doesn't differentiate between political speech and other speech, > anyway; hence, either "NO SOLICITING" signs apply to all solicitations > or they apply to none. Third, "the First Amendment right of the > solicitor to engage in political speech" guarantees only that the > government can't prevent political speech; it says nothing about the > rights of others to keep you from annoying them on their property. I thought the first amendment gave you the right to say anything to anyone anywhere. While you may be welcome on someone's private property, the "No soliciting" sign might imply if you say something then you are automatically unwelcome, turning you from a welcome guest to an unwanted tresspasser. Thus, you can still say what you want, but you have another problem: you are tresspassing, and there are certain rights property owners have over tresspassers. Remember -- "the pursuit of happiness" was "the pursuit of property" ... indicating (to me, IMHO) that owning your own piece of property is a place where you can have your own private happiness -- and you can't have that if someone is annoying you. Doug Fields -- 100 Midwood Road, Greenwich, CT 06830 --- (FAX) +1 203 661 2996 uucp: uunet!areyes!admiral!doug ------- Thank you areyes/mail and wizkid/news! Internet: fields-doug@cs.yale.edu --------------- (Voice@Home) +1 203 661 2967 BBS: (HST/V32) +1 203 661 1279; (MNP6) -2967; (PEP/V32) -2873; (V32/V42) -0450 ------------------------------ From: doug@admiral.uucp (Doug Fields) Subject: Re: Fighting Phone Hackers in SoCal Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 15:50:49 GMT In article Mark Seecof writes: > steal. And these are not kids who need to steal. They come from > white-collar families.'' Obviously; otherwise how could they afford the computer and modem? (I'm not saying that this is a necessity, but to have a high end '386 and a HS modem it can be a pretty safe assumption.) > with search warrants. If the hacker seemed relatively small, however, > Bigley took matters into her own hands, telephoned the suspect and > presented an ultimatum: Either pay up or face criminal charges. Not to protect the "cracker"'s actions, but this is technically extorsion, no? But five bucks says it brings in a LOT more revenue than just handing the name over to the police. > Teen-age hackers tend to be ``very intelligent and somewhat > introverted,'' says Garden Grove Police Detective Richard Harrison, a "crackers", please. I pride myself in being a legit "hacker". > educate themselves about their children's computers. ``If a kid is > spending a whole bunch of time on his computer and it's hooked up to a > modem, he's not just running his software. What is he doing on that >computer? Does he really need a modem?'' > [ed. note -- this officer may be an expert on fraud but is clearly > unqualified to make such sweeping assertions about what (young) people > do with computers. Playing rogue can eat up as much time as hacking > while the modem remains idle.] Wow; wouldn't my mother love this person. Not only am I on the computer for two hours or so a day (of course they must be the only two hours that my mother ever notices me), but I have SIX modems ... I must be a big time mafia boss in the computer business by that reasoning! Doug Fields -- 100 Midwood Road, Greenwich, CT 06830 --- (FAX) +1 203 661 2996 uucp: uunet!areyes!admiral!doug ------- Thank you areyes/mail and wizkid/news! Internet: fields-doug@cs.yale.edu --------------- (Voice@Home) +1 203 661 2967 BBS: (HST/V32) +1 203 661 1279; (MNP6) -2967; (PEP/V32) -2873; (V32/V42) -0450 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 17:48 GMT From: Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: MCI Telecom Consultant BBS: What's Up? Dave Leibold writes: > I had a number for MCI's Consultant BBS from long ago: 1 800 873.5548. > Is the BBS still going? Yes, but they changed the number sometime back. The new number is: 800-274-6241 Paul Cook Proctor & Associates Redmond, WA 206-881-7000 3991080@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Deregulation Down Under (and Phone Cards) Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 03:35:45 GMT 1) Deregulation of the first phone in homes and small businesses. From July 1st, 1991 consumers will have three choices wrt the first phone in their home or small business: a) No change - continue renting the phone they have from Telecom Australia. If it breaks down then Telecom will either fix it or replace it at no charge in the home. b) Continue renting from Telecom but if it breaks take it into the Telecom office and have it repaired or replaced on the spot - save $1.25/month ($15/annum). c) Return rental phone to Telecom and buy your own phone from either Telecom or any retailer - save $2.50/month ($30/annum). If you have a new service installed with this option you get a once-only discount of $43 on the connection fee [$250 last time I checked]. 2) Phone cards. Available in $2, $5, $10 & $20 sizes. The card value is debited in multiples of the $0.30 payphone call unit. If the card is left with an odd amount (eg $0.10) this can be used to make one local call. The card can have a phone number programmed into it - either tempor- arily or permanently and either overdialable or not. Thus for example parents could buy a card and program the home number into it and give it to a child and know it could only be used to call home. If the number is overdialable you have 4 seconds after insertion of the card [before it dials the pre-programmed number] to dial a different number. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ From: John Pettitt Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 07:26:00 BST Organization: Specialix International Subject: Funny Fault Yesterday due to a fault all calls to our local ComputerLand store were going to `Toys R Us', the strange thing is I don't think anybody noticed. John Pettitt Specialix International jpp@specialix.co.uk ------------------------------ From: "Grant A. Lowe @second" Subject: Smart/Friendly Modems Reply-To: "Grant A. Lowe @second" Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1991 18:02:33 GMT I'm checking to see what anybody knows about Smart/Friendly modems. There is a dealer locally selling them for under $250. The dealer told me that it is American made, supports V.42, and is guranteed for one-year. Can anybody tell me anything about the modem, either good or bad? Thanks for any help! grant ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 9:02:49 EDT From: KATH MULLHOLAND Subject: Re: 1991 AT&T Outage Refer to {Science News}, Vol. 139, page 104 article titled "Finding Fault" by Ivars Peterson which gives a brief summary of a software fault responsible for a nine-hour long-distance outage on AT&T's long distance network in January of 1990. Kath Mullholand Durham, NH ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 11:30:06 CDT From: Craig Neidorf Subject: LOD Goes Corporate - Meet the Folks at Comsec Reprinted from TIME Magazine, June 24, 1991, page 13. AFTER YOU'VE BEAT 'EM -- JOIN 'EM After inflitrating some of America's most sensitive computer banks, is there any challeng let for a digital desperado? Only to go legit, say three former members of the notorious hacker group, the LEGION OF DOOM, who have quit the outlaw game to start Comsec Data Security. The Legionnaries claimed an 80% success rate in penetrating computer networks, and now they want to teach private industry to protect itself from the next generation of intruders. "You can't put a price tag on the information we know," says Scott Chasin, a Comsec partner. But they'll try. (This article features a color photo of the three founding members: Erik Bloodaxe, Doc Holiday, and Malefactor.) Craig Neidorf C483307 @ UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 18:38 CDT From: Dan_Jacobson@att.com Subject: 1-900-GIRLS Regarding Northern Telecom History; TONY@mcgill1.bitnet (Tony Harminc) adds: > (I can't resist an aside on the Simcoe Street building. This > was built in the early 1970s, and is a very tall, modern looking > building *with no windows* right in the middle of downtown. If > Tony> I am conducting out-of-country visitors around town, I often > contrive to pass by the building and say in an off-hand manner: > "that's the headquarters of the Secret Police". The building > looks forbidding enough that it sometimes works with gullible > visitors.) For added kicks, take them past your TV set late at night. If they are not English speakers, then they probably would get the impression that often those "talk to the girl of your dreams" 1-900 phone advertisements are apparently for prostitution. Certainly this "fool the foreigner" theme must have already been used in a Saturday Night Live type TV show skit already. Also, I noticed "Member of NAIS" (or was it NIAS?) flashed on the screen during one of these ads here in Chicagoland. Perhaps another Telecom correspondent can fill us in on this organization. [Replies: to the Digest.] ------------------------------ From: John Temples Subject: Questions About Caller*ID Boxes Organization: The Museum of Barnyard Oddities Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1991 18:27:03 GMT With the imminent arrival of Caller*ID here in Florida, I want to get the necessary boxes required to support it. Even though the tentative turn-on date of Caller*ID is July 1, the business office has no information to offer me yet. Does one normally purchase the display box from the phone company, or is rental of one included in the monthly fee for Caller*ID? I'd like to get a box that has an RS-232 port on the back so I can have my computer monitor it. Is such a device available? Finally, what about support for multiple lines? Are there multi-line boxes I can hook all my phone lines to, or must I purchase a separate box for each line? John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john) ------------------------------ From: "Robert L. Oliver" Subject: CO Buildings Organization: Rabbit Software Corp. Date: 19 Jun 91 03:17:29 GMT macy@fmsys.uucp (Macy Hallock) writes: > Look for brick buildings, kinda square, usually one story, with no > windows ... the older buldings for SxS were usually two or three story > in larger areas and did have windows ... these were usually in downtown > areas ... or ask a craftsman. Ahh ... the CO building in my town, Phoenixville, PA is a two or three story building with windows right downtown and was cleared out some time ago to make way for the new switch they're putting in now. Apparently Bell of PA (our Local Bell Atlantic division) is putting in DMS100s not 5ESSs. Comments? We just had a slew of mysterious problems with our DID lines at work (not in Phoenixville), but I suspect that could happen to any switch. The incomming trunks would just all light, but there weren't really calls there. This would go on for either a brief time (7 different incomming phanotom calls) or longer (minutes). Lots of equipment swapping and a few levels of technical problem escalation and nearly a week of problems finally ended. This was all accompanied by real DID calls not being delivered to us. Robert Oliver Rabbit Software Corp. 215 993-1152 7 Great Valley Parkway East robert@hutch.Rabbit.COM Malvern, PA 19355 ...!uunet!cbmvax!hutch!robert ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 04:05 EDT From: tanner@ki4pv.compu.com Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand [Moderator's Note: Even though I wanted to close out this thread here in the Digest, I had the late arrivals which follow below. PAT] Mr. Rose is on his way to jail for posessing unlicensed source code. The world is now safer for humanity. One stark bad example. Heading off to jail. Now, let us contrast the damage done by Mr. Rose to the damage done by the SS to Steve Jackson Games, and scale an appropriate sentence for them. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 02:38:31 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Well Len, Was it Worth a Prison Term? Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Jim Thomas writes: > And, contrary to another post in the same issue of TCD, there > is no evidence that the programs Len possessed or sent were ever used > in criminal activity. Isn't transportation of stolen property across state lines "criminal activity?" > The question is whether his actions justify a prison sentence, and to my > mind the answer is an emphatic *NO!*. I agree -- probation would have been more appropriate, IMHO. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 10:30:35 -0400 From: Greg Hennessy Subject: Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common Organization: University of Virginia In article is written: The title that you chose borders on libel. How long are you going to libel Len? For someone who claims to sympathise with Len, you sure do kick him a lot. Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w ------------------------------ From: Mark Eckenwiler Subject: Re: What Len Rose and Al Capone Have in Common Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 00:54:29 GMT Organization: Dudley & Stephens, Maritime Caterers Writing for the plurality in , Justice mnc@css.itd.umich.edu stated: > In Telecom Moderator (Patrick Townson) > writes: >> Neither the government or your attorney can ram a guilty >> plea down your throat >if you do not want to go along. Check out the >> Federal Court Rules of Procedure: > Have you ever been in a courtroom, Patrick? The only time the judge > goes through that rigamarole is when there's a court full of > reporters. I've sat through plenty of arraignments in my past life as > a reporter; never unless it was a media circus with full theatrics did > anyone make an issue of why the defendant was pleading guilty (aside > from the judge mumbling a single sentence reminding him or her that > the choice to plead guilty is a voluntary one). What PAT describes is Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It is the *only* means by which a federal judge can take a guilty plea, and the allocution (colloquy between judge and defendant regarding factual basis for plea, etc.) must be made *on the record*. Absent compliance with Rule 11, no guilty plea in federal court will ever hold up on appeal. Period. Mark Eckenwiler eck@panix.com ...!cmcl2!panix!eck ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #469 ******************************  ISSUES 470 AND 471 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 470 FOLLOWS 471.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08481; 20 Jun 91 16:11 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id as21590; 20 Jun 91 14:59 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23378; 20 Jun 91 3:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03554; 20 Jun 91 2:32 CDT Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 1:24:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #471 BCC: Message-ID: <9106200124.ab19935@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Jun 91 01:24:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 471 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: More Strange Recorded Messages [Jim Hickstein] Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Jim Redelfs] Re: Comsec Data Security [B.J. Herbison] Re: The Wonderful Thing About Standards [Arnold Robbins] Re: German Telephone Unification [Charles Hoequist] Tour Given Freely of CO; No Questions Asked [Doctor Math] Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Phone Hackers) [Kurt Guntheroth] Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' [Jennifer Lafferty] IDDD From a Cellular Phone [Jim Hickstein] Hook Tapping [Dan Shapin] Need Information About Symposia [J. Porter Clark] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 14:06:39 PDT From: Jim Hickstein Subject: Re: More Strange Recorded Messages > "For your convenience, the number you have reached, > 800-338-wxyz, has been changed. The new number is 800-676-wxyz ...". Perhaps this is yet another example of a common abuse of English that drives me up the wall: "If X, then Y" where X and Y have no such relationship. My favorite is: "If you're interested, the number is nnn-mmmm." And if I'm *not* interested, the number is something else? This I've got to see: truly action at a distance, and at faster than the speed of light, no doubt! All I have to do to change the physical property of something is change my mind! :-) Maybe they really meant "For your convenience, we're *telling* you that the number ... has changed." Of course, it's really for their convenience either way, but it would be too much to ask that they admit this in their announcement. Jim Hickstein, Teradyne/Attain, San Jose CA, (408) 434-0822 FAX -0252 jxh@attain.teradyne.com ...!{decwrl!teda,apple}!attain!jxh ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 15:01:41 CST From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Reply-To: ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@uunet.uu.net Organization: Macnet Omaha Mark Miller wrote: > as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in a > digital format. I believe this is in error. Although AT&T is actively replacing the analog facilities within their VAST system, I'm sure they have a LONG way to go. It wouldn't surprise me to find that only HALF of their traffic makes the long haul digitally -- perhaps even less. > is this "fiber optic quality" spiel just some marketing drival You can bet that it is actively persued my the marketing honchos, but there is certainly a lot of truth to the implication that data transmitted via optical fiber is usually of a higher quality than that which is not. As far as I know, ALL transmissions over fiber ARE digital, whereas NOT all (at LEAST!) transmissions over OTHER type of plant is. Hear a pin drop? So what?!! A fat lot of good that kind of "quality" means when there's a Sports Illustrated "SneakerPhone" on one end and yet another CheapieChirper phone on the other!! JR --- Tabby 2.2 MacNetOmaha(402)289-2899 Multitasking w/MacOrphans (1:285/14) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 08:43:40 PDT From: "B.J. 19-Jun-1991 1142" Subject: Re: Comsec Data Security > I would like to know, what are ya'lls opinions on Comsec Data Security? In my opinion, the phrase `Communication Security Data Security' sounds like gibberish. If you meant `Data Comsec', then I'm in favor of it. I would like to have the option to encrypt everything (data or voice) I send over telephone connections (both the old-fashioned kind and cellular). I've also spent eight years working for a group that develops network security products. B.J. ------------------------------ Reply-To: arnold@audiofax.com From: Arnold Robbins Subject: Re: The Wonderful Thing About Standards Date: 19 Jun 91 18:41:13 GMT Organization: AudioFAX, Inc., Atlanta Georgia In article forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: >> "That's the wonderful thing about Standards; there're so many >> to choose from!" > I believe this can be attributed to Nick Tredennick, who designed the > MC68000 architecture, among other things. But I could be wrong. For sure it's in the first edition of Andy Tanenbaum's book "Computer Networks." I don't know if it made it into the second edition or not. Arnold Robbins AudioFAX, Inc. 2000 Powers Ferry Road, Suite 200 / Marietta, GA. 30067 INTERNET: arnold@audiofax.com Phone: +1 404 618 4281 UUCP: emory!audfax!arnold Fax-box: +1 404 618 4581 ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jun 91 15:00:00 EDT From: Charles Hoequist Subject: Re: German Telephone Unification Just to add some information about German government activity in getting phone service to the Five New Bundeslaender, as they are referred to there: As has been pointed out, people have started using cellular phones to bring their connections with them. This should intensify, as the German federal govt. granted a mobile phone license to a private company (Mannesmann Mobilfunk), the first time anybody's been allowed to compete with the post/telephone monopoly Telekom.There are plans to grant a second private license this year, but restricted to the F.N.B. (are they afraid of some wireless-telephone entrepeneur beating Telekom on its home turf?) This could lead to the F.N.B. using wireless phone almost exclusively for the immediate future, a definite reversal of the situation elsewhere, where wireless is for gadget lovers and yuppies. To improve the wire infrastructure, the German federal government has budgeted 55 billion DM from now through 1997 (about US$32.3 billion right now). This is certainly a low figure, however, as the 1991 improvements budget has already had close to two billion marks added to it. Don't look for anything like the MFJ taking place in Germany, though; Telekom's monopoly is written into the constitution. I can only assume there was some sort of narrow interpretation of the relevant clause in order to allow the wireless competition. Charles Hoequist hoequist@bnr.ca BNR Inc. PO Box 13478 Research Triangle Park NC 27709-3478, USA 919-991-8642 [Moderator's Note: Now that is what we need here in the USA: A constitutional amendment declaring there is but One True Telephone Company and that the others are unconstitutional. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Subject: Tour Given of CO Freely; No Questions Asked Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 10:41:08 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) writes: > I may be moving my office soon, and because I entertain fantasies of > my own leased line connection to the Internet, I'd like to move right > next door to my CO. > Easier said than done. > I live in a small (5k) suburb of San Diego, and I *know* that I have a > CO inside the town limits. I even know it's a 1AESS. (619/259) For > some reason or other, TPC considers the physical location of its > plants to be some kind of top secret information -- probably so that > saboteurs won't come ashore and blow them up. How strange. I called, asked for, and got a tour of my CO (219/28x and 23x) They have a 5ESS and a 1AESS. Some of the out of service recordings and such are on wheels covered with magnetic tape (these are on the 1A floor, not the #5 :-) The #5 is equipped for ISDN and SS7. Some business customers apparently have ISDN lines. The switch serves about 70000 local subscribers. > So, is there some physical clue (besides fat wires) that I could look > for? I know to look for short fat brick buildings. Anything else? It will have NO windows, it may have Bell emblems on it, and you should find a parking lot behind it which is filled with Bell vehicles. ------------------------------ From: Kurt Guntheroth Subject: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1991 17:33:18 GMT Alex Barnum, Mercury Staff Writer says: > "Other critics charge that Thrifty Tel is deliberately haiting hackers > with antiquated switching technology and short access codes that are > easier to hack than the more modern, secure technology and 14-digit > access codes of the major long-distance carriers." John Higdon says: > Mr. Barnum has all the quotes from Ms. Bigley that the {LA Times} > article had, which essentially contain the circular argument that it > costs money to upgrade to FGD and why should Thrifty have to spend > that money on account of "thugs and criminals" while whining about all > the losses suffered at the hands of the hackers. Thrifty's technique > looks more like a profit center than hacker "prevention". Let's suppose ThriftyTel is deliberately baiting hackers (though using older equipment because it is cheap sounds more reasonable to me). How can this be considered more reprehensible than stealing network services in the first place? I find it quite just that a company should hang hackers with their own rope. If ThriftyTel was posting the access codes on pirate BBS's, this might be going a bit too far on the entrappment side, but there is no evidence this is happening. And whoever asked whether ThriftyTel was inducing minors to enter into an unenforceable contract, or an ex-post-facto contract, this may be true. The hackers do have the option of refusing the contract and letting ThriftyTel make good on its threat to initiate criminal proceedings if it can. Probably most hackers, caught crouched over the body with the smoking gun in their hand, and with the knowledge of their guilt in mind, are reluctant to test their luck in court. Record me as a supporter of ThriftyTel. ------------------------------ From: jdl@pro-nbs.cts.com (Jennifer Lafferty) Subject: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and "Phreaker' Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 00:16:05 GMT I'm kind of lost here. Exactly what is "phreaking" and "hacking" as you are using the terms. I'm a computer novice who barely managed to plug in the modem and figure out the communication program! Thanks, Jennifer [Moderator's Note: A 'phreak' is someone who likes to rip off the telephone company by finding devious ways to place calls and circumvent the billing. They also like to burrow around inside telephone company switching equipment looking for things to amuse themselves with. They typically take words which begin with the letter /f/, as in freak, file, and fool, and swap the /f/ for /ph/. A 'hacker' used to be a person who was knowledgeable about computers and wrote programs for them. A 'hacker' was usually a very smart computer person, and generally honest. Beginning a few years ago, the media started identifying phreaks who use computers connected to phone lines as 'hackers' (we prefer to call them 'crackers') and the term stuck. So in common parlance -- unfortunatly, and I use it myself sometimes -- 'hacker' has come to mean a Bad Person Who Phools Around With Computers, ripping off accounts, disrupting the network, etc. Many 'hackers' (crackers) are also phreaks, and vice-versa. Is that all clear now? Try and remember, the correct term for the bad guys is 'cracker' -- not 'hacker'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 23:26:42 PDT From: Jim Hickstein Subject: IDDD From a Cellular Phone I recently signed up with GTE Mobilnet in San Francisco (give or take 100 miles), and almost immediately tried to dial a number in Japan, with 011 +81 ... and got a recording saying that I could not dial this call directly, but had to use some sort of calling card arrangement with a long-distance company. I promptly dialed 01+81 ... and my Pacific*Bell calling card number (while managing not to drive over the edge of the San Mateo bridge), and the call was completed. Humph. So, what was that all about? 10288.700.555.4141 gave an intercept of some kind (my memory is unclear), indicating that equal access was not available. 700.555.4141 yielded a polite "Thank you for using AT&T." So, if AT&T is *the* long-distance company I must use, how could there possibly be any confusion about billing arrangements? That was the explanation that seemed most likely to spring from the lips of a GTE employee the next morning. (*611 and *111, the latter for reporting network trouble, were routed to a recording that told me to call them back when it was convenient for them to come to the phone, i.e. business hours! Clearly their network doesn't *have* trouble during off-peak times, when I will do most of my calling. But I digress.) A friend of mine who reads every word of Telecom (I only manage about 10 per cent of it) mentioned that it was a policy to forestall fraud by "tumbler" phones making urgent international calls to drug-producing regions. Really? How? Or is it: How much? I was informed not an hour before by the GTE tech that my phone told the MTSO both its directory number *and* ESN, and that they had to match in the switch before a call would be completed. Doesn't this go far enough in avoiding fraud of that sort? Or must the customers (the *paying* customers, remember) be inconvenienced, forcing them to dial yet more digits? Why is equal-access not mandated for cellular telephone service, if indeed it is not? Could not the cellular companies provide it anyway, because they're nice guys? Or to get me off their backs? I *was* satisfied with GTE's service representative, who told me that he couldn't give me a map of the exact cell sites, but graciously showed me the big map on the wall of his office, updated daily. It had blue pins for cells off the San Jose switch, and red ones for the San Mateo switch. I thereby determined that I had made the right choice of carrier, as they had a number of cells in crucial locations that I transit in the hills around here. And I was *delighted* to discover that I could dial ten-digit numbers in my own area code (408), so my phone (formerly in 415) did not have to have all its memories reprogrammed. He confirmed that I can call from King City to Vacaville for the normal rate, a distance of some 150 miles, all that territory being part of my home system. In fact, I roam to Stockton (in my driveway, my house is a long-distance call: I live in Tracy) for $0.15/minute off-peak, even cheaper than the $0.20 home system rate, with no per-diem or other nonsense. They seem to do things right. I also confirmed, however, that they charge airtime twice if you use their voice message facility: once to record the incoming call, and again to get your message, which evidently *must* be done from the cell phone, and cannot be done with access codes from a land line. I did not find out whether they charge anything other than the monthly fee for forward-no-answer; I can imagine an unscrupulous carrier nailing the poor slobs every time a call is forwarded, or even airtime for calls forwarded to a land line! I hear someone nails you for 2x airtime for "conference" calls which clearly use only one radio channel. Let us hope this is not a vision of the future. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 08:33 PST From: Dan Shapin Subject: Hook Tapping How do you place a call with out dialing it using the "Hook tapping" method. Does it work on any phone? ------------------------------ From: "J. Porter Clark" Date: 19 Jun 91 13:07:27 GMT Subject: Need Information About Symposia I'm trying to build up a database of regularly scheduled symposia, standardization committees, trade shows, etc. in the following fields: {digital|analog} signal processing speech technology voice recognition and synthesis audio technology I need to have names and phone numbers and/or e-mail addresses for points of contact. Send me e-mail and I'll summarize whatever I get. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #471 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08501; 20 Jun 91 16:11 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aq21590; 20 Jun 91 14:53 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03554; 20 Jun 91 2:32 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12804; 20 Jun 91 1:11 CDT Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 0:12:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #470 BCC: Message-ID: <9106200012.ab09828@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 20 Jun 91 00:11:39 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 470 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel [Jim Hickstein] Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel [Brian Litzinger] Re: Voice-Mail [John Gilmore] Re: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Local Calling Areas (was Surprise!!) [Stan M. Krieger] Re: COCOT Regulations With Reference to New NPA and Prefix [Steve Vance] Re: Wireless Phone Security [Bill Berbenich] Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? [Skip Collins] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 21:29:48 PDT From: Jim Hickstein Subject: Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel Your mention of USEnet news brings to mind an outfit called "Stargate" that did precisely this. Does anyone remember them? How dead is "Stargate", anyway? Data in the vertical interval on PBS is being used (one line) by a company called InSight Telecast of Palo Alto, CA. (I am a former employee.) It will (does?) carry program schedule information to devices to be embedded in future VCRs that will provide an on-screen version of the upcoming week. I believe the rate was to be about 9.6Kbps. There were a few people at PBS (or was it NPR?) who read news; perhaps they can comment further on the technical aspects of the VBI data equipment. One factor in deciding to use PBS was that, compared to the big three commercial TV networks, they had by far the most modern network. Also, there was (is?) a legislated penetration of public TV into cable markets that the big three's affiliates did not have. PBS had some sort of venture to develop and sell this data service in the VBI, which I personally question as being within the range of "public" broadcasting.* I won't tell you how much they charged for a full-time one-line slot, but it wasn't peanuts. InSight Telecast was mentioned in a press release a few months back which described their announced product. I don't have a reference handy. ----------- * Perhaps this is just another facet of the gradual commercialization of non-commercial broadcasting in this country. I am revolted by the "non-commercials" using up ten-second slots, with full video and voice controlled by the "underwriter" (read: sponsor), at the beginning of many programs. So far, they do not intrude into the *middle*, but it's a slippery slope. I send them money -- quite a bit -- to escape being targeted by commercial pitches. *sigh* ------------------------------ From: Brian Litzinger Subject: Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 18:37:54 PDT Reply-To: brian@apt.bungi.com In , rmz@ifi.uio.no (Bj|rn Remseth) wrote: > Does anyone know about existing hardware that puts a bitstream on a > video channel and let you extract the same bitstream out of the video > video signal, after it has been transmitted on standard video > transport media such as satellite links, video cassettes and cable TV > networks. > This kind of equipment could use spare capacity on local cable > networks and satellite sattelite links to spread e.g. usenet news > quite inexpensively. > But, the Big Question is: Does this hardware exist? I'm not entirely sure if this company has both ends or if the information is transmitted in a reliable manner, but you can certainly ask them such questions. TeleText Communications, (phone 1 408 735 8833) has at least a head-end which runs in a IBM PC Compatible. I've seen it operating on a local TV channel. Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA brian@apt.bungi.com {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 23:35:22 PDT From: John Gilmore Subject: Re: Voice-Mail Stutter dial tone indicating that voicemail is pending is fine, but it requires that you pick up your phone *for dial tone* periodically. If you pick up the phone *to answer incoming calls* then you never find out that you have mail. I use a PacBell voicemail system (that has some odd quirks but works most of the time), and one thing I'd really like is if it would give me a half-ring when I hang up from an incoming call and there is voicemail. Sort of like the half-rings that GTE phones in Santa Monica used to give in the late '70's anytime an extension phone hung up. This is particularly useful when the voicemail has newly arrived during your current call, due to forward-on-busy. Of course, the morons who answer the voicemail trouble reports swear that outright bugs in the system can't ever get fixed by customer request, let alone having us suggest features to be added. Anybody know a good non-PacBell voicemail service available in Palo Alto? John Gilmore [Moderator's Note: Ameritech Mobile has a nice way of handling this. Whenever you have mail waiting, anytime you use the phone for incoming out outgoing calls you will hear a double set of three short tones just after you press the send button. You can turn this feature on or off in your voicemail account as desired. The default of course is to leave 'notification on'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 19-JUN-1991 02:53:11.87 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question In article , lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: > Can you have two cellphones (I guess you can't call them "desk sets", > can you?) on the same number? I'm sure you could get ring-no-answer > and busy-forward from one to another, but I'm talking about for-real > both sets on one 7digit. I think this was mentioned here about a year ago (?), and from what I have read, as well as discussions about this with people at various cell companies, you can only have ONE phone assigned to a specific phone number, ie, there can only be one valid phone #/ESN combo active in a system at a time. (Your ESN can have multiple valid numbers assigned to it, though.) The problem lies in that the ESN is "unique", ie, unless you go out of your way and copy the ESN (not too easy), the second, or "extension" phone won't work because the cellular company won't recognize the ESN. In order to place/receive a call, the cellular company does a phone number <-> ESN match check. If your phone number and ESN match with their records, you are allowed to place/receive the call. If not, your call is blocked. So if you have two phones, and you program both to have 415-555-1234 as their number, but they have different ESNs, then only the one with the valid ESN (according to the cellular company's records) will ring. The other will just sit there when someone calls, and do nothing. Some systems may even "lock out" the "invalid" ESN phone from being used even if you switch it back to a valid number at a later time. > What happens if they both originate a call? > What happens if they both *answer* a call at the same time? These are some of the reasons why there is only one phone assigned to a cell phone number, even though I think both can be circumvented. IE, let's say you DO copy your ESN from the original to the "extension" phone. So now both phones have an ESN/number match. Wouldn't both of them ring? I don't know much about the "software" that the MTSO and/or associated computers run, but would the system, seeing two phones answering the same page/call, lock both of them out? (or even lock them out after getting TWO valid ESN/number matches, if the system routinely or for some reason queries the phone(s) ? ) It seems POSSIBLE that cellular companies could offer this service, assuming they modified their software to allow for this. IE, you tell them you want to assign two different ESNs (so you don't have to copy them yourself) to the same number, and that both should ring if a call comes in. The one that picks up the call first gets to talk. If both pick up at the same time, the program will only allow one ESN to get the call, based on some pre-arranged priority system. The system would be similar for Call-Waiting, and Nationlink/FMR, but let's not get into roaming! ;) > I can mentally make a case that this would work, but I can also make a > good case that it wouldn't. It all depends on how the interaction > between the 7digit and the ESN works; does the switching equipment > broadcast on the control channel for a particular device, or does it > say "Would anyone like to be 555-1212 today?" and listen for replies? I think it sends out a number first, ie, 555-1212, and if 555-1212 responds, some protocol takes over and an ESN match check is then done. If all checks out OK, the channel opens, and the phone starts ringing. This takes less than a second. (I was told by a tech guy at Cell One/Boston that BOTH the number and ESN are sent out initially, but perhaps I misunderstood what he meant by "initially"...) (I've been in systems where they did not SEEM to do an ESN/number check for incoming calls -- Cell One/ Stockton allowed me to RECEIVE calls, but not place them, since my cell number was not programmed into their switches. They may have still done as ESN check through their validation system, but you would think that if they could get an "OK" validation on my ESN/number, they could then use this info and assume that my number is a real cell number, and allow me to place calls, no? Weird ... this was in July of 1990 ... I'm sorry now that I didn't experiment further and put totally weird numbers into my phone, then call these numbers via the roam port, and see what happens ...!) > I'd appreciate it if one of you in-the-know people would give the > $0.05 lecture on how this all works, and/or point me toward a cellular > primer. Oh, sorry, that was only the two cent lecture! :) But that's because I doubt I'm an "in-the-know" person! I would suggest the "Red Radio Shack" book which has been mentioned here. A good, brief summary of how Cellular (they call it by its old name, "AMPS") works. If you are interested, I'll see if I can dig it up for an exact reference, but it is available at all Radio Shacks as is called *something* like "An Introduction to Telephone Electronics". Hope this helps, Doug (back from New Mexico where USWEST has no Follow Me Roaming! dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Actually, the way some cellular companies handle it now, like Cellular One - Chicago and Ameritech Mobile is if they / you want more than one phone to work on a a line, they exempt that number from any ESN checking at all. Example: a cell phone dealer has dozens or hundreds of phones in stock. He lets you test one out. He does not have dozens or hundreds of phone lines with the ESN of a phone in stock associated with each ... he has a special phone line for demo purposes which allows any cell phone to make calls, even one you bougvht from his competitor a year before that you programmed to the special demo phone number! Example: the cellular company customer service department has a few phones laying around they use in the office for tests. The cellular company technicians have phones they carry around all day. They don't want to have to be bothered carrying a certain phone to go with a certain line ... so the administrative phone lines at the cellular company itself as often as not are exempt from ESN checking. Then there are the temporary numbers assigned to roamers coming through town. When you issue a 'follow me' command, the cellular company assigns you a number and tells your home company to forward calls to that number. And those lines of necessity are not ESN-checkable either, so if you know what numbers your local cellular carrier uses for assignment to roamers, and you program your phone to that number, you will get incoming and outgoing calls just fine without the 'nuisance' of an ESN check. This is a gap the carriers should close down if they could figure out a way to do it. One thing they might try is to lock out calls (on demo and/or administrative phone numbers) not originating via the tower they would normally be expected to come on. The dealer will always be at the same location, after all, and his demo traffic would always be on the same tower. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 08:31:32 EDT From: S M Krieger Subject: Re: Local Calling Areas (was Surprise!!) Organization: Summit NJ > A local paper here (Capitol Hill Beacon) announced that the > Oklahoma City calling area has been expanded to include all exchanges > wthin 35 miles of the "Central Oklahoma City exchange area". In distance, I remember a local calling area that got all of this beat. It was a local call from Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands to Honolulu (about 2200 miles). Stan Krieger All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even AT&T UNIX System Laboratories if related to my employment, are my own and Summit, NJ do not represent any public or private att!uslunix!smk policies of my employer. ------------------------------ From: Steve Vance Subject: Re: COCOT Regulations With Reference to New NPA and Prefix Date: 18 Jun 91 21:54:55 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA > N0X/N1X prefixes in Los Angeles area before 1980 (that's when New York > City started getting them); I had a 213-413 number in L.A. in 1976. I'm not surprised that COCOTs didn't know about them then, though -- I had trouble with human operators believing that I had such a phone number. Steve Vance {hplabs,lll-winken,pacbell}!well!stv well!stv@lll-winken.llnl.gov ------------------------------ Organization: Georgia Tech, School of EE, DSP Lab From: bill@fisher.eedsp.gatech.edu Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1991 10:08:47 EDT Subject: Re: Wireless Phone Security In article "It Was Written...": > On ABC-TV's "This Week With David Brinkley" White House staffer John > Sununu claimed he was `on the phone practically the whole time' as he > was being chauffeur driven from Washington to New York to attend a > rare stamp auction, among other things. One wonders how secure his > phone was ... (those had better be all business calls, John :-)). Although I don't know it for certain, I would assume that Sununu had a limo which is equipped with a cellular STU-III. STU is an acronym for Secure Telephone Unit (III indicating the third generation of such). STU-IIIs come in landline and cellular models, the last I heard. It is also possible that he used another form of communications available to the White House. They've gotta stay in touch, you know! Most U.S. federal agencies have STU-IIIs in order to conduct classified or otherwise confidential conversations. RCA and Motorola are two of the contractors who make/made STU-IIIs. Motorola still makes them and even sells a STU-III clone for public purchase - no doubt for businesses which don't want their conversations monitored; if any of you attended the Spring COMDEX this year, Motorola had a STU-III on display there at their booth. All of the STU-IIIs that I have ever encountered will also pass a clear or secure 2400 bps data signal from a built-in RS-232 port on the phone itself. That is, of course, in addition to passing clear or secure voice. I wonder what Sununu's roaming charges are like? Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332-0250 ------------------------------ From: Skip Collins Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? Date: 19 Jun 91 15:42:54 GMT Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD Andy Sherman writes: > In the absence of any regulations, the consumer still benefits from > protection against inadvertant AOS billing. Given the volume of > customer complaints on this issue, AOS billing to what customers > *thought* was and AT&T card is a customer relations problem, not to > mention lost revenue. But it is good for the consumers to know that > they can control with whom they do business by what card they use, > which they cannot with the old cards. Couldn't consumers control with whom they do business by using carrier access codes such as 10ATT, 10222 etc.? Why do we need separate cards and separate numbers to carry around and remember? If I have a 14 digit account number which is recognized by all the LD carriers that I access via 10XXX, I'm happy. This is exactly what I have now with my LEC card. I hope I am not forced to switch. Skip Collins, collins@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #470 ****************************** ^A^A ISSUES 470 AND 471 WERE REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 472 IS NEXT.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07575; 21 Jun 91 3:55 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17996; 21 Jun 91 2:11 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05349; 21 Jun 91 1:03 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 0:16:34 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #472 BCC: Message-ID: <9106210016.ab08377@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Jun 91 00:15:49 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 472 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Hook Tapping [gypsy@silver.lcs.mit.edu] Re: Hook Tapping [Brad Hicks] Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? [Leonard P. Levine] Re: How to Connect (Cheaply) From Marin to Berkeley? [Steve Vance] Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? [Brian Charles Kohn] Re: Tour Given of CO Freely; No Questions Asked [Wally Kramer] Re: Comsec Data Security [Jeff Carroll] Re: ComSec Data Security [David M. Querin] Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Jeff Carroll] Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' [Brad Hicks] PBX Interface Help Needed [Larry Krone] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gypsy@silver.lcs.mit.edu (The Gypsy) Subject: Re: Hook Tapping Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 23:51:44 GMT "Hook Tapping" can be used in most (all?) areas to dial a telephone - by imitating a 'pulse-dial' telephone. You simply 'tap' down the 'hook' for a brief second (much less than a second actually) the number of times required to produce a 'digit.' Example ... if you wanted to dial the operator (0), you would simple 'tap' the 'hook' (to hang-up the phone temporarily) 10 times quickly. You can dial a normal telephone number in this way, stopping for a brief period in between each completed 'digit' of the number. This process, of course, does take a bit of practice to do, as the timing of the whole thing is highly important. While trying to dial a 0 for example, you might pause just a bit too long after 5 'taps' - resulting in the telephone company believing that you dialed 5 5 - instead of 0 (10 clicks). To my knowledge, it works anywhere that you could use a normal, 'old,' pulse-dial telephone (which is pretty much anywhere). The Gypsy [gypsy@silver.lcs.mit.edu (18.52.0.230)] ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 91 11:10:19 EDT From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <76012.300@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Hook Tapping In TELECOM Digest vol 11, #471, Dan Shapin asked: > How do you place a call with out dialing it using the "Hook > tapping" method. Does it work on any phone? I used to do this to call out for pizza from the electronics lab at my college, which had a phone that was technically for inbound calls only. Pick up the handset, then lightly "tap" the switch-hook, the number of times equal to the first digit, as fast as you can while still making the button travel all the way down and all the way back up. Pause a half-second or so, then repeat for the second digit, and so forth. Zero=ten clicks. What you are doing is simulating the clicks of a pulse-dial phone. It takes patience, a steady hand, and a phone that has good "travel" on its switch-hook (most of the old ones, very few of the $5 cheapies), but it can be done. [Personal replies to jbhicks@mcimail.com, please; it's cheaper. Thanks!] ------------------------------ From: Leonard P Levine Subject: Re: Does a National Phonebook Exist? Date: 20 Jun 91 20:08:49 GMT Reply-To: levine@csd4.csd.uwm.edu wallyk@bicycle.wv.tek.com (Wally Kramer) writes: > Is there a ``phonebook'' which covers everywhere in the U.S.? > Electronic, CD-ROM, 900-FIND-THEM :-) or whatever (even paper). > I'd like to track down some college buddies, but I don't have clue as > to what city some of them are in. > [Moderator's Note: No, there is no single phone directory covering the > entire USA in any media. But any large metropolitan library will have > a huge collection of out of town phone books you can review. PAT] There is a product called PhoneDisc USA available on a subscription basis. It resides on 2 CS ROMs and I have no idea of the cost. I am not associated with the product. I have merely seen the ad. Phone: 1-800-284-8353 Mail: 8 Doaks Lane Little Harbor Marblehead, Mass 01945 Leonard P. Levine e-mail levine@cs.uwm.edu Professor, Computer Science Office (414) 229-5170 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Home (414) 962-4719 Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A. FAX (414) 229-6958 ------------------------------ From: Steve Vance Subject: Re: How to Connect (Cheaply) From Marin to Berkeley? Date: 20 Jun 91 07:39:12 GMT Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA In article rstanton@leland.stanford.edu (Richard Stanton) writes: > I've just moved to Larkspur in Marin, and will be spending a lot of > time connected to a computer in Berkeley. To do this directly costs > 21c/10c per minute on Pacific Bell. I can cut this by about 60% using > one of their calling plans, but it will still be a lot of money if I > stay connected for a few hours every day. I had the "Call Bonus" to Berkeley plan when I worked there (I live in San Rafael), but didn't call for several hours a day. I think you could set up an RCF link, with the distances involved. Call the PacBell business office for new BUSINESS service, and get a "Remote Call Forwarding" service set up in Richmond, pointing at your Berkeley number. Then, it's a local call for you from Larkspur to Richmond, and a local forward from Richmond to Berkeley. Total cost: about $18 a month, plus one cent per minute for the call from Larkspur to Richmond. Steve Vance {hplabs,lll-winken,pacbell}!well!stv stv@well.sf.ca.us ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 09:44:40 EDT From: Brian Charles Kohn Subject: Re: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards? Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center In article collins@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Skip Collins) writes: > Couldn't consumers control with whom they do business by using carrier > access codes such as 10ATT, 10222 etc.? No. > Why do we need separate cards > and separate numbers to carry around and remember? If I have a 14 > digit account number which is recognized by all the LD carriers that I > access via 10XXX, I'm happy. This is exactly what I have now with my > LEC card. I hope I am not forced to switch. As previously stated, you will be able to take your chances with your current LEC card and selecting your long distance carrier via 10XXX. However, almost none of the privately-owned coin phones in my area accept 10XXX, and those that do accept the code ignore it. Of course I refuse the charges on my bill from AOSs that steal my business in this way, however it is a hassle convincing NJ Bell that I am in my rights. (Which is strange because they rarely give he a hard time when there's an errant LOCAL charge on my bill ... I guess that's because it's easier for them to fix their own problems that it is to fix AOS's problems.) Related quetsion: What obligation to AOSs have currently to provide access to "the big three" via 10XXX? Can I request a phone be taken out of service if it doesn't respond to the code and the AOS operator cannot connect me to AT&T directly? Brian Charles Kohn AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center Quality Management System E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker (bicker@hoqax.ATT.COM) Consultant PHONE: (908) 949-5850 FAX: (908) 949-7724 ------------------------------ From: Wally Kramer Subject: Re: Tour Given of CO Freely; No Questions Asked Date: 20 Jun 91 20:12:49 GMT Reply-To: Wally Kramer Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, Oregon nstar!syscon!viking!drmath@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Doctor Math) writes in Volume 11, Issue 471, Message 6 of 11: > [The CO] will have NO windows, it may have Bell emblems on it, and you > should find a parking lot behind it which is filled with Bell > vehicles. There are windows on the Corvallis, Oregon CO (503 75x, x=2,4,7). They have mini-blinds on them, but you can look through the holes where the string goes and see the equipment from outside. Also the entrance on the street side used to have a Bell logo on the door and as well as a sign discouraging visitors ("Telco employees only" or something like that.) It's been many years since I visited it though. Wally Kramer contracted from Step Technology, Portland, Oregon 503 244 1239 wallyk@orca.wv.tek.com +1 503 685 2658 ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Comsec Data Security Date: 20 Jun 91 19:33:58 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article herbison@ultra.enet.dec.com (B.J. 19-Jun-1991 1142) writes: >> I would like to know, what are ya'lls opinions on Comsec Data Security? > In my opinion, the phrase `Communication Security Data Security' > sounds like gibberish. If you meant `Data Comsec', then I'm in favor > of it. I would like to have the option to encrypt everything (data or > voice) I send over telephone connections (both the old-fashioned kind > and cellular). I could see this coming. COMSEC is a military term, the meaning of which I won't go into here. Those with a need to know are adequately familiar with its meaning. "Comsec Data Security" is apparently the name of a consulting enterprise recently launched by ex-LoD-types. A spectacularly inappropriate name, if you ask me. Neither, strictly speaking, has anything to do with encryption of commercial data, using DES or otherwise. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: "David M. Querin" Subject: Re: ComSec Data Security Date: 20 Jun 91 15:49:23 GMT Organization: Texas A&M University A clarification is in order directed at the man from DEC. The individual who was asking about opinions on ComSec Data Security was referring to the new corporation started by various retired members of the "famed" cracking group, The Legion of Doom. David Querin dmq6899@tamuts.tamu.edu The opinions expressed do not reflect upon anyone I work with/for et al. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Date: 20 Jun 91 19:45:44 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@ uunet.uu.net writes: > Mark Miller wrote: >> as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in a >> digital format. > I believe this is in error. Although AT&T is actively replacing the > analog facilities within their VAST system, I'm sure they have a LONG > way to go. This is certainly *not* the case in our corporate network, and I'd guess that AT&T is still some time away from being fully digital, as well. While Barry Margolin made a good point about noisy cable and error rates, I've never *noticed* any impairments on copper-carried digital lines, and I'd assert that you can't actually *hear* the difference. (The only digital call I can remember hearing problems on was overseas, and carried by satellite, I believe; there the error rates *can* be significant.) > As far as I know, ALL transmissions over fiber ARE digital, whereas > NOT all (at LEAST!) transmissions over OTHER type of plant is. Yup. And that's why I'm a Sprint customer (as bad as their customer service is). > Hear a pin drop? So what?!! A fat lot of good that kind of "quality" > means when there's a Sports Illustrated "SneakerPhone" on one end and > yet another CheapieChirper phone on the other!! And *that's* why all the phones at my house are genuine AT&T. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jun 91 10:59:48 EDT From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <76012.300@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' In TELECOM Digest vol 11, #471, jdl@pro-nbs.cts.com (Jennifer Lafferty) asked: > I'm kind of lost here. Exactly what is "phreaking" and "hacking" > as you are using the terms. This should make a LONG thread. Everybody has their own definitions. Pat Townson, the TELECOM moderator, chimed in with his own. If I may paraphrase in the interest of brevity, Pat sez that a phreaker is someone who likes to rip of the Phone Cops; a hacker, a bright computer programmer; and a cracker, someone who rips off computer users. If true, this leaves a gaping hole in the language: what do we call a bright phone system expert who isn't a bright computer programmer? That aside, let me chip in my own definitions, which hopefully will shed as much light as they will heat (grin): HACKER: (n) Derived from "to hack," a verb used at MIT for dozens of years now to mean "to throw something together quickly" with an alternate, but related meaning, "to prank." (In MIT usage, a great prank is still called a hack, whether or not it has anything to do with computers.) Computer hackers are people who live for their hobby/profession. What seperates a truly brilliant hacker from a truly brilliant programmer is that the hacker is only interested in results; s/he will achieve the impossible in record time but with code that cannot be maintained and no documentation. As one of Nancy Lebovitz's buttons says, "Real programmers don't document. If it was hard to write, it SHOULD be hard to understand." Or as we used to say at Taylor U., a hacker is someone who will sit at a computer terminal for two solid days, drinking gallons of caffeinated beverages and eating nothing but junk food out of vending machines, for no other reward than to hear another hacker say, "How did you get it to do THAT?" PHREAK: (n) Derived from the word "phone" and the Sixties usage, "freak," meaning someone who is very attached to, interested in, and/or experienced with something (e.g., "acid freak"). A "phone freak," or "phreak," is to the world-wide telephone system what a hacker is to computers: bright, not terribly disciplined, fanatically interested in all of the technical details, and (in many cases) prone to harmless but technically illegal pranks. CRACKER: (n) A hacker who specializes in entering systems against the owner and/or administrator's wishes. Used to be fairly common practice among hackers, but then, computing used to be WAY outside the price range of almost anybody and computers used to have lots of empty CPU cycles in the evenings. (There also used to be a lot fewer hackers; what is harmless when four or five people do it may become a social problem when four or five thousand do it.) Now hackers who don't illegally enter systems insist on a distinction between "hackers" and "crackers;" most so-called crackers do not, and just call themselves hackers. CRASHER: (n) Insult used by computer bulletin board system operators (sysops) to describe a cracker who enters for the malicious purpose of destroying the system or its contents. Used to be unheard of, but when I was last sysoping, was incredibly common. Crashers (who insist on calling themselves hackers) insist that this is because sysops are more obnoxious about asking for money and insisting on collecting legal names and addresses. CYBERPUNK: (n) A cyberpunk is to hackers/phreaks/crackers/crashers what a terrorist is to a serial killer; someone who insists that their crimes are in the public interest and for the common good, a computerized "freedom fighter" if you will. PROPOSITION FOR DEBATE: "It is immoral for anyone to do that which, if everybody did it, would destroy civilization." [I'll chip in with my position on that last part later, if others are interested enough to perpetuate the thread. Please send personal replies to jbhicks@mcimail.com, it's cheaper.] ------------------------------ From: Larry Krone Subject: PBX Interface Help Needed Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 18:59:52 CDT I have an application that requires a PBX that with at least a 100 line X 24 Trunk matrix ... I need to interface 3 T1's to connect remote sites with voice and data ... if a remote site presses 9, they need to receive dial tone --- if a person at site A needs to call an extension X at site B, it needs to go seamlessly over the circuits. Any Ideas, Larry Please reply via EMAIL: krone%swatty@attmail.com (Preferred (CHEAPER) address) root@mus.com (Alternate Address) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #472 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09876; 21 Jun 91 5:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15914; 21 Jun 91 3:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17996; 21 Jun 91 2:11 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 1:39:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #473 BCC: Message-ID: <9106210139.ab06379@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Jun 91 01:39:03 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 473 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Important Change in Sprint Plus Rates [Carol Springs] Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light [Geoff Steckel] Old Phone Wiring Puzzle [Lynn Goodhue] Campaign for Lower ISDN Rates [Mitchell Kapor] Stopping Telemarketing Sleeze [Douglas W. Martin] All AOS's Aren't Scum [Jim Allard] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Carol Springs Subject: Important Change in Sprint Plus Rates Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 21:44:49 EDT I noticed on this month's Sprint Plus bill that my June 5 and 6 evening calls were billed at evening rates rather than at night rates. When I phoned customer service to inquire, the rep told me that there has been a change in the Sprint Plus calling plan. Volume discounts now start at $20 rather than $25, and there have been some modifications to the structure of these discounts (to which I didn't pay much attention during the conversation, but I can tell from my bill that I'm getting no more discount than before, and possibly less). In exchange for these "improvements," the *** standard evening rates have gone back into effect *** for Sprint Plus customers. I asked the rep when customers were being notified about these changes, since I had received no warning of any sort. She said that the insert should come in the statement for the June billing cycle, which should be my *next* bill. I told the rep that I was extremely uncomfortable with discount plan changes that take effect without prior notification to customers. She was apologetic but made no offer of credit. I plan to write to: US SPRINT Customer Service P.O. Box 152046 Irving, TX 75015-2048 asking that they credit me for the difference between night and evening rates on all calls made from my home phone between the day the changes took effect (sometime in early June) and the day I received word of the change. I suggest that all concerned Sprint Plus customers do the same. Since I felt it would do no good to give the rep herself flak over the matter, I thanked her for the information and told her I would pass the word on. B-) Carol Springs carols@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: Geoff Steckel Subject: Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light Date: 20 Jun 91 04:14:23 GMT Reply-To: gsteckel%Ecd@sun.com Organization: Omnivore Technology, Newton, Mass. (617)969-3448 Recently I bought a PP 9600-SA modem, and attempted to use it. No joy -- the best I could do was 4800 BPS. Mysteriously, only the incoming data were incorrect -- the remote system received my transmissions essentially perfectly. After a lot of futzing around, I disconnected a two-line phone with a line powered 'in-use' light. Voila! 9600 BPS V.32 worked with very low error rates. The culprit was a U.S. Tron # PL2125 two-line phone. It isn't a good phone -- I'm not sure how it passed the part 68 drop tests, and it had other problems. Still, it's the ONLY commercial example of a line-powered 'in use' light I've seen. My Panasonic and 'SW Bell' both use batteries to power the lights. Since the request for line-powered 'in use' indicators recurs frequently on at least two of these newsgroups, I'm posting this to suggest that they might not be a good idea. One could have the possibility of adding significant distortion to the phone signal, which for a V.32 modem could cause very bad interactions between outgoing and incoming data. Grossly simplified, one could easily present a nonlinear load on the line. Any phone engineers have any comment? geoff steckel (gwes@wjh12.harvard.EDU) (...!husc6!wjh12!omnivore!gws) Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Sun Microsystems, despite the From: line. This posting is entirely the author's responsibility. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 22:30:57 EDT From: Lynn Goodhue Subject: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle I've got a puzzle for all you Telecom experts out there. My mother-in-law lives in a house built in the 1950's and the telephone wiring is probably as old as the house is. She's bed-ridden now, and we wanted to rewire the phone in her bedroom so we could unplug it at night and it wouldn't ring in her room. I bought the modular converter for the wall jack, and a modular to four-wire cable to wire in to her phone. When I took apart the old jack, there were only three wires -- green, red and yellow -- no black. So I connected the green, red and yellow wires to the new surface-mount outlet, and screwed everything down tightly. I took apart the phone, and connected up the green, red and yellow wires where the corresponding old wires were on the phone itself, left the black wire dangling, buttoned everything back up, and plugged it in. The phone worked fine -- dial tone, could dial a call, everything. Except that the phone doesn't ring any more. The old wires were a heavier gauge than the new stuff. My trusty AT&T _The_Telephone_Book:_AT&T_Guide_To_Installing_Telephones_&_Accessories doesn't say anything about three-wire wiring, or about what could be wrong if the phone doesn't ring. It *does* say that if the red and green wires are swapped, you wouldn't be able to break dialtone. For the moment, this mystery has actually *solved* the original problem, which was to have the phone available for Mum, without it ringing in her room. (It's one of those old, reliable desk sets that will never die, and you couldn't turn the ringer off, just down a bit.) But some day we'd like to make the phone work again the right way, short of putting back the old heavy three-wire non-modular stuff. Any ideas, guys? Thanks! Lynn Goodhue Smith College BITNET: lgoodhue@smith Internet (maybe): lgoodhue@smith.smith.edu [Moderator's Note: In the box you mounted on the wall try connecting the yellow wire (to the phone) with the red wire. If that does not work then try the yellow wire connected with the green wire. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 11:05:12 -0400 From: Mitchell Kapor Subject: Campaign For Lower ISDN Rates On June 13 the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities held its first public hearing about NYNEX's newly re-filed ISDN tariff. Prodigy, Sprint, MCI, and the New England Cable Television Association were present and are expected to enter the proceedings as intervenors (opponents). The DPU's decision will not come before October. In the meantime there will be hearings and briefs. While telcos appear to have made national ISDN deployment a priority, prices in New England are prohibitively high. While ISDN access itself would be available for a fixed monthly fee to business and residential subscribers, there would always be a "metered" usage fee. A circuit-switched connection from a subscriber to a provider would be charged under the "Switchway" tariff, which carries a substantial per minute usage charge (about 16 cents). Packet-switched connections would be charged under the "Infopath" tariff, which carries a substantial per kilopacket charge (60-70 cents per kilopacket). Both of these compare very unfavorably to residential and business rates for a voice-grade line over which data can be transmitted at 19.2 kpbs. I gave testimony at the hearing which emphasized ISDN as an enabling technology for a telecommunications platform to spur information innovators. "I believe there are substantial and vastly under-appreciated entrepreneurial opportunities which would arise out of the wide-spread availability of ISDN at affordable prices. To understand why, it's helpful to appreciate a bit of history of the personal computer field. "The most important contribution of the PC field is not a product, but an idea. It is the idea that a good computer system is simply a platform upon which other parties can exercise their ingenuity to build great applications. When Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak conceived of the Apple II computer in a Silicon Valley garage in the mid-1970's, they had no clear idea what it would be used for. But they went to great trouble to make it attractive for software developers to use. " It also called for lower rates to stimulate demand. In order to be attractive to business and residential customers in large numbers, the price of ISDN must be comparable to what they are already paying for an analog data line. My guess is that "comparable" means 1-2x the existing rate. The filed rates are so high they will create an artificially low demand. My understanding is that Pac Bell's ISDN tariff is more reasonable. If anyone has details about this, I would appreciate hearing about it. A full copy of my testimony may be found in ~ftp/isdn/isdn.testimony on eff.org. If you and/or your company is interested in participating in an effort to persuade the DPU in Massachusetts to set low, affordable ISDN rates, drop a note to isdn@eff.org. EFF will be coordinating an advocacy campaign on this issue and we would like your support. ------------ [Moderator's Note: Mr. Kapor is an officer and founding member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 10:30:22 PDT From: "Douglas W. Martin" Subject: Stopping Telemarketing Sleeze A telephone sales person makes a call to an unknown prospect and a very small, very soft, very quiet, and obviously young person answers the phone. Sales person: Hello, may I speak to the man of the house please? Youngster: (whispering) No, he's busy. Sales person: Well then, can I please speak to your mother? Youngster: (in a whisper) She's busy too. Sales person: I see, how about your brother? Can I speak to him? Youngster: (whispering) No. He's busy too. Sales person: (losing patience) Is your sister there? Can I talk to her? Youngster: (in a whisper) She's busy too. Sales person: ( by now quite exasperated) What are all these people doing that keeps them so busy?!!! Youngster: (still whispering) Looking for me. Doug Martin martin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: Jim Allard Subject: All AOS's Aren't Scum Organization: Equicom Communications, Inc. Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 14:13:11 GMT Since my favorite UNIX afficionado introduced me to the Digest a few months ago, I have been quietly sitting in the background reading the various utterings of respondents, as AOSs and COCOTs in general have been heavily smacked around. While I will agree there are some unethical providers out there, some of us have made a serious effort to provide services which attempt to validate the reasons for the MFJ -- competition. I offer some thoughts of my own as an attempt to balance the picture a bit: Let me begin by clearly stating I would do many of the same things AT&T has done post-divestiture, in an effort to protect my customer base. Great credit must be given to AT&T and the Bell Labs for the technology which allows much of what we do on a daily basis. No one is more impressed with their R&D capabilities than I. Let's not lose sight of the fact that much of that technology was paid for by you and me in over 100 years of a regulated, telecommunications monopoly (with guaranteed rates of return). Not to mention the built-in customer base. 1. Hasn't anyone noticed that AT&T LD rates have dropped dramatically since divestiture? Does anyone really believe they (AT&T) would have done that on their own? If you had a monopoly, would you? Wake up and smell the coffee ... competition among other things have been responsible for more realistic pricing in the LD market. There has also been an increase in charges for local service (not necessarily corresponding but understandable). 2. Anyone who believes there is anything close to a "level playing field" should sit with my operators when someone needs international directory assistance, collect overseas calls and/or connection to non-direct dial countries. No one can do these things except big momma, and she isn't interested in sharing, (not that I blame her). There is a definite advantage on AT&Ts side when these and other services are required. I'd love to have one day's worth of their advertising dollars. I won't bother to discuss the huge differences in what network costs us compared to the "in place" net AT&T has available (paid for by rate payers during the 100+ years they've been around). 3. Every public IXC except AT&T provides 800 or 950 access to their network as a convenience to their customers. AT&T steadfastly sticks to 10XXX as the ONLY means for non-subscribed customer access (or access by their customers from non-AT&T phones). If you owned 200 switches at your hotel chain, would you give guests unrestricted fraud potential? Fact is, it cost us $1500 per switch to allow guests full AT&T capability with fraud protection. We spent the money because some of our clients' guests like AT&T ... go figure, but we believe in service. Interestingly, only 5% of our AOS customers ask for other carriers, a percentage of that for AT&T. We carefully provide instructions for access to the caller's carrier of choice and various other alternative billing methods. 95% of our callers CHOOSE to use us. And yes, we clearly brand our service at the beginning and end of our involvement (which we've been doing since well before it was law). This based on two years of handling greater than 400,000 calls per month. 4. This business of an AOS connecting callers to the AT&T network is a joke. While we can technologically do so, they refuse to take the call, claiming possible fraud and high error concerns as some of their reasoning. It would be a nice service to 'their' customers, and we would have to pay origination charges for the entire length of the call. Their position reminds me of the kid who takes his ball and goes home if you don't want to play by his rules. 5. My company DOES NOT apply any additional surcharges to calls we handle, even though it's legal in many states and for interstate traffic. The same stipulation is in every contract we write. Our rates mirror AT&T's. We guarantee not to charge more than their standard time-of-day discounted rates. In fact, our billing programs round down (not up) to ensure compliance with the policy. Yes, we also issue immediate credit for mis-dialed calls. 6. Until recently (introduction of AT&T's 'new' CIID calling card) there was a major misconception in the minds of the public regarding whose card they had in their hand. There are millions of pre-divestiture calling cards out there with AT&T logos, really issued for the LECs as shared cards. Callers erroneously believe they have AT&T cards. You'll notice they didn't rush to change that 'shared card' perception. AT&T's announced intent is to convert "it's" millions of cards to CIID format by the end of 1991. I for one am very happy about the change. I can't wait to see what will happen when those new card holders find the card no longer works at the hotel/airport/hospital of their choice. This could be the best thing that ever happened to AOS. These callers will soon realize they can get greater flexibility with cards issued by their LEC. They can still use the AT&T network if they want to dial 10288, but my suspicion is they won't want to dial the extra digits. Brand loyalty is great, but most people will default to what is easiest and fastest if the cost and services provided are comparable. I wouldn't throw out my line ID (LEC) card with the comfortable pin just yet. Ohio Bell is making major inroads in the calling card business using just that approach " ... card is accepted by virtually every long distance carrier." Regardless of the belief (and I agree) that 10XXX dialing should be available, reality is that it is not. Is AT&T deliberately designing a card system which will create serious customer dissatisfaction in an effort to pressure aggregators into presubscribing to AT&T? I don't think the last legal shot has been fired on this issue and I hope the public isn't that gullible. I sincerely hope this does not come off sounding like a whining step-child. We expect to be successful or fail on our own merits. If we can provide the service at reasonable costs to the calling public, on a level playing field, I say let the market determine the winners and losers. Keep the politicians out of it, or we'll end up with three LD phone companies about five years from now. That's not what I call choice, and the playing field is far from level. James H. Allard, Jr., Director Operator Services Equicom Communications, Inc. [Moderator's Note: Thank you for sending along a most interesting alternative viewpoint regarding AOS'. I appreciate having you as a reader. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #473 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26984; 22 Jun 91 0:58 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30553; 21 Jun 91 23:31 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03882; 21 Jun 91 22:25 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 21:30:25 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: SPECIAL REPORT: Braided Streams BCC: Message-ID: <9106212130.ab31158@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> The special article which follows has been in sci.crypt, and when Mr. Simon passed it along to c.d.t. he edited it with a special emphasis on telecommunications. I thought youo might enjoy reading it. PAT Subject: Braided Streams (better, bigger and unobfuscated) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 18:37:19 EDT From: "W.A.Simon" Warning: the following material was created neither in the United States, nor in a US owned corporation or a US government establishment abroad, nor by a US citizen. It has also been previously published, in whole and in parts, outside the US, as well as within. It would therefore be ridiculous and useless to subject it to restrictive orders regarding the distribution of cryptographic material. ------------- There were a few preliminary postings, in the past three years, but this one is easier to read and to understand. It also addresses, more in depth, some of the points which have been fingered by a number of people, as being unclear. Finally, it explores variations on the theme. Two concepts are explored here, one is the multiplexing/ encrypting algorithm, the other is the manufacturing of cryptologically useful keys. The first concept depends on the existence of the second one to exist in the way it is described here, but it would be best to assume the second problem has been resolved in order to evaluate the first one fairly. There are a number of unproven assertions, for which I make no apologies; if the readers of c.d.t can contribute anything for, or against, I'll be very happy. Of course, since it contains no dazzling mathematical pyrotechnics, a number of the inner cryptology cognoscenti crowd will just up their nose and poopoo; but who said they owned the place |8-)? To those who are still with us by now, I say: Relax, be happy and enjoy the pretty pictures. ------------- Introduction The Braided Stream Secure Communication System is a simple and fast multiplexer system which provides high levels of cryptographic security without having recourse to weak, dubious, or government controlled technologies. Key management is inherent to the design. Unlike public key systems, it is not vulnerable to progress in mathematics or in computational technologies, however unlikely we think these may be. Based on a key which is read n bit(s) at a time (bit stream), and forever refreshed (infinite length one-time pad), a number of streams of data are multiplexed into one output stream. The choice of which input stream, to take the next bit to be output from, is determined by the value of the bit(s) from the key stream. Principles of operations The elementary (and least secure) mode of operation is the two stream mode, which require using up the key one bit at a time, is also known as the 1-bit-mode (1bm). If the value of the next bit of key is 0, the next bit of the first input stream is output; if it is 1, the next bit of the second input stream is output. The contents of each stream are normally a plaintext and a key management channel. Reciprocally, at the other end of the communication link, if the value of the next bit of key is 0, the next bit of input is appended to the first stream; if 1, to the second stream. In such 1bm application, the second stream is used to communicate fresh key material. As new key material is generated/received, it is appended to the key string, and the used up key bits are discarded. In the 2-bit-mode (2bm) the key is read 2 bits at a time; the value of the combined bits range from 0 to 3, therefore allowing the mixing of 4 streams. The 3bm will obviously work on 8 streams, and the 4bm on 16... The choice of bit mode is left to the user (I am in favor of deferring this decision to the value of, for example, the next 2 unused bits in the key, plus one, which would result in either of the bit modes in the range from 1 to 4). Two communicating stations are initially loaded with a startup key, through conventional means (cloak and dagger?). If this seed is uncompromised, so will the link be, for as long as it is used. Management of keys is done on the basis of pairs of stations; if a station communicates with more than one other station, keys must be kept and managed separately. Whichever bit mode is selected, at least one stream is always reserved for key management. The contents of all other streams is a choice for the client to make. A channel (stream) that appears to contain noise only, may itself be a braided stream from a previous processing stage; such practice is left to the users to decide; this could be useful in staggered protective arrangements whereby a corporate system separates streams for its divisions, which can in turn unbraid their own material. The more streams are braided together, the better the security. One or more channel(s) could contain innocuous "give up" message(s), for the relief of duress, should one be forced to divulge some plaintext |8-( ... Unneeded channels can be used to transmit more fresh key material or plain noise. The station initiating the communication link generates a, very ideally, random (see Appendix B) key stream. The stream of bits is appended to whatever existing key string is currently in use. There is the unavoidable problem of key exhaustion to be dealt with. The more streams we need, the faster we use up the key. But considering the high level of security available, there is nothing to prevent us from cheating a bit. A number of strategies for the rejuvenation of old key material can be left to the imagination of the clients. Basically, some key material is sent through one or more streams, and this material is then processed through an algorithm that will artificially increase its length. This can be done for all communications, or periodically, by common consent. A much better way would be to use one channel as a key manager, not just as a pipe for key material; this would require that we develop a simple key management language and a few algorithm to implement it. This should not weaken the security of the system. Appendix A will provide a number of sound methods. Appendix B will address the issue of random keys. Features A transmitted message will have a length that is different from that of the plaintext. The difference in length is grossly determined by the selected bit mode (about double the length in 1bm), and finely affected by the statistical profile of the key. This is an added level of great incertitude that confronts the opposition. This also multiplies (the word is much too weak!) the number of plausible solutions that an exhaustive search can generate. Finally, the "known plaintext" approach is defeated (to be proven) as just any arbitrary plaintext can be retrieved, given a sufficiently long ciphertext, with an adhoc key. Assuming, in a 2bm operation, that a randomly generated key is used to transmit two message streams, one stream of key management information, and one stream of random material to confuse the opposition, the output stream will be undistinguishable from a truly random source (to be proven, but probably wrong in the absolute sense). Four totally unrelated, but not random, streams would, if braided with a random key, appear totally unpredictable (to be proven), if not statistically unbiased. Applications and variations An obvious application would be in multiplexing. A provider of services could, without added effort, multiplex several client channels, and insure confidentiality from mux to demux. In a reversal of roles, the decryption method (unbraiding) could be used to split a long plaintext in 2, 4, 8 or n segments, which could be transmitted "en clair" without further processing. The braiding algorithm could then be used to put the file back together (radio frequency hopping could also be used that way). This is a strong variation, but not quite as strong as the original idea, as it conserves the length of the plaintext. This variation is very useful for schemes in which several communication channels are used, which in itself adds a lot of security. For example, if four courrier runners are to be entrusted each with a piece of the message, this message can be split up in such a way that none of them possesses enough information to guess even a little bit of the contents. Even three of them together don't have enough material. All four segments are required to retrieve any information at all, plus the key. This could be usefull for electronic banking arrangements whereby several people must provide an authentification string, but only the banker knows the decoding key. One could, of course, combine the two approaches, by first mixing plaintext and noise into one stream then, using another key, the result would be split into a number of separate communication channels. With a slight modification in the way keys are managed, we could provide people with varying amounts of information, depending on their security clearance and their need to know, from the same source. Appendix A - Key regeneration Key material gets exhausted faster than it can be transmitted. Therefore, we need a method for the creation of long keys from short ones. It is assumed the short key is cryptoanalytically sound. The first kind of recipe relies on the codebook principle. The two correspondants each have a copy of identical files. Using the safety of the system, one can tell the other which file is to be used as fresh key material to be appended to the current key string. Likewise, instructions can be transmitted as to the kind of transformations to be applied to the file, before use. There are ways to process data in such a way that it loses enough information contents to become useable in this application. The methods are wasteful (See Appendix D for an example). Another recipe involves recycling old key material. As each bit of new key material is transmitted, a number of old key bits are being discarded; in a 2bm transmission (4 streams), on average 8 bits of old key get used up for every bit of new key sent over. We could arbitrarily decide that instead of simply appending the new bits to the key string, the bits that would otherwise have been discarded are also re- appended. Intuitively, one might think that this weakens the system. I don't think so (to be proven). A randomizing system could be used with old key material in order to refresh it. Taking the new key material, in chunks of, say, 8 bits, one search through the old (to be discarded) key stream, for a match; when a match is found, the next, say, 64 bits are cyclically rotated left by one bit, and appended to the current key string. Then the search continues from the current position, with the next chunck of 8 new bits, within the circular buffer. Kind of weak, but still quite usable... A purely algorithmical recipe, involving operations of the various streams upon each others, could be used to increase the total length beyond a simple arithmetic sum of the respective segment lengths. If we send 4 streams of random noise to be used as key material, these 4 streams, known as A B C and D are processed as follows: Using A as key, as