Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10615; 30 Jun 91 15:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30236; 30 Jun 91 13:56 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13363; 30 Jun 91 12:49 CDT Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 11:53:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #501 BCC: Message-ID: <9106301153.ab03451@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 Jun 91 11:53:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 501 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Poor Abused Hackers [tex@bsu-cs.bsu.edu] Looking up an 800 Prefix [Carl Moore] Which Caller-ID Box Should I Buy? [Bill Huttig] California Videotex [Communications Week via Ken Jongsma] Bell Labs: Shakeout Follows Breakup [haynes@cats.ucsc.edu] Exchange Upgrades in Australia [David E. A. Wilson] CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Bob Izenberg] WAN Simulation Tools [David E. Martin] US Sprint's Old 950-1033 Number [Bill Huttig] Recommendations Wanted For Small Voicemail System (6 Users) [Brent Chapman] Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? [Eric G. Elvira] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 22:12:20 -0500 From: tex@bsu-cs.bsu.edu Subject: Re: Poor Abused Phreakers I see that you get really pissed off about phreaks poking around where they shouldn't, but what about coorporations poking around where they shouldn't, in your presonal finances? They SELL the information they have about you to others without their consent. Hell, they even try to sell your own information to you! Is this wrong? If you think it is you had better get a new social security number, pal. Maybe they could set an example by asking our permition to disclose credit information to others. When they do that, I'll ask them if they mind if I write/distribute a file about how their ATM machines work. As a member of the scientific community I feel that the lunatic fringe is where the revolutionary new discoveries/inventions/ inovations are created, NOT in the main stream university setting. Main stream science is great for backing up current knowledge and finding details of current theories. Unless someone has called you a fool or a criminal when you propose a new idea, you have not contributed anything to the direction of science. [Moderator's Note: While it is true that science is best served by people who are not all bound up in the frequently constricting environment of a bureaucracy -- thus the 'outsiders' who refuse to conform to the rules often times are the real heros -- I would not agree with you that there is no need for Harvard, the University of Chicago, and countless other institutions of that sort since the 'lunatics' can discover/facilitate whatever needs to be done. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 9:38:34 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Looking up an 800 Prefix In Digest 485 there was an inquiry about the 800-698 prefix. I see two files in the telecom archives referring to NPA 800: npa.800-carriers.assigned npa.800.revised And the only other available comment at this time is that NPA 800's prefixes USED to indicate what area code they were in and where they were being called from (from within the state or from outside the state), but that is now only partially true if at all. It used to be that prefixes of form NN2 were used to indicate in-state 800. [Moderator's Note: The Telecom-Archives can be accessed by anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu (when on line, cd telecom-archives). PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Which Caller-ID Box Should I Buy? Date: 27 Jun 91 22:02:48 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I am looking to purchase a Caller ID box and was wondering if anyone has had experience with the following boxes: 1) BellSouth 30 or 70 number units (63.45, 68.45 includes shipping). 2) MHE ClassMate $49.95 + SHIP . This one connects to a computer for display. Does it remember numbers when the computer is off? 3) SLIMELINE/SLIMLIGHT 10/40/64 - 59.95, 69.95, 89.95 made by CIDCO; the same folks who make AT&T's. 4) AT&T 14 or 70 number memory.. 54.95 and 74.95 The Bell Atlantic rep said the SLIMELINE/SLIMELIGHT models where the best from their catalog ... he has tested them all. I am leaning toward the SLIMELIGHT 64 at 89.95 + shipping .. has anyone seen a better price? Bill ------------------------------ From: Ken Jongsma Subject: California Videotex Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 19:27:01 EDT From the June 24th issue of {Communications Week}: Pacific Bell and 101 OnLine, a new videotex provider, said last week that they will work together to bring videotex services to California. PacBell, San Francisco, will provide third-party billing so that 101 OnLine charges appear on monthly PacBell bills. 101 OnLine offers videotex services similar to those of France Telecom's Minitel system. 101 OnLine will charge users $9.95 a month for unlimited use of the graphics and text services. The 101 OnLine system uses the same terminals used for Minitel. Pac Bell customers using the service will find a separate page in their monthly bills with the 101 OnLine charges. ------ My first reaction to this was, "Oh no, another Knight-Ridder debacle." On one hand, I'd like to encourage this kind of thing. Let the RBOCs provide billing, but stay out of content. For some reason though, the people that keep trying these things come up with the most unlikely concepts. Making people by a totally incompatable Minitel terminal and then expecting them to pay $9.95 a month for Prodidy style graphics doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Most likely scenario: 101 OnLine lasts 12 months, and Pac Bell gets another example to show why it should be given content privileges. Sigh. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries jongsma@esseye.si.com Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115.1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: Bell Labs: Shakeout Follows Breakup Date: 27 Jun 91 00:36:23 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Open Access Computing The 14 June 1991 issue of {Science Magazine} has an article under the above title that will be of interest to some readers. Quick synopsys: prior to divestiture Bell Labs was really a national resource, paid for by a "tax" on all telephone users. After divestiture AT&T was a much smaller company, operating in a highly competitive business environment, so it's no surprise that Bell Labs could not be supported in the style to which it had been accustomed. Now there has been a reorganization to align the Labs more closely with the business needs of the company. One of the researchers (who has left) argues that what has been lost will not be replaced by innovations from startup companies, because basic research requires a scientific culture and long-term funding stability. "...the tragedy of this whole story is that American society hasn't realized what it's lost." haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@ucsccats.bitnet ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: Exchange Upgrades in Australia Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 04:26:48 GMT This is how Telecom Australia announces exchange upgrades - no extra charges for having tone dialling (unlike the USA): Customer Information Service TELEPHONE SERVICES COMMENCING WITH 83 OR 84 All telphone services at Corrimal exchange starting with 83 or 84 are now receiving a different dial tone. The exchange has been modernised to provide tone dialling. There will be no changes to telephone numbers. If you have a push-button phone with a switch marked Tone/Dec. on the bottom, move the switch to the Tone position to take advantage of the speed and convenience of tone dialling. A push-button phone using the new tone dialling will also enable you to access services such as home banking, voicemail and pagers. David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ Subject: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions From: Bob Izenberg Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 02:29:09 CDT On June 19th, I mailed a FEEDBACK message to CompuServe's customer service account. I had some questions suggested by a FidoNet sysop's concern over a message in German that passed through his system. He couldn't translate it, and so wondered about his responsibility (liability might be a better word) in having it on his computer and in passing it on to others. It was suggested that he post the German text to a CompuServe message and someone would then translate it for him. This led me to ask CompuServe for an official statement about some of their policies, and their views on the legal status of a public distributed network. I informed them that I would post their reply to Usenet. Rather than mix my questions and their answers (and risk losing the flow of their reply,) I'll put the questions first and the reply after. (1) If a CompuServe customer dials their local access number, and transmits a message or file, did they send it across state lines? They dialed a local node, which then packeted up the message and sent it to CompuServe in Ohio. So who sent it across the country, the customer or CompuServe itself? (2) Publishers of allegedly abscene materials have been tried, not in the state in which they publish, but in states where the publications have caused complaints to be filed. If CompuServe displayed, with the proper permissions, a controversial photo exhibit (Robert Mapplethorpe was the example that I used) and complaints were filed, could every city where CompuServe has a local node be the site of a complaint, or would they all have to be filed in Ohio? (3) CompuServe isn't a common carrier. The information sent from the local nodes are probably sent, unmonitored and regardless of content, to Ohio. Is the CIS node analagous to a radio repeater, whose owner (under FCC regs) is held accountable for all message traffic, regardless of where and with whom it originated? Or are the local nodes legally irrelevant, as the customer intends for the message to be transmitted to CompuServe's Ohio facilities? Here is the message that CompuServe sent back. To: Bob E Izenberg Fr: Karl Turzi Customer Service Representative Dear Mr. Izenberg: I will address a few of your specific questions first, which may help clarify what you're asking. First, as far as our own "awareness" of what is sent thru Mail for example, our Mail system is "secure" in the sense that items sent via Mail are not examined by CompuServe. They, therefore, are not subject to our examination, and therefore not subject to scrutiny as to whether or not we or any one else finds their content obscene. Forum messages, however, are indeed public. If a message is posted that "may be interpreted as obscene", which in itself is a vague area (you used the Mapplethorpe exhibit as an example of said ambiguity), the first thing we will do is contact the person who posted it to determine their intentions. The person who posted it would then share in the decision to remove it. We would not remove it as a matter of procedure or policy. To answer your next specific question, when you connect with us via modem, thru one of our local nodes, you are connecting with our computers in Columbus, regardless of your calling location. As for whether a data network is considered to be only the mainframes or both the mainframes and the phone network that inter-connects them, you would need to consult an attorney who specializes in such things to learn the ramifications of interstate/international data communication. The questions that you pose regarding responsibility of the data that is transferred on said networks are all very hypothetical and without precedent, They, therefore, are subject to the discretion of an attorney or court in each specific instance. I thank you for considering CompuServe to be a reliable source for information on this topic, yet due to the speculative nature of your questions it would be best if you actually consult an attorney who can help you explore the complexities of the regulations concerning data communications. Most sincerely, Karl Turzi [ end of CompuServe's reply ] Since I'm not a lawyer of any kind, I can't say whether it's the law or my questions that were vague. In the case of the German message mentioned earlier, if it was indeed something nasty and transmission to a local access number does constitute transportation across state lines (as a phone call to Ohio would,) then a "higher" level of law enforcement might be called upon. I know that I've picked a pretty negative example to ask the question "Where, geographically, is the network?" It does seem that an issue of only academic interest generates more discussion if the enforcement and policy arms of government become involved. Thanks to the CompuServe rep for providing their official stance on what may be an area of law for the future to further define. Opinions expressed in this message are those of its author, except where messages by others are included with attribution. Bob Izenberg [ ] bei@dogface.austin.tx.us home: 512 346 7019 [ ] CIS: 76615.1413@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 12:10:50 -0500 From: "David E. Martin" Subject: WAN Simulation Tools Organization: Fermi National Acceleratory Laboratory; Batavia, IL I have been given the task of simulating and making traffic predictions for a wide-area network consisting of T1's, 56K, and 64K links using cisco routers. The only good simulation tool I have found is CACI's Networks II.5. Are there any competitors I should look at? It makes me queasy buying a package without evaluating any others. David E. Martin National HEPnet Management || phone: +1 708 840-8275 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory || fax: +1 708 840-2783 P.O. Box 500; MS 234; Batavia, IL 60510 USA / \ e-mail: dem@fnal.fnal.gov ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: US Sprint's Old 950-1033 Number Date: 28 Jun 91 17:56:00 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I was going through some old phone stuff and decided to test the old US Sprint (US Telcom) access number. It still is there but the FON card number doesn't work with it and the old cards I have don't either. Could US Sprint be using it for access for private net customers? Bill ------------------------------ From: Brent Chapman Subject: Recommendations Wanted For Small Voicemail System (six users) Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1991 18:06:58 GMT I'm looking for a small voicemail system, for six users initially. It would be nice to find something I could expand later, to 12 or more users, but that's not an absolute requirement. The system can be either standalone, or something that works on a Mac IIcx. Any recommendations? In particular, I've seen ads for a combination FAXmodem/voicemail product for the Mac. Does anyone know anything more about it, and is anyone here using it? Thanks! Brent Chapman Telebit Corporation Sun Network Specialist 1315 Chesapeake Terrace brent@telebit.com Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Phone: 408/745-3264 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 16:26:04 PDT Subject: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM!elvira@uunet.uu.net Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501 From: "Eric G. Elvira" We are looking of a way in which a program, probably on a Sun Sparcstation, will call a phone number and after a few seconds dial another number. Essentially have it call and maybe cat a file that has already the touch tones stored on it or something similar. The problem is that using a modem it will wait for a handshake in the other side and a beeper is definitely not going to give a handshake back. Our specific use is that when something goes wrong in the middle of the night with a batch program, we want the program to call a beeper and display on the beeper the number that one should call back. It doesn't sound too difficult, but .... So. If you know of any company that sells stuff like this, or where to look, or ANY ideas, please let me know. Thanks, Eric G. Elvira Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division UUCP: {sun,mtxinu,pyramid,pacbell,hoptoad,amdahl,cpsc6a}!ingres!elvira Internet: elvira@ingres.