many times as required, in 1-bit-mode, mix B and C, then mix C and D, then D and B. Repeat through all permutations, using B C and D, in turn, as key. I think this method would not be acceptable for use in a conventional cryptographic system, as the processing would always involve the same material but, in this case, new material is used every time. These were all first draft samples; imaginative clients can find their own. The basic idea is that if some key material is secure and sound, the results of applying algorithmic transformations to it are secure and sound as well (to be proven). The preferred approach would be to develop a key management language and use one channel to "program" key production. Appendix B - Randomness requirements Key material, ideally, should be random. Manufacturing random number, algorithmically, is not possible. A good compromise must be found, which does not compromise security while allowing automated generation. Should a non deterministic device be available, it would be wise to take advantage of it. Failing this, a pseudo-random number generator (PRNG or prang) will be used. A prang is considered to be cryptographically useful if it is unpredictable. In other words, if we generate a string of 0's and 1's, and we can't guess the next value more than half of the time, we have a good prang. In order to be statistically unpredictable, a prang must be unbiased, as any bias will increase the odds in favor of guessing right. It is not the purpose of this document to provide a good prang. It is assumed that random key material, once processed through an algorithm, can keep its random attributes. The choice of algorithm is critical. Appendix C - How do we know when to stop The stopping problem is another hurdle we have to address. Plaintext streams, key management streams, noise streams, don't all contain the same number of bytes, nor do they get exhausted at the same rythm, because of key randomness. Another problem arises from the fact that most current communication interfaces work with 8 bit bytes and, inherent to the algorithm, we may find ourselves stopping before a whole byte can be i/o'd. The first principle is that the longest plaintext stream dictates the earliest stopping time; so we pad the shorter streams with garbage. The second principle is that we pad the ciphertext up to the next full 8 bit byte. When transmitting noise or key management material, there is no objection to padding. But when processing plaintext, we must have a way of knowing where the end of the plaintext is. There is, so far, no elegant solution. I suggest reserving a character for escape purposes, and use this character as end of file marker, unless it is itself escaped. The ASCII escape character seems to be indicated. When padding an uncomplete byte up to its full 8 bit complement, we don't actually use up any key bits, but for the sake of synchronicity, we must discard as many dummy key bits as there are padding bits. These key bits must all point to a plaintext stream, as it is the only type of stream in which we know where the actual material stops. Appendix D - Recipes for "almost-randomness" Any file, when analyzed, will yield a number of patterns. Contents dependant characteristics and redundancies resulting from the presence of natural language will appear. These are artifacts which cryptanalysts exploit to make educated guesses about the key you have used. But if you are willing to sacrifice efficiency, you can subject your file to a number of reducing algorithm that will remove these hints. The result will still not qualify as fully random, but unless you have been very careless in your choice of files, chances are that you will have reached the limit at which order turns to chaos. The most simple algorithm would be to discard all bits except the parity bits. A better one would be to split a file into two parts (in any way you choose), or to use two distinct and unrelated files, and compare bytes from each file, one pair at a time, to output a binary 0 or 1, depending on the result of the comparaison (skip when equal). The approximative 16 to 1 ratio of "entropization" (?) would bring you very close to having a random output. A sure way of reducing redundancies is to compress the file, but this process usually leaves tell tales patterns. So it is necessary to subject it to further processing. One of my favorite recipes is to take two compressed and unrelated files; I then swap the high order nibbles from one file with the high order nibbles from the other (shades of genetic manipulations). I finally subject the two files to a reducing process, through pair comparaison, as outlined above. ----------------- Enjoy... Alain UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27211; 22 Jun 91 1:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30553; 21 Jun 91 23:36 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03882; 21 Jun 91 22:25 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 21:58:44 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs Subject: SPECIAL REPORT: NY Tel and Caller ID BCC: Message-ID: <9106212158.ab01637@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> This special announcement will be primarily of interest to our readers in the New York area served by New York Telephone, but others will find the letter from NY Tel to the Public Service Commission of interest as well. All followups should go to Telecom Privacy. PAT] Date: 20 Jun 91 17:09:40 GMT From: John Cowan Subject: New York Telephone Caller-ID Letter The text of an advertisement in {The New York Times}, 20 June 1991, page D23: STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION June 7, 1991 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OFFERS PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY TO INTRODUCE CALLER IDENTIFICATION SERVICE IN SELECTED AREAS OF NEW YORK STATE. The New York Public Service Commission will convene a special hearing before Administrative Law Judge John T. Vernieu to receive comments from affected members of the public concerning the application of New York Telephone Company to introduce Caller ID service: Plainview, New York: June 27, 1991, 2:00 and 7:00 p.m., Cornell Cooperative Extension, Nassau County, 1245 Old Country Road, Plainview, New York 11803 Each of the sessions will continue until all persons wishing to comment have been heard and will remain in session for at least one hour. The company proposes to introduce this service in Poughkeepsie, Kingston, Newburgh, Beacon, and surrounding Mid-Hudson communities initially and to expand it to other parts of the State gradually over the next several years. Caller ID service automatically transmits the telephone number of the calling party to the called party through use of a display device provided by the customers. The company proposes to make available to callers at no charge the option of not sending forward the number of the telephone from which they are calling. However, this option would require callers to dial a special (3-digit) code each time a call is made, to prevent the transmission and disclosure of the caller's telephone number to the called party. The company has set forth its view on this matter in a letter to members of the Commission. A copy of one such letter is attached, and interested parties are welcome to address comments to its contents. The Commission may ultimately adopt, reject, or amend any of the proposals presented by New York Telephone Company and may order increases or decreases in the rates which the company has proposed in this proceeding. It is not necessary to make advance appointments or to present written material in order to speak. All statements will be made part of the stenographic transcript in the case. Persons not wishing to speak may nevertheless comment on the company's request in writing by mailing their statements to Secretary John J. Kelliher at the offices of the Commission, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223. Both written and oral statements will become part of the official case record and will be considered in the Commission's review process. Disabled persons who may require special accommodations at the hearing other than a sign language interpreter are asked to contact the Commission's Compliance Officer at (518) 473-8869. Persons requiring a sign language interpreter should call the Commission's TDD telephone number (collect) in New York City at (212) 219-4292. These special arrangements should be requested at least one week before the hearing date. In the near future, the Commission will also conduct evidentiary hearings to determine whether, or to what extent, the company's proposals are justified under legal standards. The testimony and exhibits offered by the company in support of its proposals, when filed, may be examined at the following locations: Commission offices at Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223 and 400 Broome Street, New York, New York 10013 Garden City Public Library, 60 7th Street, Garden City, New York 11530 This matter will be heard in [italics] Case 91-C-0428 -- Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Investigate New York Telephone Company's Proposal to Institute Caller ID Service. [end italics] JOHN J. KELLIHER [italics] Secretary [end italics] [beginning of attachment] [Bell logo] New York Telephone A NYNEX Company 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Bailey M. Geeslin Vice President-Regulatory and Planning April 5, 1991 Commissioners State of New York Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza Albany New York 12223 Dear Commissioner: Today we are filing a Petition for Reconsideration of the Order to Modify or Suspend Tariff Filing of the CLASS and Caller ID services tariff. I wanted to use this less formal forum to discuss some of the concerns that led us to the decision to file for reconsideration. We start with the strongly held view that Caller ID is a service that is valuable to individual consumers, to society and to New York Telephone Company. We believe that there is a strong policy need for this service to be available in New York. We also understand that the method of deployment that maximizes its service value introduces privacy issues. On the other hand, methods that eliminate the privacy issues debilitate the service value. Therefore, there is a need to strike a balance. We believe that the balance point is critical and there is not a safe direction in which to err. The current balance of privacy between calling and called parties is the result of technology, not social policy. In early telephone service, all calls were placed through operators, who identified the caller to the called person. Party-line service, which three-quarters of American telephone customers had in 1950, provided a check on the anonymity of the caller, since outgoing calls could not be depended upon to be private. By the 1960s, telephone technology tipped the balance in favor of the caller when direct-dial, single party telephone service became widespread, as did annoyance calls. Technological change, which caused the imbalance, now can help improve it, in the form of Caller ID. The Public Service Commission has recognized how privacy expectations have changed over time, as indicated in the eighth Telecommunications Privacy Principle: "Privacy expectations may change over time requiring, in some instances, changes in telecommunications services. At the same time, changes in telecommunications technology services and markets may lead to changes in customers' privacy expectations." We believe that this may, indeed, be one of those times when changes in telecommunications technology may lead to changes in our customers' privacy expectations. It is New York Telephone's desire to work in close cooperation with our customers and in identifying how to achieve the best balance between the privacy of the calling party and the called party. We are firm in our belief that this balance can best be struck by Caller ID with per-call blocking only (offered at no charge). The privacy value offered by Caller ID to our customers is vastly diminished by the intrusion of the all-call blocking option to all customers and presumptive all-call blocking to all non-published service customers. For example, more than one-third of New York Telephone's New York City customers are non-published. This could mean that subscribers to Caller ID could have the validity of the service pre-empted so often as to call to question its usefulness. Conversely, Caller ID with only per-call blocking [underscore] enhances [end underscore] the privacy level of the called party because it offers the called party the certainty of knowledge that when an incoming call is accompanied by a "P" or "Private" on the Caller ID display unit, the calling party made a conscious effort to block passage of his or her number to the called person. Customer surveys have indicated that this critical piece of information provides the option for Caller ID subscribers to decide to [underscore] not [end underscore] answer these calls. If, however, one-third of all potential calls sends out a "P" automatically, this privacy decision-making capability is essentially voided. From the point of view of non-published service subscribers who don't respond to opportunities to select a blocking option, their privacy decision-making capabilities will also be abrogated. By mandating that these subscribers shall be defaulted to all-call blocking status, they would be placed in a position different from all other customers. Certainly, an opportunity would be offered to check off a preference for per-call blocking. But this type of "negative check-off" tends to elicit a "no action" response on the part of most customers, leaving many customers with a service they don't really want, but simply don't take the time or action to reject. What are the privacy implications of per-call versus all-call blocking options? Per-call blocking maintains the privacy status of calling parties by permitting them to make individual decisions on when to block the passing of their phone number. At the same time, it increases the level of privacy for called parties by giving control over their telephones in making individual decisions on whether to answer a particular call. On the other hand, all-call blocking may not address a privacy issue so much as a convenience issue. Some maintain that non-published service customers should not have to dial the *67 blocking code all the time to block passing of their number. The amount of time it takes to dial *67 for per-call blocking is the same as that to dial an area code. This would not seem to be a great inconvenience. Customer surveys in other states support the joint research we recently concluded with the Commission's staff. Survey results, including a very recent study in Tennessee, show strong opposition to blocking options. Of particular interest is the fact that 41 percent of Caller ID residential customers in Tennessee have non-published service. But we must interject our primary and most urgent objection to all-call blocking -- an objection that has been joined in by emergency response agencies across the country. In addition to diminishing the value of Caller ID, all-call blocking compromises the ability of police, fire, and other emergency service providers to determine the source of the call, thus impeding responses in emergencies and increasing false alarms. All-call blocked callers to fire, police, or medical agencies (non-E-911) calling in an emergency would be likely to forget to "unblock" their telephone number. Customer focus group interviews in New York also indicated a concern that children, currently taught to dial 911 or the police direct dial number to summon help, would not remember to or be able to disengage the line blocking feature in an emergency. From a public safety point of view, per-call blocking is clearly the best option. The debate over privacy issues raised by the opportunities offered by Caller ID clearly centers around achieving a balance between the privacy rights of the calling party and the called party. From the outset, the industry position had been to offer Caller ID without a blocking option. New York Telephone decided to break with the industry position by providing a solution -- per-call blocking -- that we feel balances the privacy rights of the calling and called parties alike. That position is now becoming the industry norm with local operating companies across the nation. As discussed in detail in our petition for reconsideration, we do not believe there are any legal or tariff impediments that would prevent New York State from adopting this balanced approach to Caller ID. We believe that this solution best meets both the privacy expectations and service needs of our customers. I hope that the petition for reconsideration serves as a basis for you to change the order to allow this service to achieve its potential value. I would be more than happy to meet with you at your convenience, if this would be helpful. Very truly yours, [Signature of Bailey M. Geeslin] Identical letter addressed to: cc: Margery Baker Commissioner Harold A. Jerry, Jr. William Cowan Commissioner James T. McFarland Daniel Rosenblum Commissioner Gail Garfield Schwartz Lisa Rosenblum Commissioner Henry G. Williams Richard Stannard --------------- Follow-ups to this TELECOM Digest SPECIAL REPORT should be directed to the Telecom Privacy Mailing List (telecom-priv@pica.army.mil). Thanks.   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29548; 22 Jun 91 2:13 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11787; 22 Jun 91 0:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac30553; 21 Jun 91 23:36 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 23:00:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #474 BCC: Message-ID: <9106212300.ab10157@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Jun 91 23:00:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 474 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Communications Privacy Statement [Marc Rotenberg] GTE Mobile Communications - LD Ripoff [Bob Stratton] Never Sleep in Room 411 [Terry J. Wood] Wanted: Bennett and Davey Book: Data Transmission [David Moon] ISDN and X-Windows [Menco Duursma] Information Wanted on T1 Rotaries [Jack McMahon] Wanted to Swap or Buy: AT&T D4 Channel Banks [Donald E. Kimberlin] Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 [Gary W. Sanders] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 91 10:25:08 PDT From: mrotenberg%cdp.UUCP@labrea.stanford.edu Subject: Communications Privacy Statement STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY Washington, DC June 10, 1991 As representatives of leading computer and telecommunications companies, as members of national privacy and civil liberties organizations, as academics and researchers across the country, as computer users, as corporate users of computer networks, and as individuals interested in the protection of privacy and the promotion of liberty, we have joined together for the purpose of recommending that the United States government undertake a new approach to support communications privacy and to promote the availability of privacy-enhancing technologies. We believe that our effort will strengthen economic competitiveness, encourage technological innovation, and ensure that communications privacy will be carried forward into the next decade. In the past several months we have become aware that the federal government has failed to take advantage of opportunities to promote communications privacy. In some areas, it has considered proposals that would actually be a step backward. The area of cryptography is a prime example. Cryptography is the process of translating a communication into a code so that it can be understood only by the person who prepares the message and the person who is intended to receive the message. In the communications world, it is the technological equivalent of the seal on an envelope. In the security world, it is like a lock on a door. Cryptography also helps to ensure the authenticity of messages and promotes new forms of business in electronic environments. Cryptography makes possible the secure exchange of information through complex computer networks, and helps to prevent fraud and industrial espionage. For many years, the United States has sought to restrict the use of encryption technology, expressing concern that such restrictions were necessary for national security purposes. For the most part, computer systems were used by large organizations and military contractors. Computer policy was largely determined by the Department of Defense. Companies that tried to develop new encryption products confronted export control licensing, funding restrictions, and classification review. Little attention was paid to the importance of communications privacy for the general public. It is clear that our national needs are changing. Computers are ubiquitous. We also rely on communication networks to exchange messages daily. The national telephone system is in fact a large computer network. We have opportunities to reconsider and redirect our current policy on cryptography. Regrettably, our government has failed to move thus far in a direction that would make the benefits of cryptography available to a wider public. In late May, representatives of the State Department met in Europe with the leaders of the Committee for Multilateral Export Controls ("COCOM"). At the urging of the National Security Agency, our delegates blocked efforts to relax restrictions on cryptography and telecommunications technology, despite dramatic changes in Eastern Europe. Instead of focusing on specific national security needs, our delegates continued a blanket opposition to secure network communication technologies. While the State Department opposed efforts to promote technology overseas, the Department of Justice sought to restrict its use in the United States. A proposal was put forward by the Justice Department that would require telecommunications providers and manufacturers to redesign their services and products with weakened security. In effect, the proposal would have made communications networks less well protected so that the government could obtain access to all telephone communications. A Senate Committee Task Force Report on Privacy and Technology established by Senator Patrick Leahy noted that this proposal could undermine communications privacy. The public opposition to S. 266 was far-reaching. Many individuals wrote to Senator Biden and expressed their concern that cryptographic equipment and standards should not be designed to include a "trapdoor" to facilitate government eavesdropping. Designing in such trapdoors, they noted, is no more appropriate than giving the government the combination to every safe and a master key to every lock. We are pleased that the provision in S. 266 regarding government surveillance was withdrawn. We look forward to Senator Leahy's hearing