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #501 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13381; 30 Jun 91 16:54 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19028; 30 Jun 91 15:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30236; 30 Jun 91 13:56 CDT Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 13:29:41 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #502 BCC: Message-ID: <9106301329.ab18840@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 Jun 91 13:29:35 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 502 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Phone Service After an Earthquake [Steve L. Rhoades] Now It Can Be Told - Part 29 [TE&M Magazine via Donald E. Kimberlin] Country Direct Numbers [Bill Huttig] Reading Back Your ESN on Cellular Systems [Bruce Perens] Sprint Commercials with Candice Bergen [Dave Leibold] Measured Service [Steven M. Palm] Telecommunications Takes the Holy Orders [Char. Observer via D. Kimberlin] Maryland N0X Prefix Local to PA and WV [Carl Moore] Stupid Centrex Question [Paul Cook] Answer Supervision on DID Trunks [Larry Lippman] Answer Supervision (was: Modification of Ringback Tone) [Vance Shipley] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Steve L. Rhoades" Subject: Phone Service After an Earthquake Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 02:49:19 GMT As many of you know, we experienced a M6.0 earthquake centered near Pasadena this morning. Naturally, the phone lines were jammed. I stayed off the phone for about an hour after the main quake, then I tried making a call. Out of four lines, I could only get dial tone on one. All of these lines are served by the same 1A ESS switch. Three of them have Comm*Star associated with them. (Comm*Star is what Pac*Bell calls their "at home" Centrex service). The fourth line is "plain vanilla". ie. No custom calling or special features. Guess which line worked? Yup, my line four worked fine. It didn't seem to be just a coincidence. For about a half-hour, only my line four worked. I realize my CO probably went into "choke" mode but why would line four continue to work? When all four lines started working again, I noticed I was having trouble breaking dial tone. The DTMF receiver seemed a little deaf. On a side note, as in previous quakes, cellular phone service seemed to go on uninterrupted. Internet: slr@caltech.edu | Voice-mail: (818) 794-6004 UUCP: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca. 91023 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 23:44 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Now It Can Be Told - Part 29 Doing a bit of housecleaning here, I came across the following bit of Olde Tyme payphone fraud, here excerpted from a Letter to the Editor in for 1 Jan 89: "A Nickel Here..." "In 1962, when I was a wee lad of 11, someone told me that if one took a piece of metal, i.e., a booby pin or paper clip, placed one end of the item through a hole in the mouthpiece and touched the other end to the rim of the coin return slot (which at the time was open), one could get dial tone. "It did indeed work, and I used it on several occasions, once to call Walt Disney. Since I did not know the telephone number, it was an operator-assisted call. When she asked me to insert more moeny, I was momentarily stunned. Not knowing what to do, I repeated the grounding procedure numerous times, until she said, `Stop. That's enough.' The call went through, but Walt was not in. "When I was 16, in 1967, I worked for a time in a gas station. It had a pay phone that someone found accepted pennies through the quarter slot and returned dial tone. This only occurred if the penny had been dipped in automatic transmission fluid. Needless to say, the local teclo and my boss were not pleased the next time the coin collector came. "While I was in the Air Force, in `71 or `72, one of the guys in the barracks found that one co}ld use a nickel in the quarterPslot to get dial tone. The procedure was to hold the nickel in the slot with your thumb. Then you removed your thumb, allowing the nickel to fall. As soonc as it fell, you hit the coin return button with your thumb. It was a timing thing, but the method was soon mastered by many (myself included). "My vocation is technical sales support. My employer is, as you can tell, Wisconsin Bell. The irony occurs to me at times...... Michael P. Nolan Manager-Network Design Wisconsin Bell" ---------------- ...It's likely this story is a fairly common one. But it makes one ponder how many telephone careers such "phreaking" caused, at the sum of a nickel at a time. ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Country Direct Numbers Date: 28 Jun 91 18:19:43 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL I found a booklet from AT&T called "The AT&T STudent Consumer Guide" published in 1989. On pages 15-16 there is a list of the 800 for several countries. AT&T COuntry Direct SErvices offer internation calling convenience from the U.S. These services are offered through the cooperation of AT&T and the overseas telephone companies and allow calls to be made directly to a foreign operator, thereby eliminating any language barriers. Calls may be billed collect (reverse caharges) and in most cases, to the calling card issued in the overseas country. Calls can be made from all US States execpt Alaska. (why?) Country Dial for Access (Numbers are listed with 1 800 in front) Australia Direct 682-2878 Austria Direct 624-0043 Brazil Directo 344-1055 Danmark Direkte 762-0045 Deutschland Direkt 292-0049 Finland Direct 232-0358 France Direct 537-2623 HK Direct 992-2323 Italy Direct * 543-7662 Japan Direct 543-0051 Korea Direct * 822-8256 Nederland Direct 432-0031 Norge Direkte 292-0047 NZ Direct 248-0064 Panama Direct * 872-6106 Singapore Direct * 822-6588 Sweden Direct 345-0046 Thailand Direct 342-0066 UK Direct * 445-5667 * AT&T oountry Direct calls to these countries cannot be made from Hawaii. (why?) [Moderator's Note: I think the thing with Alaska and Hawaii may have been (may still be?) that AT&T has no presence in those states. Tariff considerations come into play with the telcos operating in those states. PAT] ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com Subject: Reading Back Your ESN on Cellular Systems Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1991 20:16:07 GMT On GTE, there is a system used by installers to read back the Electronic Serial Number of a telephone. You dial *ESN, enter a six-digit account number, and the system reads back your ESN and phone number, and then says "Correct Combination" if the ESN and phone number match the records in the switch. Bruce Perens ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 0:27:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: Sprint Commercials with Candice Bergen Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com A current syndicated entertainment column by Robin Adams Sloan deals with the question of where the current Sprint commercials were filmed. These are the ones starring Candice Bergen of the "Murphy Brown" TV series. The spots were shot at the Bradbury Building in Los Angeles, something of a popular spot for film crews. Scenes from the movies _The_Wiz_ and _Blade_Runner_ were filmed at this structure. The location is also listed in the National Register of Historic Places, whatever that publication or service is. One of Sprint's commercials promotes a service that automatically selects the discount plan to use for Sprint service. In that spot, Bergen seems to talk about the feature as if it were a substitute for comparison shopping. There are other ads in the series that appear on the tube, though. None of the other carriers' ads seem to be using high-profile people these days, although I recall AT&T featured Jack Palance (?) for its early post-divestiture commercials. .... dleibold@attmail.com .... Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP ------------------------------ From: "Steven M. Palm" Subject: Measured Service Date: 28 Jun 91 23:29:49 GMT Wisconsin Bell, an Ameritech company, recently switched to measured service. At least they now charge you on a per-call basis instead of unlimited calls for a flat monthly fee. My problem is this: I highly distrust their count of my phone calls. Is it possible to get them to provide me with an itemized billing? I know that my long distance carriers provide me one, and it seems that if they are going to be charging me on a per-call basis, they should provide me with a listing of those calls. Is there any way I could legally make them provide me with such a listing if they don't voluntarily offer it? Regards, Steve Fido: 1:154/600 | myamiga!smp@fps.mcw.edu | rutgers!uwm!fps!myamiga!smp | [Moderator's Note: You won't have to ask very hard. Illinois Bell sends out detailed statements on request, but you have to ask when you want one and be reasonbable in the number of requests you make. Ask them to send it to you for a couple months (you would probably have to ask each time you got the bill). If you find their count is wrong, and can prove it, I'd be surprised. When I've gotten those print outs in the past, there would only be one or two calling 'units' I could not immediatly identify, and maybe a few minutes of talking time I might have disputed had I been certain. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 21:23 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Telecommunications Takes the Holy Orders For that large proportion of the population that still wants to deny that electronics and telecommunication have become the shuttle of the loom weaving our world's fabric, here's yet another of the almost daily examples that appear in the press. This one is from the Associated Press, as published in the 29 June {Charlotte Observer}: "FRIARS VERIFY THE FAX: U.S. FULL OF NEW WAYS "Foreign Brown-Robed Delegates Find New World Culture, Size `Astounding' "By Eduardo Montes - Associated Press "SAN DIEGO - Franciscan Friars remain dedicated to simplicity and tradition, but members of the nearly 800-year-old order have adopted new ways for their first meeting in North America. "Amid the swirl of brown robes and sandals, there often is a flash of tennis shoe. And the word once sent by foot and ship is spread by laptop computers, fax machines and media-savvy priests. "Since we've been in the United States, we're trying to get much more media converage," said the Rev. Jeremy Harrington, communications officer for the month-long General Chapter in San Diego. "The Roman Catholic friars have been meeting every six years, mostly in Europe, since St. Francis of Assisi founded the order in 1209." The story goes on to say the Franciscans chose San Diego for their worldwide conclave to recognize the 500th anniversary of Franciscans arriving in the New World as well as the work of Junipero Serra founding California's network of missions. It does also mention the friars will visit Sea World and the San Diego Zoo. Mention is made that the proportions of America and its culture are "astounding." But then, telecommunications is probably no more astounding today than would have been sailing off on a ship across the endless ocean 500 years ago. Somehow, the Franciscans can probably handle it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 9:43:00 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Maryland N0X Prefix Local to PA and WV 301-707 in Cumberland, Md. appears in the call guide for March, 1991 Allegany County (MD) C&P directory. It is treated exactly the same as the other Cumberland prefixes, and is thus listed as having local service to a few points in PA (area 814) and WV (area 304). The call guide also gives the local calling area for Ridgely, WV, and it includes Cumberland! So Ridgely (726 and 738 in area 304) has a 707 prefix as a seven-digit local call; notice that leading 0 or 1 is required if you are in the Ridgely exchange and using 707 as an area code (California, northern coastal area). Possibly some reprogramming, transparent to the customers, was required in those out-of-Maryland prefixes which are local to Cumberland, because I noticed years ago that if I attempted a long distance call of NPA + 7D form in Newark, Delaware, I got a message telling me to use the leading 1. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 17:41 GMT From: Proctor & Associates <0003991080@mcimail.com> Subject: Stupid Centrex Question Is CENTREX a registered trademark? Can it be used without any reference to "a registered service mark of (AT&T, Bellcore, God, etc)"?? Paul Cook Proctor & Associates 3991080@mcimail.com ------------------------------ Subject: Answer Supervision on DID Trunks Date: 30 Jun 91 00:08:53 EDT (Sun) From: Larry Lippman In article bruce@pixar.com writes: > In a PBX with DID trunks, what happens if something breaks and the PBX > never does return supervision? Does a two-way audio path exist? Will > the connection stay up as long as desired, or time out? It depends upon the type of central office apparatus serving the DID customer, and it also depends upon any interface apparatus installed by the telephone company at the DID site. One extreme is best illustrated from the days of the Bell System "voice connecting arrangement". In the case of DID trunks, the voice connecting arrangement was known as the C22, and utilized the WECo 112A interconnecting unit. This arrangement contained a one-way amplifier which was switched in the circuit to permit transmission of call progress tones and intercept announcements from the PABX to the calling party; i.e., no voice transmission could exist from the calling party to the PABX. Only when the PABX made a contact closure on the supervision leads was the one-way amplifier switched out of the circuit. If the PABX were never to return answer supervision, a two-way voice path would never exist. DID installations where bi-directional transmission is "enforced" by supervision from the PABX still exist today. At the other extreme are wink-start outgoing DID trunks running directly from the CO to the customer PABX without one iota of restrictive interface apparatus. From a practical standpoint most ESS CO's monitor the duration of an outgoing DID trunk that has not seen supervision from the PABX; after a given time interval (usually three to five minutes) the connection is automatically dropped. Trunk usage reporting software in an ESS CO will monitor DID trunk usage with and without supervision, and any attempt to "cheat" on the part of the PABX will show up as abnormally long trunk holding times without supervision. I've not heard of a PABX being intentionally configured to defeat answer supervision, but I feel certain it has been tried. :-) Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp. "Have you hugged your cat today?" VOICE: 716/688-1231 {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry FAX: 716/741-9635 [note: ub=acsu.buffalo.edu] uunet!/ \aerion!larry ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Answer Supervision (was: Modification of Ringback Tone) Organization: SwitchView Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1991 19:36:21 GMT In article Tom Perrine writes: > What kind of trunk provides "positive indication of answer supervision"? > Is this a test function in the CO, or can you get at this through a > porperly-featured PBX? The following trunk types inherently support answer supervision signaling: ISDN PRA (Primary Rate Access) ISDN BRA (Basic Rate Access) T-1 2 Wire E&M TIE 4 Wire E&M TIE Some operating companies now offer answer supervision on analog CO facilities. US West has tariffed it for sure (I have a copy). The PBX must be able to deal with the signaling though and I am not sure what equipement currently does. Either PRA or TIE definitly works with any good PBX by definition. Any trunk provided over T-1 should use the answer supervision signaling provided but some times the signaling is ignored by the switch (read "unexpected"). In this case programming the switch data base as a TIE line will work in some cases (eg. SL-1). Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #502 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14637; 30 Jun 91 17:38 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24278; 30 Jun 91 16:08 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19028; 30 Jun 91 15:03 CDT Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 14:52:17 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #503 BCC: Message-ID: <9106301452.ab20386@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 Jun 91 14:52:06 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 503 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson WAIS For C.D.T Archives? [David Lesher] 'Free' AT&T Call Detail Reports - Just $30 per Month [Chip Rosenthal] COCOTS: Is There Any Improvement? [Bob Frankston] Electronic White Pages [Info-Mac Digest via Sean Williams] Kerberos and Cellular Phones? [haynes@cats.ucsc.edu] AT&T Toll Free Directory [Dave Leibold] Edison's Recordings and Energy Conservation [Donald E. Kimberlin] Old Pole Climbing Straps Can Be Dangerous [Patton M. Turner] Re: Esoteric Telephone Stuff For Sale [Mike Anderson] Re: Ayn Rand on Privacy [Rick Smith] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lesher Subject: WAIS For C.D.T Archives? Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 12:43:12 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers I've been looking at the Thinking Machine Corp. offering called the Wide Area Information Server. Here's how it would work: If you have WAIS software installed on your system, you query the telecom database to search through the archive. For example, a query with the words "call waiting modem" returns documents with a score (is it a perfect match, or close??) and the article identifiers. The best part is still to come. You then request the article, and WAIS fetches it for you to see/save! Having once ftp'ed a year's worth of c.d.t. to local storage (good thing my sysadm was off that day - that's a LOT of storage!!) and grepped throught the lot looking for something; all I can say is this sounds great! Now I'm not sure how it could work on compresssed files, or even if our archive sponsor would be willing to let the server run on its machine. If they did, it would still likely need a lot of time just to set it up. But I hope someone will look into this. If you don't have WAIS and are interested in it, the most recent version of the software is accessible via anonymous ftp to think.com, in /Wais/wais-8-b1.tar.Z. There is also a Mac client in /Wais/wais.sit.hqx, and some other files in the /Wais directory explaining the WAIS project. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM [Moderator's Note: The Telecom Archives has long been an area in great need of improvement and streamlining. I just don't have the time, and resources available to me, nor have I found anyone willing to take over the task and give it the several hours of work needed for the initial organization followed by the couple hours per week needed for updating and maintainence thereafter. We need an index to the articles within the various volumes/issues over the years, as well as an index of authors, etc. We need a convenient way to pull single issues (based on the results of an index search) rather than large blocks of issues. The software you describe would no doubt be very helpful. But I can't do these projects alone. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Chip Rosenthal Subject: 'Free' AT&T Call Detail Reports - Just $30 per Month Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Inc. Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1991 01:34:35 GMT I was overjoyed when I learned that AT&T could provide detail reports on my (pro*wats) phone usage. Before, it would take me a rainbow assortment of highlighters and two hours on the calculator to figure out what I was paying for modem usage. I called up the business office and was told I could get three reports free, after which there was a charge. Great - I asked for breakdowns by city, area code, and most frequently called numbers. Months pass... Surprise #1. The reports never arrived. I figured my request got filed in the bitbucket. Suddenly, after a four month delay, a 0.25" stack of paper arrives in my mailbox. There it is, in glorious detail, how much it costs me to feed the Trailblazer. Surprise #2. A month passes. Another 0.25" stack of paper arrives. A few days later, a teensy weensy envelope with a bill for $30 from `AT&T Detail Manager' arrives - $10 apiece for my `free' reports. I guess I'll be talking to the business office next week. I don't have a problem paying $10 apiece for the reports - the time they save is worth much more than that. However, If I have to pay, I'll probably drop at least one of them - breakdown by city and area code is nearly redundant. Furthermore, I do mind being billed for a supposedly free service. Anybody alse out there using the AT&T Detail Manager service? What were you told about charges? Chip Rosenthal 512-482-8260 Unicom Systems Development ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: COCOTS: Is There Any Improvement? Date: 30 June 1991 10:18 -0400 I ran across two interesting customer-owned phones recently. They booth took quarters for local calls. While this might seem normal to most of you, those of us in Massachusetts still think that phone calls cost a dime. But I don't really mind the 150% price increase given that it only brings us to the national average. I tried to place a credit call on one and was surprised to find that the LD carrier was ATT. That was a pleasant surprise. I wonder whether it is become common for premises phones to use a major carrier. Location: Papa Gino's Needham Street, Newton Mass. The other was assigned to an outfit called IMR. I tried calling their number (800-227-1010) for more info but only got a recording. What makes this one interesting is that it was competing as being cheaper that NET for LD calls. The deal was .25/minute for anywhere in the US vs $2.04 for NET. This is a bit suspicious since NET doesn't place the LD calls and the rates look rather inflated (even for operator assisted). The table went, I think, up to four minutes. I don't know if the charges are linear or not beyond that point nor what the credit card/operator charges are. Still, it was an interesting ploy. I wonder if anyone is more familiar with them? Location: Ground Round, Highland Ave, Needham, Mass. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 18:18 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Electronic White Pages Here's an article which may be of interest. I'm reposting it from the Info-Mac Digest: Les_Ferch@mtsg.ubc.ca writes: The PSI White Pages project is an ongoing project to provide the electronic equivalent of a telephone book White Pages, using X.500 technology. There are currently 77 organizations, with approximately 200 000 entries available in the PSI White Pages. PSIWP is a front end to the White Pages, allowing searching of the databases from a Macintosh. For example, it is possible to issue the following search levinn,psi,us ('Find ...' option in the 'WhitePages' pull down menu) System requirements for using PSIWP are: Macintosh (MAC-II recommended) with 1MB of memory, Finder 6.x (Finder 7.0 WILL NOT WORK), and MacTCP. Connectivity to the U.S. TCP/IP Internet is also required (PSIWP needs to establish a TCP connection to a White Pages server). Copyright 1991 Performance Systems International Inc. PSIWP is shareware. If you find it useful/interesting and would like to register as a user, please consult 'Shareware Information' within the application for registration information. Wengyik Yeong White Page Project Manager wpp-manager@psi.com [Archived as /info-mac/comm/psi-white-pages-16.hqx; 96K] ---------- Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | Have a good day! PO Box 227 | <> Duncanon, PA 17020-0227 | voicemail +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: Kerberos and Cellular Phones? Date: 29 Jun 91 05:24:31 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Open Access Computing I was just reading in comp.risks about the high level of cellular phone fraud - I guess cellular phones are identified by a supposedly unique number in an internal ROM; and crooks are substituting a known valid number into the ROM of a bogus cellular phone so the latter can make calls at the expense of the owner of the phone with the valid number. (Or at the expense of the cellular company, since the legitimate customer will deny that the calls from the bogus phone are his.) It seems to me, in a bout of daydreaming, that perhaps Kerberos is the solution to this problem. The cellular phone is like the public workstation; its integrity is not guaranteed. So there needs to be a secret shared between the legitimate phone user and the cellular service provider. The phone user should be able to request a ticket from the provider and decrypt it using the shared secret key. It could contain a session key that would be stored in the phone with a lifetime of several hours, unless cancelled by the user. This could be used to get tickets good for the kinds of things cellular phones do. Another nice thing about this is that the user could use any cellular phone interchangeably; the services would be billed to the person who gets the tickets, and not to the owner of the particular phone used. haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@ucsccats.