on cryptography and communications privacy later this year. At the same time, we are aware that proposals like S. 266 may reemerge and that we will need to continue to oppose such efforts. We also hope that the export control issue will be revisited and the State Department will take advantage of the recent changes in East-West relations and relax the restrictions on cryptography and network communications technology. We believe that the government should promote communications privacy. We therefore recommend that the following steps be taken. First, proposals regarding cryptography should be moved beyond the domain of the intelligence and national security community. Today, we are growing increasingly dependent on computer communica- tions. Policies regarding the appropriate use of cryptography should be subject to public review and public debate. Second, any proposal to facilitate government eavesdropping should be critically reviewed. Asking manufacturers and service providers to make their services less secure will ultimately undermine efforts to strengthen communications privacy across the country. While these proposals may be based on sound concerns, there are less invasive ways to pursue legitimate government goals. Third, government agencies with appropriate expertise should work free of NSA influence to promote the availability of cryptography so as to ensure communications privacy for the general public. The National Academy of Science has recently completed two important studies on export controls and computer security. The Academy should now undertake a study specifically on the use of cryptography and communications privacy, and should also evaluate current obstacles to the widespread adoption of cryptographic protection. Fourth, the export control restrictions for computer network technology and cryptography should be substantially relaxed. The cost of export control restrictions are enormous. Moreover, foreign companies are often able to obtain these products from other sources. And one result of export restrictions is that US manufacturers are less likely to develop privacy-protecting products for the domestic market. As our country becomes increasingly dependent on computer communications for all forms of business and personal communication, the need to ensure the privacy and security of these messages that travel along the networks grows. Cryptography is the most important technological safeguard for ensuring privacy and security. We believe that the general public should be able to make use of this technology free of government restrictions. There is a great opportunity today for the United States to play a leadership role in promoting communications privacy. We hope to begin this process by this call for a reevaluation of our national interest in cryptography and privacy. Mitchell Kapor, Electronic Frontier Foundation Marc Rotenberg, CPSR John Gilmore, EFF D. James Bidzos, RSA Phil Karn, BellCore Ron Rivest, MIT Jerry Berman, ACLU Whitfield Diffie, Northern Telecom David Peyton, ADAPSO Ronald Plesser, Information Industry Association Dorothy Denning, Georgetown University David Kahn, author *The Codebreakers* Ray Ozzie, IRIS Associates Evan D. Hendricks, US Privacy Council Priscella M. Regan, George Mason University Lance J. Hoffman, George Washington University David Bellin, Pratt University (affiliations are for identification purposes only) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 16:37:21 EDT From: Bob Stratton Subject: GTE Mobile Communications - LD Ripoff Reply-To: strat@ai.mit.edu Some of you may remember me asking for any reasons NOT to buy cellular service from GTE Mobile Communications in the Washington, DC area. Well, I have one now - I'm inclined to think it's a big one, too. For background: In the D.C. Area, GTE resells service from both the A and B carriers (Cellular One, and Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems or BAMS). I elected GTE's resold BAMS service - they had some neat price plans, and were the only people stocking the phone I wanted. After I had the phone for a little while, I called GTE about changing my cellphone's PIC (LD carrier) from AT&T. They said that I'd have to call the carrier I wanted and have them do the switch; no problem, or so I thought. I called MCI and asked them to do the switch, set up some fancy billing to mesh with my existing accounts, etc. They said it would take about ten days to take effect. Last weekend, I discovered that my phone will not dial 700 and 900 numbers, but gives me the fast, high-pitched, "no service" reorder when I dial them, with or without a leading "1". I dialed *611, to ask BAMS what the deal was. They looked at my number, got confused about whether it had been turned on yet, and I explained the GTE reseller status. They then brusquely told me to call GTE. I called GTE to ask why I can't dial 700 and 900 numbers, and they give me some fluff about how "some" 700 and 900 numbers can't be dialed. I explain that this is too vague, and "Eva" says she'll get back to me. This was last Thursday, and I haven't heard from them since, except for a card saying welcome, and that they've tried to reach me without success to see if everything's all right (which I know to be false, as I would have received a message or been paged if they called me). I dialed "00" and got an AT&T operator, which told me who my PIC was. Today, I called MCI to check on the status of the switch. I got a VERY helpful and professional rep who called GTE first, got referred to Bell Atlantic, which said two things: a) I have to write AT&T. and b) call GTE's regular customer service number. The MCI rep three-wayed me with the GTE rep, who then proceeded to tell me that GTE has "chosen" AT&T to carry their cellphone LD traffic in Bell Atlantic-land, and that if I want to change LD carriers, I have to cancel my GTE account and get new service from Bell Atlantic. Needless to say, the MCI rep and I were both disappointed. I'm going to write a letter to the Great Telephone Experiment asking why this condition exists. Do any of you GTE Mobilnet users have to use one particular LD carrier? Inquiring minds want to know. Bob Stratton Stratton Systems Design| SMTP: strat@gnu.ai.mit.edu, c_bstratton@hns.com Alexandria, Virginia | PSTN: +1 301 409 2703 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 11:17 EDT From: "Terry J. Wood" Subject: Never Sleep in Room 411 On a recent vacation, I made the mistake of getting room 411 in a hotel. I also made the mistake of being the one to sleep next to the telephone. Around 3 AM the phone rings: Me: "Yea, uh, what, uh, HELLO?" Some woman: "Help! I've fallen and I can't get up!!!" Me: "That's nice. Goodbye" Ok, she didn't really say "Help. I've fallen and I can't get up", but she did say something similar. I also received several calls from other guests in the hotel asking for directory assistance. I guess that in some cities the number "411" connects you to directory assistance. However, dialing it inside the hotel connects you to room 411. Needless to say, I got a different room the next night. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 11:29:59 EDT From: moon@gdc.portal.com Subject: Wanted: Bennett and Davey Book: Data Transmission WANTED: a copy of William R. Bennett and James R. Davey, _DATA TRANSMISSION_, McGraw-Hill, 1965. It is out of print. David Moon Internet: moon@gdc.portal.com General Datacomm, Inc. ATTMail: !dmoon Middlebury, CT 06762 (203) 758 1811 FAX: (203) 755 0896 ------------------------------ From: Menco Duursma (pttrnl!duursma@hp4nl.nluug.nl) Subject: ISDN and X-Windows Date: 20 Jun 91 09:07:01 GMT Hello, For one of our projects we try to get the following stack of hard/software working together for a MS-DOS PC: X-windows TCP/IP ISDN (The German 1TR6-protocol) Until now we could not find an ISDN-card for the MS DOS PC (386 or 486) on which we could use standard TCP/IP software in order to use X-windows. We are looking for a complete stack from German ISDN up to X-windows commercially available. However, if you have a better stack, but including ISDN and X-windows, please let me know! Thanks in advance, Menco Duursma (pttrnl!duursma@hp4nl.nluug.nl) PTT Research Tele-informatics P.O. BOX 15000 9700 CD Groningen The Netherlands PHONE: +31 50 821169 FAX: +31 50 122415 ------------------------------ From: Jack McMahon Subject: Information Wanted on T1 Rotaries Organization: GE Information Services, Rockville, MD Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 17:47:08 GMT It's my understanding that the RBOCs are now starting to offer T1 rotaries with 24 channels. I'd like to know if anyone can provide additional info. How widespread is this? Are there any vendors making T1 boards to handle such rotaries for HP, Sun, or other Unix platforms? Thanks for all replies... Jack McMahon, Sr. Design Engineer * UUNET: uunet!ge!mcmahon GE Information Services * INTERNET: ge!mcmahon@uunet.uu.net 401 N. Washington St. MC07B * PHONE: 301-340-5166 Rockville, MD 20850 * GE DIAL COMM: 273-5166 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 14:01 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Wanted to Swap or Buy: AT&T D4 Channel Banks WANTED TO SWAP OR BUY FOR: AT&T D4 Channel Banks HAVE: An excess quantity (50-60) Type 4TO Channel Units One excess OIU - 1 WANT: Similar quantity (24 minimum) OCU-DP One OIU - 2 WARRANTY: Renowned management expert Billy Crystal said, "Warranty? We don't need no steenking warranty!" HAGGLE WITH: Donald E. Kimberlin MCIMail dkimberlin -or- ATTMailP!dkimberlin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 09:33:11 EDT From: Gary W Sanders Subject: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories With my Ohio Bell Phone bill I saw an interesting little notice. This capability has been around for a long time, but was generaly used for emergencies. Now Ohio Bell is encourging people to use the service for non-emergency calls.. DIAL 0 (OPERATOR) TO INTERRUPT A BUSY LINE ON A LOCAL CALL. Do you need to talk to someone, and the line is busy? For a $1.60 per call, you can ask the Ohio Bell Operator to interrupt a busy line. The Operator will inform the called party that someone is trying to reach them. The called party will then have to the option to hand up, freeing the line for you to make your call to them. Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio gws@cblph.att.com 614-860-5965 [Moderator's Note: But you should be aware that the called party has the option to NOT break the connection if he so chooses, and you will still pay the $1.60. The Operator did her work by notifying the party. Also, if you claim an emergency exists as the reason for the busy party to break the connection when in fact there is no emergency, then you are probably guilty of a misdeamenor crime. Likewise if an energency *does* exist and the called party refuses to yield the line then he is guilty of a misdemeanor crime. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #474 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01444; 22 Jun 91 3:15 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13643; 22 Jun 91 1:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad11787; 22 Jun 91 0:42 CDT Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 23:55:29 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #475 BCC: Message-ID: <9106212355.ab05045@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 21 Jun 91 23:55:18 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 475 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Let's Hear It For Analog (Was "Fiber Optic Quality?") [Donald Kimberlin] 800-311 Prefix [Carl Moore] Reusing Numbers After Just One Day [David Gast] I Cannot Access MCI ... Any Help? [Peter J. Dotzauer] The Former West Berlin [Carl Moore] Information Wanted About AT&T ISN [David M. Meyer] Call Message Delivery [Marc Fusco] Where is the SLC-96 Power Supply? [Jim Rees] Answering Machine With Date/Time Stamp Needed [Dave Niebuhr] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 01:20 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Let's Hear It For Analog (Was: "Fiber Optic Quality?") In Digest v11, iss 471, Jim Redelfs continues a thread Mark Miller started ("What the Heck is Digital Fiber Optic Quality Anyway?">, quoting Mark, then responding: > Mark Miller wrote: >> as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in a >> digital format. > I believe this is in error. Although AT&T is actively replacing the > analog facilities within their VAST system, I'm sure they have a LONG > way to go. > It wouldn't surprise me to find that only HALF of their traffic makes > the long haul digitally -- perhaps even less. Au contraire, Monsieur Redelfs! Not only has digital transmission been what supplied the explosive expansion of public telecommunica- tions in North America and worldwide; it is also been so increasingly cheap to install and operate that the vast majority of analog plant has been taken out of service. The real reasons for this were money reasons; no more, no less. (Can you say "Cheaper ... VASTLY Cheaper!"?) In the case of AT&T, some may recall that almost two years ago, AT&T took a large write-down to "retire obsolete plant". That was the end of the analog era for AT&T. And, MCI did a similar thing about a year later, with similar effect. Sprint's claim to fame is that they started up building a new network that was all digital from the beginning. (But in fact, they were really only expanding nationwide and replacing the far smaller analog plant their antecedents had built beginning back with Southern Pacific Communications Company in the 1970's..) And the "digital revolution" has gone far beyond the interstate common carriers, too. The Local Exchange Companies (LEC's) have similarly been tossing out analog plant at an incredible rate, replacing and expanding it with digital transmission plant. Only one reason: Cheaper. Continuing Mark's questions and Jim's replies: >> is this "fiber optic quality" spiel just some marketing drival Jim responded: > ....there is certainly a lot of truth to the implication that data > transmitted via optical fiber is usually of a higher quality than that > which is not. I have to take issue here, Jim. Once your inherently analog speech (or analog modem data signals) have been digitized, any difference in error rate due to the underlying transport medium is largely invisible to you. The "last mile" to your house is,with rare exception, still analog copper, while "the last few miles" across your LEC is still very likely digital transmission on copper. This means your "fiber optic quality" phone calls have to transit several miles of copper at each end, anyway. If you happen to be on a campus or in an industrial office of any size, it's pretty likely your signal is digitized as it leaves your premises, for purely economic reasons. On just two wire pairs that once held only two local analog phone lines, your LEC can get 24 circuits. That's done with electronics that costs less than all the copper it would take. If your location is really large (a thousand people or so, and new, such that a lo: of copper would have been required), it's likely your LE C has run fiber right into the premises, because fiber gives them a further economic advantage over larger copper cables ... plus room to expand electronically and not have to pull in even more cable in the future. And it needn't be either fiber or copper, either. There are MANY circuit-miles of microwave radio that bears digitized signals, too. Again, once your signal has been digitized, you can't tell what the transport medium is. Digital transmission is, at once, both a blessing and a curse. When it's working, it works perfectly. Luckily, that's most of the time. But when it fails, it fails flat...and it can go from perfect to failure in microseconds, and even toggle between the two conditions at microsecond rates. One thing to be said for analog: When it's about to fail, you can hear the noise rising, perhaps in sufficient time to do something about it. Not so with digital. What makes digital such an improvement is :hat it's rather unforgiving to its installers. They usually can't get digital to work if they don't do the job with reasonable skill. Old analog could be made to "work," however badly, leading an incompetent installer to tell you that you should be grateful you got anything through! "Olde Analog" really wan't as bad as it was made out to be. Its image problem is that so many people got stuck with so much badly- installed and maintained stuff, they think thxt was intrinsic to analog transmission. Just for a frame of reference: One of my projects in 1971 (Egads! Two decades ago! I'm getting old!) involved 25 analog four-wire circuits that ran 2400 bps 24 hours a day seven day a week, 365 days a year, between Manhattan Island and San Francisco. Each of the 25 data streams had a TDM on it that ran 46 international Telex channels at 50 Baud ... no error correction, no nothing. Couldn't stop; had to transmit everything presented "live." On one channel of each of the 46-channel TDMs, we ran the CCITT-standard international test message, "The Quick Brown Fox Jumps Over The Lazy Dog 12345 67890." (It's in the CCITT book that way.) We kept the telegraphic transmitters and receivers calibrated by the standards books, and scored EVERY character error that occurred. Our typical character errors were three per 24-hour DAY. One time, one of them dropped ZERO characters for THREE DAYS!. This kind of performance was with "ordinary" analog circuits ... circuits that merely met the tariff limits and plant objectives of both AT&T and Western Union (we bought some from each, and Western Union's was all microwave all the way across the country). Oh, we didn't have circuits that were "in spec" when we started out. We had to refuse and test and retest and nagotiate and threaten and deal hard. But magically, once they found out we would take no less than what they advertised and contracted for, the latter two-thirds of our circuits "met spec" when presented to us. So much for "analog being deficient." It's only as deficient as you will accept. Talk about "modern applciations NEEDING digital" is just sophistry. In fact, in a moment, you'll see that analog is coming back. Jim continues with: > As far as I know, ALL transmissions over fiber ARE digital, whereas > NOT all (at LEAST!) transmissions over OTHER type of plant is. This seems a bit garbled, but I take it to mean that"other plant is likely analog." N{t so, as explained previously. However, until very recently, fiber as used for multichannel "telephone network" transmission distances of mroe than a mile or so had only digital electronics to use on it. Our developments in coherent modulation techniques at light frequencies were roughly where radio was at the turn of the century, simply "blasting away" with poorly-shaped, relatively unstable light generators. This has the effect of REQUIRING digital transmission on fiber optics as a practical matter. The jargon for converting older copper plant and microwave to digital operation is called "digital over-build" in the trade. (There! You learned some "inside talk!") But now where are we in 1991? When you read about "erbium amplifers" being applied to fiber cable, you're reading about ANALOG devices being applied to fiber ... because the technique has now been improved such that purer, cleaner lightwave signals can be generated economically ... and AMPLIFIED. "Digital transmission" implies regenerating the signal at intervals along the line, retransmiting a new, cleaned-up pulse signal; getting rid of distortions and noises that can accumulate along the way. Jim concludes with: > Hear a pin drop? So what?!! A fat lot of good that kind of "quality" > means when there's a Sports Illustrated "SneakerPhone" on one end and > yet another CheapieChirper phone on the other!! Absolutely correct, Jim. The vast majority of the public just messes up what's delivered to them anyway. The thing that made a "pin drop" audible was that four-wire transmission has already spread close enough to your phone that transmission levels could be bumped up (with less noise also) so you could hear it without the noi~e. Whether fiber or radio or copper was used to bear the signal was of little importance. Of course, since Sprint had an all-fiber plant, they were at the time FORCED to use digital operation by the lightwave technology of the time. In sense, Sprint's marketeers probably led themselves to believe that fiber was "the only way." The real truth is that in the world of natural physics, there is no such thing as a digital function. Every electrical signal has some small amount of "slope" as it rises, some "overshoot" when it reaches full level, some amount of "slope" when it falls, and some degree of "bounc" when it hits bottom. While these can be ignored in many applications, they are artifacts of the intrinsic analog nature of their transmission medium. And now, even fiber optics is finding the wa~ to maximize capacity is to use analog techniques underlying your "digitized" transmission. If you read the fiber optic engineering journals, they're now saying hurrahs for analog technology ... and advertising for analog-smart engineers and designers, because the universities stopped teaching "analog stuff" a while back, and all the "old analog people" have retired. Were Shakespeare here today, he might say, "All the world's an analog stage upon which digital play only a bit part." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 9:59:45 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: 800-311 Prefix Today, KYW news-radio in Philadelphia announced the 800-311-3414 telephone number. (It was for information regarding a hazardous- material spill today on the PA Turnpike northeast extension, occurring between the east-west junction and exit 31.) I tried this number from MD and got a recording saying my call could not be completed as dialed! I had earlier made use of a number on the 800-800 prefix. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 19:05:59 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day I called a friend of mine who lived in one of the dorms at UCLA last school year the other night. I called on Sunday and the quarter ended on Friday so I expected to get an intercept like "The number you dialed is not in service ..." and I was hoping "the new number is ..." Instead I got connected to new tenants. I am not sure if it was the same room number, but it was the same dorm (I asked). Less than one business day is way too quick in my opinion. The only reasonable explanation would be that the old tenants forgot to cancel their phone service or that GTE was slow in processing it. Otherwise it is substandard service from our beloved GTE. David ------------------------------ From: Peter J Dotzauer Subject: I Cannot Access MCI ... Any Help? Organization: The Ohio State University Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1991 18:36:54 GMT As an on-campus resident at the Ohio State University, I can't seem to have straight access to MCI that would allow me to subscribe to their 'Call Europe' program (which would save me a lot of money). Ohio State University has its own campus telephone system, and they subscribe to U.S. Sprint for long distance services. U.S. Sprint universally blocked alternate carrier access, so I cannot dial 10222 to connect to MCI; I would have to go through a U.S. Sprint operator. Because of that, MCI says I cannot subscribe to their program, and to some other programs only as a calling card holder (the calling card surchage usually consumes any benefit of a particular program and therefore makes it not worthwhile). Is there anything else I can do? Does Ohio State University or U.S. Sprint violate any rights that I have? Peter Dotzauer, Analyt.Cart.& GIS, Dept.of Geogr., OSU, Columbus, OH 43210-1361 TEL +1 614 292 1357 FAX +1 614 292 6213 FIDO 1:226/50 IRC/ICB/Relay Ratzer INTERNET pjd+@osu.edu UUCP ...!bluemoon!pjd DECnet mapvxa::pjd BITNET pjd+@ohstmail WWIVnet pjd@6450 FreeNet ak061 ProLine pjd@pro-tcc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 10:51:30 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: The Former West Berlin Given the recent messages about unified Germany, you might note that the former West Berlin has city code 30 under country code 49. As you probably know, Berlin is deep inside the former East Germany. [Moderator's Note: Prior to the unification, (or now for that matter) how were 'local' calls between East and West Berlin dialed? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 17:06:10 PDT From: "David M. Meyer" Subject: Information Wanted About AT&T ISN I am looking for information about the AT&T ISN switch. Does anyone have any literature (or anything else) about this device? Thanks, David M. Meyer Voice: 503/346-1747 Network Systems Analyst Internet: meyer@oregon.uoregon.edu Office of University Computing Bitnet: meyer@oregon University of Oregon UUCP: ...!uoregon!meyer 1225 Kincaid FAX: 503/346-4397 Eugene, OR 97403 ------------------------------ From: Marc Fusco Subject: Call Message Delivery Date: 19 Jun 91 23:39:15 GMT Organization: Bellcore - Red Bank, NJ I recently caught part of an ad on TV by AT&T promoting a new (?) service, whereby one can call an 800 number from a public phone and leave a message that will be delivered to another party. I assume your credit card will be billed. Does anyone have any further information on this service? Are there any competitors to this service? What about user interfaces (does the service require an operator), billing, and limitations (inter/intra LATA)? Is this only available to public phone users? Any information would be helpful. Thanks, Marc mf@nvuxr.cc.bellcore.com ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Where is the SLC-96 Power Supply? Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 17:00:32 GMT How is an SLC-96 powered? Local AC connected at the site? DC sent down a pair from the CO? I assume it's battery backed, but how long is the battery good for? We had a power outage here a few years back that lasted ten days. The CO stayed up because they have their own diesel generators. But what about customers on an SLC-96 (or equivalent)? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 11:01:56 EDT From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Answering Machine With Date/Time Stamp Needed I'm looking for a telephone-answering machine combination that will put a time and date stamp on each call that is put on the tape. Does anyone know of any good makes and models that I should look for? Please include pros and cons. Direct any replies via e-mail to niebuhr@bnl.gov (Internet) or dwn1 at bnlvmxa on bitnet. The former is preferred but the latter is acceptable. Thanks in advance, Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory niebuhr@bnlcl6.bnl.gov ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #475 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01582; 22 Jun 91 3:19 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13643; 22 Jun 91 1:53 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ah11787; 22 Jun 91 0:43 CDT Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 0:23:30 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #476 BCC: Message-ID: <9106220023.ab07606@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Jun 91 00:23:24 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 476 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Bryan Richardson] Re: What The Heck is 'Fiber Optic Quality' Anyway? [Jack Dominey] Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [John O'Brien] Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [David Nochlin] Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum [Fred R. Goldstein] Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum [Robert Jacobson] Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) [Dennis Rears] Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bryan Richardson Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Date: 21 Jun 91 14:23:25 GMT Reply-To: Bryan Richardson Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University In article Jeff Carroll writes: > In article ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@ > uunet.uu.net writes: >> Mark Miller wrote: >>> as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in a >>> digital format. >> I believe this is in error. Although AT&T is actively replacing the >> analog facilities within their VAST system, I'm sure they have a LONG >> way to go. > This is certainly *not* the case in our corporate network, and > I'd guess that AT&T is still some time away from being fully digital, > as well. Every switch in the AT&T network is a digital switch with the exception of a single cross-bar (in North Dakota, I think), and perhaps a few TSPSs which haven't been replaced. If I remember correctly, the transmission facilities within the network are over 99% digital -- fiber, microwave, etc. Thus, it is highly likely that any call placed over the AT&T network is digital from the moment that it enters through the moment that it leaves the network. What often affects sound quality on a call (in addition to the Sports Illustrated phone), is the copper loop from the subscriber to the CO (always analog), the local CO, and the transmission medium from the CO to the AT&T network. Bryan Richardson richard@cs.purdue.edu AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University Disclaimer: Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Fri Jun 21 09:02:55 EDT 1991 Subject: Re: What The Heck is 'Fiber Optic Quality'? In V11#471 Jim Redelfs writes: Mark Miller wrote: >> as I understand it, virtually all long distance calls are sent in a >> digital format. > I believe this is in error. Although AT&T is actively replacing the > analog facilities within their VAST system, I'm sure they have a LONG > way to go. > It wouldn't surprise me to find that only HALF of their traffic makes > the long haul digitally -- perhaps even less. Surprise! My figures are at least a year out of date, but AT&T's network digitization is almost complete. As of mid-1990, about 95% of the network was digital. Since digital circuits are given preference by the switches, the actual percent of calls carried digitally was closer to 98%. AT&T made an immense push starting in '87 or '88 to switch as much as possible from analog to digital facilities. This included a six billion dollar accounting write-down one year to dump some of the old stuff. It's been a remarkable shift, really. >> is this "fiber optic quality" spiel just some marketing drival > You can bet that it is actively persued my the marketing honchos, but > there is certainly a lot of truth to the implication that data > transmitted via optical fiber is usually of a higher quality than that > which is not. Not really. As someone already pointed out, once you go digital, the medium doesn't matter much any more. There's error correction built in to the process. If you're on a modem, the critical part of the data transmission path is the analog line between you and the local telco. Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA voice mail: 404-496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey or !bsga05!jdominey ------------------------------ From: John O'Brien Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? Date: 21 Jun 91 14:46:04 GMT Organization: Siemens-Nixdorf Information Systems, Cambridge, MA In article , ivgate!Jim.Redelfs@ uunet.uu.net (Jim Redelfs) writes: > Hear a pin drop? So what?!! A fat lot of good that kind of "quality" > means when there's a Sports Illustrated "SneakerPhone" on one end and > yet another CheapieChirper phone on the other!! All of which makes me wonder if anyone has done a Consumer Reports- style comparison of phone equipment (phones, answering machines, electrical connections) to compare sound quality? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 13:52 EDT From: David Nochlin Subject: Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? In response to Jim Redelfs message from June 18, 1991 ... here is the current scoop from the AT&T Fact Book as of April,1991 [available from the AT&T Customer Information Center 1-800-432-6600 as Sel. Code 015-005-001 $0.72]: AT&T Worldwide Intelligent Network Average daily calls handled 120 million --> Digitally transported 100 percent Digital network route miles 72,124 Reach 273 countries/territories Direct dial capability 177 countries Busiest calling day Monday after Thanksgiving At some point within the last year and a bit the network went 100% digital! Cheers, David Nochlin AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, NJ dhn@ulysses.ATT.COM / or +1 908 582 2663 ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum Date: 21 Jun 91 18:28:46 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , jim@equi.com (Jim Allard) writes.: > Since my favorite UNIX afficionado introduced me to the Digest a few > months ago, I have been quietly sitting in the background reading the > various utterings of respondents, as AOSs and COCOTs in general have > been heavily smacked around. While I will agree there are some > unethical providers out there, some of us have made a serious effort > to provide services which attempt to validate the reasons for the MFJ > -- competition. ... Mr. Allard has a disingenuous but ultimately specious defense of his so-called "industry". Beginning with his motherhood and apple pie defense of "competition" (who's disputing that?), he then claims that because his company is doing something apparently in competition with AT&T, he must be good. Hogwash. Speaking as a diehard anti-monopolist who has taken the strong position that "divestiture" was a Good Thing (and disagreeing with the Moderator quite openly, to be sure), I still see no excuse for the AOS/COCOT business to exist. They're bottom-feeding scum whose very existence is no more than an unhappy accident. Fact: Nobody in "power" EVER planned on the COCOT/AOS situation. It was an accident caused by the confluence of several different legal and regulatory events. If it were chemistry, it would be the creature from the Toxic Lagoon, one of those unhappy reactions. Event 1: COCOTs. This was planned. Back in 1977, the FCC Registration program (Part 68) specifically excluded pay phones. At the time, the only pay phones were the CO-controlled kind; mucking with those lines could have caused mis-billing, fraud, etc. No problem. But then somebody invented a new kind of pay phone that ran on a standard line. Was it allowed? The FCC recognized the rationale behind the original pay phone exemption and allowed registation of the COCOT. That was purely a technical issue. Event 2: Resale. This was planned. Back in the '70s, the FCC allowed resale carriers to operate under license; later, the license requirement was dropped. Anybody could resell anything. At any price. This was fine; the telco still got the money from the original supplier and if somebody chose to buy from a reseller, that's their business. This has recently begun in Canada, btw. Reselling is a cheap way to pretend to be an LD carrier. Event 3: Divestiture. This caused the LECs (RBOCs et al) to adopt an arms-length relationship from LD carriers. So they had to accept billing requests from any and all LD comers, if they were to continue to bill for AT&T. Now with anybody allowed to put anything on a phone bill, bottom feeders moved in. They got aggregators and COCOTs to force calls throgh themselves. They charged outrageous, unregulated rates. They gave lousy service. But it was all legal, since reselling was allowed and resellers were, like carriers, allowed to buy LEC billing services. Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Allard's company does't overcharge the way 99.44% of AOSs do. But when I travel on business with my AT&T SDN card, I don't expect to have to pay out of pocket to the hotel what normally gets direct-billed via our Tariff 12 agreement. I don't want to have to argue with the poor underpaid sweatshop operators about my right to be connected to AT&T (though I often do, and I NEVER let the AOS get my money). If we had a responsible FCC that required resellers to file arguable tariffs, and required phones to offer the actual callers a choice of carrier, that's fine. But making "captive" callers use some company, that exists only because of loopholes in the law, is not going to win my sympathy. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 ------------------------------ From: Robert Jacobson Subject: Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 14:58:59 GMT Having been an alternative IXC customer in the past, I have to say that the service was great and the prices right. But these days seem to be passing as pressure on the independent's becomes tremendous. The politicians get in because they're invited in by one party or another. Exhorting the public (some would say, the masses) to "keep the politicians out" is good rhetoric but ignores the fact that it's probably a carrier who's inviting them in. Who that might be is your best guess. This all goes to show that the market works imperfectly. With or without public intervention, it seems we're on our way back to monopoly or, at best oligopoly/duopoly. History calls. Bob Jacobson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 11:07:35 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" Subject: Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) Kurt Guntheroth writes: > John Higdon says: >> Mr. Barnum has all the quotes from Ms. Bigley that the {LA Times} >> article had, which essentially contain the circular argument that it >> costs money to upgrade to FGD and why should Thrifty have to spend >> that money on account of "thugs and criminals" while whining about all >> the losses suffered at the hands of the hackers. Thrifty's technique >> looks more like a profit center than hacker "prevention". > Let's suppose ThriftyTel is deliberately baiting hackers (though using > older equipment because it is cheap sounds more reasonable to me). > How can this be considered more reprehensible than stealing network > services in the first place? I find it quite just that a company > should hang hackers with their own rope. If ThriftyTel was posting > the access codes on pirate BBS's, this might be going a bit too far on > the entrappment side, but there is no evidence this is happening. Have you ever heard of an attractive nuisance? Granted it may be stretching a point, but hey we are talking about California? :-) It could be argued that ThriftyTel has created an attractive nuisance by not securing their systems in accordance with industry standards; just like the homeowner who does not build a secure enough fence to keep the little cretins out of his/her pool. > And whoever asked whether ThriftyTel was inducing minors to enter into > an unenforceable contract, or an ex-post-facto contract, this may be > true. The hackers do have the option of refusing the contract and > letting ThriftyTel make good on its threat to initiate criminal > proceedings if it can. Probably most hackers, caught crouched over > the body with the smoking gun in their hand, and with the knowledge of > their guilt in mind, are reluctant to test their luck in court. Contract, hell it is extortion. As any first year law student could tell you the following must exist to be a contract: o legality of object # OK o mutual consideration # OK o contractual capacity # OK; minors create # a voidable contract o manifestion of consent (offer/acceptance) # NO o meeting of the minds The hacker is not aware of the offer (tariff), there is no manifestion of consent, and there is not meeting of the minds. Another point, California has the Uniform Commercial Code, thus the statue of frauds would apply. This means the contract (including acceptance) must be in writing for amount of over $500.00. One last point if they are saying a contract was formed, it becomes a civil matter only not a criminal. Either it is a contract in all cases or a contract in no cases. If they decide it is a contract they have to sue for breach of contract; they can't have criminal charges too. They must be consistent. BTW, I don't approve of what the hackers/phreakers are doing either, but ThriftyTel response is just as abusive of the laws as hackers/phreakers. We are still innocent until proven guilty, and there is no way I can tolerate any company or govertment "official" altering this. dennis ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Speaking in Defense of ThriftyTel (was Fighting Hackers) Date: 21 Jun 91 12:32:56 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon Kurt Guntheroth writes: > Record me as a supporter of ThriftyTel. You are overlooking a major flaw in Thrifty Tel's scam. In the United States, the system of jurisprudence requires the plaintiff in a civil case to 1.) prove damages and 2.) show mitigation of damages. Thrifty Tel does neither. In a five-day period, Thrifty Tel whisked a "Hacker Tariff" through the CPUC without comment, showing, documentation, or any justification WHATSOEVER. This tariff, which provides for "charges" that are around three hundred times the company's going rate for services, is then used in civil suits to claim damages. Thrifty Tel sits back in court, presents the logs showing the intruder's usage and then holds up this bogus tariff. In other words, TT has at no time ever proved its claim for the extortion it pulls on the "criminals and thugs" that it so actively crusades against. Concerning point two, let me give you an analogy. Let us suppose that I have decided to go into the banking business, but find that the cost of constructing a vault is prohibitively expensive. So I leave all the cash sitting around in the tellers' drawers. Word gets around that my bank is an easy mark, and consequently I find that frequently the cash has been cleaned out by thieves the night before. To combat this, I install a very sophisticated intrusion detection system with cameras and the like. I am now able to identify the theives and I manage to get a law passed that allows my bank to claim damages against the burglars at about three hundred times the value of the cash stolen. Obviously, a bank vault would solve the lion's share of my problem, but why should I have to pay for a vault when it is "criminals and thugs" that are at the root of my "losses"? This is precisely the argument that TT uses when it is suggested that it upgrade its equipment and use FGD instead of FGB. Of course, FGD would not allow it to skim intraLATA traffic from Pac*Bell as it now does, but that is a different matter altogether. Believe me when I tell you that Thrifty Tel has no moral high ground to stand on. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #476 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04277; 22 Jun 91 19:37 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14169; 22 Jun 91 18:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10683; 22 Jun 91 16:59 CDT Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 16:14:58 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #477 BCC: Message-ID: <9106221614.ab01967@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Jun 91 16:14:48 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 477 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum [John Higdon] Re: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle [Paul Wexelblat] Re: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle [Andrew M. Boardman] Re: Tour Given of CO Freely; No Questions Asked [Jeff Carroll] Re: Hook Tapping [David Schanen] Re: Hook Tapping [Fred E.J. Linton] Re: Disarmingly Curteous and Friendly US West [Guy Helmer] Re: IDDD From a Cellular Phone [John Higdon] Re: Questions About Caller*ID Boxes [Dave Levenson] Re: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question [Wilson Mohr] Cellular Dial Tone [Martin McCormick] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum Date: 22 Jun 91 10:57:13 PDT (Sat) From: John Higdon Robert Jacobson writes: > This all goes to show that the market works imperfectly. With or > without public intervention, it seems we're on our way back to > monopoly or, at best oligopoly/duopoly. Perhaps, because in this particular business, that is the natural order of things. The "market" can only function where there is informed, unrestriced choice by the consumer. In the case of AOS, the customer is neither informed (usually by design of the AOS), nor does he always have a choice. Also remember that an AOS is NOT a long distance company. It is a reseller. Some of them claim to be "value added" resellers, but none of them own any networks. Some of them, such as Telesphere, may have a leased network (no actual ownership), but most simply route over a major carrier's facility. The original poster complained that without a level playing field we would have only three long distance companies in a few years. If you consider ownership of the network a requirement for being a long distance company, then that is virtually true now. The rest (including the original poster's company) are, as Mr. Goldstein put it, bottom feeders. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: Paul Wexelblat Subject: Re: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle Reply-To: mailrus!ulowell!wex@uunet.uu.net Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept. Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 18:57:20 GMT > I bought the modular converter for the wall jack, and a modular to > four-wire cable to wire in to her phone. When I took apart the old > jack, there were only three wires -- green, red and yellow -- no black. > So I connected the green, red and yellow wires to the new surface-mount > outlet, and screwed everything down tightly. > [Moderator's Note: In the box you mounted on the wall try connecting the > yellow wire (to the phone) with the red wire. If that does not work > then try the yellow wire connected with the green wire. PAT] This is actually a followup to the Moderator's Note: appended to the original query. The Note is almost exactly what I would have said, In the stated case, the yellow was typically ground, ringing current was either between tip (green) and ground or ring (red) and ground. This was the usual case in olden days when there were many more party lines, in this way a two-party line could ring only in the desired place. {Asides; I'm surprised that you could make out the colors at all on wiring that old; and, if the wiring is really old, it is rubber insulated and most likely dried out, be careful if you decide to relocate it.} So much for folklore, the real reason I am posting this is to suggest that: once the correct placement of the yellow wire is determined, making the change at the service entrance will solve the problem for the whole house; may save a little trouble in the future. Wex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 10:38:41 -0400 From: "Andrew M. Boardman" Subject: Re: Old Phone Wiring Puzzle [Lynn Goodhue speaks of telephone house wiring that runs red, green, and yellow, and the telephone not ringing on the "normal" red/green .] I was also raised as a believer in the "this is tip, this is ring, and that's all you'll ever need" philosophy, but the 1954 500 set that I use nowadays won't ring without that third yellow wire connected (to ring side I believe). Of course, omniscient NY Tel service says that the unit is broken. If there's an actual schematic that I could get for this phone without disassembly of the network, I'd appreciate a pointer. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Tour Given of CO Freely; No Questions Asked Date: 21 Jun 91 18:45:39 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article Wally Kramer writes: > nstar!syscon!viking!drmath@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Doctor Math) writes > in Volume 11, Issue 471, Message 6 of 11: >> [The CO] will have NO windows, it may have Bell emblems on it, and you >> should find a parking lot behind it which is filled with Bell >> vehicles. > There are windows on the Corvallis, Oregon CO (503 75x, x=2,4,7). > They have mini-blinds on them, but you can look through the holes > where the string goes and see the equipment from outside. There are windows at our CO too (Bellevue, WA; 641, 643, 644, 747 and possibly others now), but admittedly not very big. Big enough, in any case, that you can look in and see part of the MDF as you drive by. Might be a regional thing. The CO/business office in Huntington, Indiana, where I grew up, has windows only on the first floor, where the Indiana Bell business office used to be before they moved out of town. This raises a tenuously related question. Huntington just got its second exchange (the whole town has been (219)356 since time immemorial, when the exchange was named FLint after the original Indian settlement). I see from the latest home town papers that the local hospital and some individual customers are being placed in (219) 358. Yet while I was growing up, other towns of roughly the same size had multiple exchanges in service. Logansport, for example, was served by GTE, and had *six* exchanges. Warsaw, which for most of the period I speak of was a town of *half* the size of Huntington, was served by United Telephone, and had four or five. The question: why? Legal reasons? Better (or more efficient) switching equipment in the Bell System? How much is this sort of thing responsible for the fact that we're rapidly running out of area codes? Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: David Schanen Subject: Re: Hook Tapping Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 06:28:52 GMT Heheh, I first tried this when I was 10 or 11 yrs old. I saw someone do it on TV and tried it once and I was magically connected to someone in another state! After a half a dozen or so random connections around the country, and one overseas, the magic wore off as I realized what was going on and started trying to think of ways to explain the inevitable phone bill to my parents. I did learn a valuable skill however, as I have found several touch tone sets with broken tone banks. Most people are amazed to see it work. :) Dave Inet: mtv@milton.u.washington.edu * 8kyu * UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv ------------------------------ Date: 22-JUN-1991 14:56:42.82 From: "Fred E.J. Linton" Subject: Re: Hook Tapping In gypsy@silver.lcs.mit.edu (The Gypsy) writes: > "Hook Tapping" can be used in most (all?) areas to dial a telephone - > by imitating a 'pulse-dial' telephone. You simply 'tap' down the > 'hook' for a brief second (much less than a second actually) the > number of times required to produce a 'digit.' Knowing this quaint fact helped rescue a musical group I once belonged to when it found itself locked within the building where it had just finished giving a performance -- we found a telephone, of the rotary persuasion, with a padlocked dial, and were forced to dial out for help by hook-tapping. As you need to hook-tap at the rate of about 0.1 sec per tap for each digit, a certain amount of technique must be developed -- two coordinated hands worked best for our drummer, the only one to succeed at this curious game. Fred or ------------------------------ From: Guy Helmer Subject: Re: Disarmingly Curteous and Friendly US West Organization: Dakota State University Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 17:00:20 GMT In Paul Schlveck writes: [... most of story about USWest's truly wonderful service deleted ...] > Another disturbing question was whether or not I required "an > additional line for a computer modem ..." I asked for clarification of > the question, but the rep couldn't give me any more info (reading a > script, etc.). At first I thought they were trying to sell me another > line, but I wonder if it is a sneaky way to monitor modem/BBS traffic > for a possible Michigan Bell-style extortion racket. I of course, > said "no." Any speculation? I called USWest about a second line into my apartment about eight months ago, and I spoke with a person who was very pleasant. After I asked about the second line, though, her immediate question was, "Oh, is that for a fax or modem?" Not wanting to leave myself open to any possibility of being charged business rates for a residential line, I mumbled something about just needing a second line for voice. More recently, I tried to find out if ISDN service would be available here in Madison, SD. A new switch was installed here about 20 months ago, and I've heard rumblings in the rags about USWest offering ISDN in a few locations real soon now. The residential customer service rep I spoke with had no idea what ISDN was, so I talked with a business rep and ended up talking with a guy who wanted to know what I wanted it for and then told me he'd have to look up some things and call me back (he never did, of course). Being a telecom newbie, I haven't pursued this any further :-) It would be great, though, to have high-speed switched service from home into LANs I manage in town and in Sioux Falls. Guy Helmer, Dakota State University Computing Services helmer@sdnet.bitnet, dsuvax!ghelmer@wunoc.wustl.edu, ghelmer@dsuvax.dsu.edu ------------------------------ Subject: Re: IDDD From a Cellular Phone Date: 21 Jun 91 12:45:24 PDT (Fri) From: John Higdon Jim Hickstein writes: > I recently signed up with GTE Mobilnet in San Francisco (give or take > 100 miles), and almost immediately tried to dial a number in Japan, > with 011 +81 ... and got a recording saying that I could not dial this > call directly, but had to use some sort of calling card arrangement > with a long-distance company. I promptly dialed 01+81 ... and > my Pacific*Bell calling card number (while managing not to drive over > the edge of the San Mateo bridge), and the call was completed. Call GTE Mobilnet back and explain that you have the need to call Japan (or wherever). Explain that you do not wish to add to the already high cost of the call by using a credit card. Tell the person that you do not feel it right that you be penalized because of GTE's own internal problems. Then say that you might have to switch to Cellular One, since they allow IDDD. I can almost guarantee that you will have IDDD enabled henceforth from your telephone. The cellular cancellation rate is such that carriers are more than hungry right now and I can assure you that GTE does not want to lose your business. I have two cellular phones (and accounts with GTE) and both of them can call IDDD just fine. You must make the wheel squeak a bit, but you will get action. If for some reason you get flack, I can e-mail you the name of the person that WILL get IDDD running for you. John Higdon (hiding out in the desert) ------------------------------ From: Dave Levenson Subject: Re: Questions About Caller*ID Boxes Date: 21 Jun 91 23:33:16 GMT Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA In article , jwt!john@uunet.uu.net (John Temples) writes: > With the imminent arrival of Caller*ID here in Florida, I want to get > the necessary boxes required to support it. Even though the tentative > turn-on date of Caller*ID is July 1, the business office has no > information to offer me yet. In NJ, we buy them at Sears, and at the local AT&T Phone Center. We also mail-order them from Bell Atlantic Business Supplies. They offer a number of 'boxes' with display and varying amounts of memory. They also sell another box with the RS-232 output, and no display. > ...Finally, what about > support for multiple lines? Are there multi-line boxes I can hook all > my phone lines to, or must I purchase a separate box for each line? I bought a couple of those boxes at Radio Shack that allow an answering machine to answer two lines. Using three of these in cascade allows up to four lines to fan in to a single ring-detecting device, such as the Call*Identifier box. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: Wilson Mohr Subject: Re: Dumb (Neophyte) Cellular Question Date: 21 Jun 91 17:51:18 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL In article , lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: > Can you have two cellphones (I guess you can't call them "desk sets", > can you?) on the same number? I'm sure you could get ring-no-answer Each Cellular telephone made has a unique ESN. This ESN is programmed into the switch of the "home" operating system as a unique idenifier to the MID assigned to that phone. (MID = Mobile ID). Via one of several methods, this information is verified periodically by the service providing carrier.(not necessarily the "home" switch.) If a MID responds that does not have a matching ESN, then the ESN is denied (usually nation wide) regardless of MID. This is known as a Bandit mobile. > What happens if they're in the same cell? Nothing until they are called or try to make a call. If called, it becomes a race condition between the phones. If the correct phone answers first the call is completed, otherwise, the call is killed. Only the correct phone can make a call. The Bandit will be denied. (first and all subsequent.) ***discalimer**** This is true of the most simple cellular service offerings. Larger networks have a more agressive manner in which to validate subscribers. I truncated my description because of the complexity. For simplicity I have generalized the validation process description. > What happens if they both originate a call? > What happens if they both *answer* a call at the same time? Same holds true. Some service providers have services whereby you can have more than one phone to a number, but this is your usual hunt group scenario with each phone having a unique indentifier and the switch controlling the routing. (as it should be 8^) !) There are ways to beat this (as in all electronic validation schemes.) But this is costly and a BIG TIME federal offense. The most recent case involves a fraud scheme uncovered by the FBI and Secret Service. (Had us all running!) Wilson Mohr - Motorola CIG 1501 W. Shure Drive, IL27-2315 ..!uunet!motcid!mohr Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1497 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 7:35:51 CDT From: u1906ad@unx.ucc.okstate.edu Subject: Cellular Dial Tone Do cell phones get dial tone from the switch or generate it in the individual unit when the switch is ready? I've never used one before so I have no idea. Thanks. Martin McCormick Amateur Radio WB5AGZ Oklahoma State University Computer Center Data Communications Group Stillwater, OK [Moderator's Note: Cellular phones do not have 'dial tone'. You enter the number on the keypad, and press the 'send' key. The switch picks this up, dials the call and then connects you. The first thing you hear is the ringing or busy signal from the other end. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #477 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06498; 22 Jun 91 20:44 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04479; 22 Jun 91 19:14 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14169; 22 Jun 91 18:07 CDT Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 17:00:13 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #478 BCC: Message-ID: <9106221700.ab32107@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 22 Jun 91 17:00:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 478 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day [Linc Madison] Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day [David Albert] Re: Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light [Nelson Bolyard] Re: Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light [Mike Andrews] Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 [Peter M. Weiss] Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 [Rob Stampfli] Re: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO [Macy Hallock] Re: Call Message Delivery [Sean Williams] Re: What The Heck is "Fiber Optic Quality" Anyway? [Marc T. Kaufman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 02:33:58 PDT From: Linc Madison Subject: Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article David (gast@cs.ucla.edu) writes: > I called a friend of mine who lived in one of the dorms at UCLA last > school year the other night. I called on Sunday and the quarter ended > on Friday so I expected to get an intercept like "The number you > dialed is not in service ..." and I was hoping "the new number is ..." > Instead I got connected to new tenants. I am not sure if it was the > same room number, but it was the same dorm (I asked). It was almost certainly the same room number. In any situation where you have a Centrex or PBX for a college dormitory, the assignment of a number to a given line is almost etched in stone. Extension 1234 is and always has been and always will be Room 321 in Unit IV. In order to provide the intercept and such, they would have to reserve more than twice as many telephone numbers in a block. (All numbers in Berkeley prefixes 642 and 643 are reserved for the University of California. They would need to reserve at least two more prefixes to have intercepts.) That's because, when you move the entire student body off campus, or to new rooms for the new year, you would have to take half the numbers out of circulation. There just aren't enough numbers. Actually, I had a problem my senior year in college because of exactly the reverse situation: for no reason whatsoever, New Jersey Bell arbitrarily changed the number for the room I was moving into. Since I knew that the number was suppsed to be 4-0732, that's what I told my friends and family. Since the University knew that the number was supposed to be 4-0732, that's what they published in the student directory. It turns out that they swapped that line with 4-0372 (note the transposed digits), with the same effect on the people who were supposed to have *that* number. I have no idea how many calls I lost that year. Linc Madison = linc@tongue1.berkeley.edu = ucbvax!tongue1!linc ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jun 91 10:32:25 EDT From: David Albert Subject: Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University In article David Gast writes: > I called a friend of mine who lived in one of the dorms at UCLA last > school year the other night....Instead I got connected to new tenants. > Less than one business day is way too quick in my opinion. The only > reasonable explanation would be that the old tenants forgot to cancel > their phone service or that GTE was slow in processing it. No; at Harvard, the dorm phone numbers are permanently assigned to the rooms. You can only get one phone line in each room, and if you move out then whoever moves in gets the same number. Intercept recordings are unheard of -- they won't put one on the line even if the room is unoccupied for a period of time. David Albert UUCP: harvard!albert INTERNET: albert@harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: Nelson Bolyard Subject: Re: Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1991 18:30:01 GMT gsteckel%Ecd@sun.com (geoff steckel) wrote that his line-powered phone "in use" light was keeping his modem from being able to receive at 9600 bps. He correctly stated that line-powered lights may be sufficiently non-linear to affect the signal. Here is a schematic for a phone line in-use indicator that won't affect your modem. This circuit is a modification of one published in the article "Phone Line Busy Indicator", by Robert M. Harkey, Modern Electronics, November 1988, page 49. In that article, Q1 was incorrectly shown as an NPN transistor. I built this using Radio Shack parts and the box is now sitting next to the phone in my kitchen. It has quite succesfully prevented the old problem of my spouse picking up the phone while in use by my modem. Unlike some of the other circuits I've seen posted, this one presents a balanced load to the phone line, and does not interfere with high speed modems (e.g. I have no trouble communnicating at 19200 bps with my Telebit T-2500 modem). This circuit draws less than 12 microamps from the phone line when on-hook, and even less when off hook. It should not cause any problems on your phone line (e.g. it won't cause any telco equipment to flag you line as leaking/needing repair). o-----------------o--------o | | | | V LED | | --- | | | | o > | /E > R5 | | / > | + B |< | ------- Green (+) o-----VVVVV----o----| Q1 o --- 3Vdc R1 | |\ | /C ------- | | \C B |/ --- > o----VVVVV---o--| Q2 | Phone line > R3 R4 |\ | > | >E | | o | | | | Red (-) o-----VVVVV----o--------------------------o--------o R2 R1 = R2 = 2.2 Megohms Q1 = 2N3906 PNP xistor (276-1604 pkg of 15) R3 = 330 K ohms Q2 = 2N3904 NPN xistor (276-2016) R4 = 33 K ohms Battery = 2 AAA cells. R5 = 100 ohms LED = garden variety red LED Miscellaneous hardware (Radio shack part numbers): 276-159A pkg of 2 printed circuit boards (great for little projects). I built this circuit and a "hold" circuit on ONE of these PCBs. 270-230 project box (3.25x2.125x1 inch) 270-398 Double AAA battery holder 23-555 pkg of 2 AAA alkaline batteries Construction note: when I first built this circuit, the light shone very dimly. The problem was that the Q1 transistor had a "beta" (Hfe) lower than its rating and was passing insufficient current to the base of Q2 to light the lamp. Replacing Q1 with another one from the Radio Shack package of 15 solved the problem. Disclaimer: I have no relationship with Radio Shack except as a (usually) satisfied customer. Nelson Bolyard nelson@sgi.COM {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer. ------------------------------ From: Mike Andrews Subject: Re: Modem vs. Line-Powered 'In Use' Light Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1991 04:35:31 GMT In article gsteckel%Ecd@sun.com writes: > Recently I bought a PP 9600-SA modem, and attempted to use it. No joy > -- the best I could do was 4800 BPS. Mysteriously, only the incoming > data were incorrect -- the remote system received my transmissions > essentially perfectly. After a lot of futzing around, I disconnected > a two-line phone with a line powered 'in-use' light. Voila! 9600 BPS > V.32 worked with very low error rates. I'm not a "phone engineer" but I did work as a tech support rep at US Robotics. Your experience was one we watched for. The early Panasonic Easa-phone speaker phones were famous for causing line noise and modem data errors. It's the LED connected directly to the the phone line that does it, as you suspected. I guess it turns into a selective filter that attenuates the modem's signal. ------------------------------ Organization: Penn State University Date: Saturday, 22 Jun 1991 09:28:12 EDT From: "Peter M. Weiss" Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 In article , gws@cblph.att.com (Gary W Sanders) says: > [Moderator's Note: (deleted) > The Operator did her work by notifying the party. Since the caller and the callee are potential chargeable w/ a misde- meanor crime, I wonder if the Operator misdials and interupts an in-progress data xfer, if the (s)he can be charged with some crime. (I'm just trying to get everyone chargeable w/ something and not leave any one out.) Pete ------------------------------ From: Rob Stampfli Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 Organization: Little to None Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1991 13:48:48 GMT In article gws@cblph.att.com (Gary W Sanders) writes: > With my Ohio Bell Phone bill I saw an interesting little notice. This > capability has been around for a long time, but was generaly used for > emergencies. Now Ohio Bell is encourging people to use the service for > non-emergency calls.. > DIAL 0 (OPERATOR) TO INTERRUPT A BUSY LINE ON A LOCAL CALL. > Do you need to talk to someone, and the line is busy? For a $1.60 per > call, you can ask the Ohio Bell Operator to interrupt a busy line. The > Operator will inform the called party that someone is trying to reach > them. The called party will then have to the option to hand up, freeing > the line for you to make your call to them. Suppose the line is being used by a modem. I wonder what the operator has been instructed to do in this case. Does the operator "listen" first so as not to disturb the modem, or do they arbitrarily drop the call? If they don't drop the call, what do they tell the intended caller? (Mentioning that a modem is in use is, in my mind, giving away details about the call in progress.) Also, suppose I am using my new AT&T-only-otherwise-unbillable calling card to make the call. Does the charge get billed through AT&T? Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), kd8wk@n8jyv.oh [Moderator's Note: When the operator is asked to 'verify busy' or interupt a call, they will first listen on the line only for a second or two to detirmine the status. A single word or two of conversation is sufficient. Even that brief intrusion might cause the modem to receive garbage, but the operator DOES NOT 'drop the call'. It is up to the caller and called party to disconnect when they wish to do so. The operator