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 0:34:00 PST From: Dave Leibold Subject: AT&T Toll Free Directory Reply-to: dleibold@attmail.com On a recent call to AT&T 800 directory assistance (1 800 555.1212), the canned announcement playing back the requested number was followed by a plug for AT&T's new 800 number directory. These directories can be ordered from 1 800 426.8686 for those interested or from the AT&T phone centres. I saw a copy of the '91 directory, and it seems they've now dropped the note in the introductory pages about 800 service for the *thirteen* Canadian provinces. In previous editions, AT&T might have counted the Yukon and Northwest Territories (as much Canadian provinces as Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands are American states) plus Labrador (politically and administratively part of the province of Newfoundland). Most Canadians generally think of ten provinces (plus two territories), but it would be big news for an American long distance carrier to discover a couple more... Otherwise, the directory is an interesting reference to various services. I don't know if they'd list 800 numbers of other carriers, such as Sprint's 800-800 prefix, though. .... dleibold@attmail.com .... Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1 Dave.Leibold@f135.n82.z89.onebdos.UUCP [Moderator's Note: I know the 800 numbers of other carriers can be listed in the 800-555-1212 service (actually 800 DA is operated by Southwestern Bell under an arrangement with AT&T) but I don't know about the paper directory. Any answers? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 22:21 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Edison's Recordings and Energy Conservation From a recent "Dear Abby" column (copyright 1990 by Universal Press Syndicate) it would seem that Thomas Edison knew early on that little jingles would be useful for energy-saving reminders. In the vignette that Dear Abby printed, we learn about Edison and one of his employees: "Let There Be Light, But Not All The Time "Dear Abby: The enclosed article was published in our local paper, and I thought it deserved a wider audience. .... Your Fan in Vermont "Dear Fan: I agree. And here it is" "SINGING FOR EDISON "Annette Anderson, who died several years ago in Rutland, VT at the age of 99, was a singer. From 1914 to 1917, she worked with Thomas Alva Edison, singing song after song as he developed his phonograph recording system. He had stacks of sheet music everywhere, and would pick one out, saying, "Here, Annette -- sing this one." "I remember Annette telling me about Edison's eccentricities and his small soundproof recording room (completely lined with horsehair), but the strongest memory is of a jingle I heard daily in my childhood. It was written by Edison, and it hung from the electric light chain in his recording room. "It went like this: `Save the juice, save the juice, turn out the light when not in use!" ... Doris Erb Cuttingsville, VT" Edison was, however, a little inaccurate in his refrain, as Dear Abby responded: "Dear Doris: With all due respect to Mr. Edison, `juice' is saved only if the lights are switched off for ten minutes or longer. According to a spokesperson for the Department of Water and Power in Los Angeles, there is a power surge when lights are turned on, so lights should be left on if one plans to be in and out of the room. Perhaps the jingle should be amended to read, `Save the juice, save the juice, turn out the light if it won't be needed for ten minutes or more.' Of course, the meter is all wrong, but the message is accurate." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 18:31:46 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Old Pole Climbing Straps Can Be Dangerous mka writes: > I have a bunch of strange telephone stuff for sale, much of which came > from a boiler-room (the jerks who call to sell you stuff at dinner > time) auction and a alarm company auction a few years ago. Also some > flea-market stuff. I believe that all of it still works OK. > 1 - set of pole-climbing hooks and waist belt. for those closet > linemen (or women) out there. I'd just like to take a moment to warn the readers of TELECOM Digest of the danger of using old pole safety straps. About a year ago a ham operator died in south Alabama after his strap broke while climbing a tower. There are a lot of leather straps around that are not safe to use. OSHA, as well as the safety personel of every telephone company I've ever worked for (SCB, Southern Bell, Contel, Alltel, and GTE) do not allow all leather straps at all. There is a company that makes leather covered nylon straps that are approved by OSHA. Klein also makes a neoprene impregnated nylon strap that has the feel (at least to me) of leather. Anyone who wants to learn to climb should be taught by an expert. Poles are easy to cutout of if your don't have the proper equipiment or your hook's aren't properly maintained. Pat Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ From: mka Subject: Re: Esoteric Phone Stuff For Sale Date: 30 Jun 91 05:44:46 GMT Organization: Intelligent Systems Associates, Oklahoma City Thanks for all the responses to the posting for the strange phone stuff that I posted for sale. I have been absolutely swamped by responses and have not had time to sort through and answer the inquiries. I will try to answer each one. It was a mistake not to set some price on each item as the range of offers was very wide. I am in the process of moving, and have posted a variety of computer items for sale also, whose disposition is a higher priority. Thanks for your patience, Mike Anderson {uunet|uokmax}!sean!mka ------------------------------ From: Rick Smith Subject: Re: Ayn Rand on Privacy Organization: SCTC Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 14:25:49 GMT 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: > "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy." Probably one of her better lines. A favorite of mine, for the wrong reasons of course, is (in paraphrase) "When the choice is between food and poison, there is only one rational decision." She probably said this while smoking a cigarette. :-) I spent an early part of my undergraduate experience reading all of Rand's stuff. I think Steve Martin unintentionally sums her up best when he intones: "Let us now all repeat the Individualist's Oath..." I know this has nothing to do with Telecom, but I thought you might appreciate the comment. Rick smith@sctc.com Arden Hills, Minnesota. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #503 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24349; 30 Jun 91 21:50 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27803; 30 Jun 91 20:13 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15074; 30 Jun 91 19:08 CDT Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 18:18:01 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #504 BCC: Message-ID: <9106301818.ab17804@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sun, 30 Jun 91 18:17:47 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 504 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [John G. Dobnick] Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [Andrew Payne] Re: Emergency Calls [Patton M. Turner] Re: Bellevue Prefixes (Washington State) [Mark Allyn] Re: Bellevue Prefixes (Washington State) [Gideon Yuval] Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' [Scott Huehn] Re: Line-Powered 'In Use' Circuit Problem [Patton M. Turner] Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day [Michael VanNorman] Re: Blocking of Room-to-Room Calls in Hotels [Sean Williams] Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? [Bob Frankston] Re: Problems With Meridian 1 and 2400 Baud Modems [Vance Shipley] Re: Now it Can Be Told - Part 29 [David Lesher] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John G Dobnick Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 Date: 30 Jun 91 00:21:18 GMT Reply-To: jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu > [Moderator's Note: What you pay for is the right to use your telephone > in accordance with published tariffs, one or more of which address the > scenario of emergency requests for the use of the line, etc. Say what? I fail to understand the reasoning here. Someone wants to use *my* phone line for some "emergency purpose" by *calling* me? This scenario makes no sense whatsoever. If the person attempting to pester me through the operator really needs to use *my* phone for an emergency purpose, he better be standing right next to me so he _can_ use my phone line, in which case he can speak directly to me. Otherwise, this is just harrassment. Maybe things are done differently where you are, Pat -- you are in Illinois, after all :-) -- but up here in Wisconsin, the phone book says the following: "Wisconsin law requires you to yield a party line in an emergency. That means you must get off the phone to permit others using your line to report a fire or summon law enforcement agencies, ambulance service, medical or other aid in any situation where property or human life ids in danger. No one can legally claim to need the line for an emergency when no emergency exists. The penalty for either offense may include a fine not to exceed $1,000." The situation being discussed here does not seem to meet _these_ requirements -- no party line, no one attempting to use _my_ line to report an emergency. It seems this "service" is only to allow someone of little patience who is getting tired of busy signals to push himself to the "head of the line". I see it now -- "Ohio Bell: The Rude Phone Company". Miss Manners will not be pleased. So, what am I missing in this discussion? How does Ohio Bell justify this "service"? (Oh, that's right: "We're The Phone Company -- We don't have to justify _anything_!" Wasn't that in "The President's Analyst"?) > [Moderator's Note: Your telephone book pretty accurately describes an > 'emergency'. Examples perhaps you could understand: Your neighbor's > phone is out of order; they knock on your door and ask you to call the > Fire Department. You refuse, because your single line is engaged on > another call. You are at work using the phone and your landlord or > neighbor calls to say YOUR house caught fire. You are using a pay > phone on the street corner. There is an autombile accident and one of > the victoims asks you to get off the phone so they can call the police > or ambulance. Good enough examples for you? PAT] Only one of them, actually. 1) Neighbor knocks on door. This does not involve an operator busting in to an in-progress call. (That *is* the topic of this thread, after all.) 2) At work -- caller wishes to report (personal) disaster. _This_ is a legitimate reason for the operator to interrupt an in-progress call. This is a generally recognized "emergency" situation. 3) Automobile accident. Same scenario as (1). Perhaps the point to be made here is that Ohio Bell is apparently pushing the "operator interrupt" situation for what are clearly not *emergency* situations! It's merely an extended form of "call waiting", and apparently one that can not be disabled. John G Dobnick (JGD2) Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee INTERNET: jgd@uwm.edu ATTnet: (414) 229-5727 UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd ------------------------------ From: payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60 Organization: Cornell Theory Center Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1991 12:12:09 GMT In article jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu writes: >> 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. > This is going to play merry hell with data calls, as I'm sure many > others have mentioned (or will mention). The tariff here in NY states the busy/interrupt procedure goes like: "1. The operator will determine if the line is clear or in use and report to the calling party. "2. The operator will interrupt a call on the called line only if the calling party indicates an emergency and requests interruption." I suspect that (1) is a listen-only for the operator and thus wouldn't affect your data call (though the operator would get an earful!). Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 19:30:24 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Emergency Calls Gordon Burditt writes: > I claim that an 'emergency call' directed TO ME, a person who does > not work for emergency services, can never happen because an > emergency call is directed to emergency services, by both legal > definition and common sense. I disagree. Several years ago there was a wildfire near some property my family owns. I happened to drive by soon after the fire started. A friend of mine had a farm almost across the road from the fire. I intended to borrow his tractor and help put the fire out, but he had removed the key from the ignition. I open a ped containing the drop to his barn, clipped my test set on the C wire, and called his house. The line was busy, so I asked the operator to break in on the line. His wife told me were the spare key was hidden, and I got the tractor. I attached a rear blade to the tractor and got to the fire several minutes before the local fire department. Two other tractors, myself and about 20 others put the fire out in about an hour, but not before it burned a barn down. It wasn't until after the fire was out that the Alabama Forestry Commission showed up with their tractor-plow. Several years ago (1987 I think) a Sheriff in Dolmite, AL tried to serve a warrent on Frank Camper who ran a mercinary traning camp. Mr. Camper fled into wood shortly before their arrival, so the sheriff formed a posse of local turkey hunters, who tracked him down in a few hours and arrested him. Living in rural Alabama, events such as this aren't all that unusual. I've known a number of people not affilated with emergency services to be called in an emergency including SCUBA divers, pilots, boat and four wheel drive owners, hams, contractors, hunters, etc. The case could also be made for emergency calls to plant managers and engineers, personel employed in critical industries such as power, telephone, and gas companies, or people who owned equipiment or possed knowledge useful to emergency services personel. Pat Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn ------------------------------ From: allyn@polari.UUCP (Mark Allyn) Subject: Re: Bellevue Prefixes (Washington State) Date: 30 Jun 91 18:48:28 GMT Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix (206) 328-4944 >> Bellevue, WA Central Office: 641, 643, 644, 747 and possibly >> others now (area 206) > Other Bellevue prefixes as of 1982 were 451,453,454,455,746. Also 865 and possibly 965 should be included. ------------------------------ From: gideony@microsoft.UUCP (Gideon Yuval) Subject: Re: Bellevue Prefixes (Washington State) Date: 30 Jun 91 16:22:24 GMT Reply-To: gideony@microsoft.UUCP (Gideon Yuval) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA There are also 562-XXXX Bellevue numbers. Gideon Yuval, gideony@microsoft.com, 206-882-8080 (fax:-883-8101;TWX:160520) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 00:04:11 -0400 From: Scott Huehn Reply-To: aj540@cleveland.freenet.edu Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' What most of you misunderstand is that hackers and phreakers are not united. Some of you believe that they all work together to cause havoc, and if you catch one of them, it will stop the rest. You are wrong. The 'Underworld' or 'Underground', so to speak, is in chaos. They are not one big group atempting to access everything under the sun. There is quite a bit of competition, and if you stop one person, it may be a rival of another, and in essence no big 'loss'. They work in a 'gang' such as you see on the street, except through computers. It may be interesting to watch, but the stakes are high; it is for publicity. Scott aj540@cleveland.freenet.edu - Internet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 05:15:16 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Re: Line-Powered 'In Use' Circuit Problem Rich Mintz writes: > 4) Does an alternative device exist that will simply "suck" all the > line voltage away from the other phone extensions in the house when > mine is in use, to prevent pickups from disturbing my modem's > activities? A Radio Shack Teleprotector (43-107, $7.95) installed upstream of the remainder of the phones in your home will acomplish this. Unless you want to buy one for each phone in your house, connect a modular tee to the network interface. Plug the entrance bridge into the teleprotector and plug the teleprotector into one of the ports on the tee. From the other port run a line back to your modem. When your modem goes off-hook the remaining phones are disconnected from the line. We have had one of these devices installed at a repeater site for a year now with no problems. If your home goesn't have a network interface the teleprotector can be spliced into the line. Just remember to attach your modem line on the CO side of the device. Pat Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu ------------------------------ From: Michael VanNorman Subject: Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1991 16:53:50 GMT gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) 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). I used to live in the dorms at UCLA and discovered that the phone numbers are assigned permanently to each room. If you think about it, it does help GTE on data entry. The only thing they need to change about the billing is the name. The account number (phone number) and address are always the same. With the high turnover rate in the dorms it probably adds up. Mike ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 07:19 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Blocking of Room-to-Room Calls in Hotels Larry Lippman writes: > The attendant usually operated the key to disable room-to-room calls > between 11 PM and 7 AM or so. The intention, of course, was to > prevent guests from disturbing other guests . . . Does anyone know > if such a feature is still used? I have a feeling that this is no > longer considered to be a "problem". I returned from a week-long vacation in Ocean City, MD a few weeks ago. The telephones in our 42nd Street Days Inn Convention Center were ringing just fine well into the wee morning hours! Not only were the girls downstairs calling us, but so were the front desk people, telling us to keep it quiet! "Senior Week" can be such great fun ... But really, it's not the ringing phones which are a problem. It's the AC receptacles near the decks which people use to plug their portable stereos into. They should have a front desk switch to turn *those* things off! Oh, by the way: The hotel's default LD carrier was MCI. Local calls were $.50, LD calls had *no* surcharge, 950 and 800 were free and un-blocked. RBOC and non-950 access calling cards had a $.50 charge per call, as did collect calls. Calls to 411 were free (that's directory assistance, but calls to *room* 411 were free also.) Equal access was available via 10xxx codes. The phone number and address for MCI customer service was listed near the phone, along with a note telling of your right to use other LD carriers by entering the codes provided by them. "Direct complaints to Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Burear/FCC, 2025 M ST, NW, Washington, DC 20554." The only problem with the phone was that it took *forever* for calls to go through (both locally and long distance). Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | Have a nice day! PO Box 227 | <> Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 | voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? Date: 30 June 1991 17:15 -0400 You simply tag the digits on the end of the dial string. If you have a blind dialer using Hayes sequences, just add ",,,,,," and the numbers. If you have a wait for voice or some other indicator, you can use that instead. Since this is in the dial string itself there is no issue of waiting for a handshake. Add a ";" at the end to stay in control and then hangup the modem using ATH0". ------------------------------ From: Vance Shipley Subject: Re: Problems with Meridian 1 and 2400 Baud Modems Organization: SwitchView Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1991 19:43:27 GMT In article Paul Lutt writes: > The main problem is that 2400 baud is almost unusable. Lots of > suprious characters and noise. Our users have pretty much given up on > 2400 baud and have either retreated back to 1200 baud or gotten > Telebit modems to use with our in-bound Telebit lines. This should work perfectly, the Meridian is a "CO quality" switch. You may be having frame slip problems somewhere. Can you call reliably from one extension to the other? Are you using digital trunks to the CO? Vance Shipley vances@xenitec vances@ltg ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Now It Can Be Told - Part 29 Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 17:59:38 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers > ...It's likely this story is a fairly common one. But it > makes one ponder how many telephone careers such "phreaking" caused, > at the sum of a nickel at a time. I know of several. A friend of mine and his high school comrades prided themselves on working on pay phones. After Ma raised the toll to a dime (OUTRAGEOUS!), they changed them all back. One of them looked up the patent description for the 10-G key {that fitted virtually all the "three gonger" upper housings around} and he made keys from the patent text. One of them was finally arrested for collecting some abandoned drop wire. The Judge told him he'd never get a *real* job with that blot on his record. His Honor was correct: Douglas worked for 15+ years for some outfit in Murray Hill NJ with funny green copper roofs. My friend worked about that long at Lorain Products. There, he worked on early UPS systems, including one in the White House. Attn US Attorney types: These crimes all took place during the Ike presidency. Please don't ask me for details -- I was not there. wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #504 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26572; 1 Jul 91 23:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06966; 1 Jul 91 21:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17896; 1 Jul 91 20:22 CDT Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 20:02:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #505 BCC: Message-ID: <9107012002.ab00070@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Jul 91 20:01:56 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 505 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Hotel Surcharges, Marriott [David Lesher] Can AT&T/Sprint/MCI Serve Motels? [Fred R. Goldstein] Robert Bulmash Leads Charge Against Telemarketers [Wayne D. Correia] Lionel Hampton's Roots in Telecom History [Parade Magazine via D Kimberlin] Phrack Magazine [Patton M. Turner] How to Phix an AT&T Phone [Gil Kloepfer Jr.] Tracing a Call on a DMS-100 [Bob Frankston] TNC, BNC, N Cellular Connectors [Bill Kennedy] MCI Operator Assisted Rates [Joshua E. Muskovitz] A Snappy Higdon Salute to Pac Bell! [John Higdon] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Lesher Subject: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 20:37:08 EDT Reply-To: David Lesher Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers About a year ago, I stayed at a Marriott "Residence Inn" in Alexandria. Virtually every call (800, 10xxx, local, 950xxxx) was priced at +$0.75. [Well, the calls to the front desk were free ;-] I retaliated by making all my calls from the second floor one-arm See & Pee bandit. It was only a quarter. Alas, the coil slot did not have an RJ-11 jack, and I was on the 5th floor, so I paid through the nose for my data calls. I'm going to be in the DC area again. Lacking another place with better price/features ratio, I may end up staying there again. So I think it's letter writing time. Q1) Do other elements of Marriott also charge such outrageous surcharges? Note that Metro DC is, at worst, flat rate $0.08 /call. Q2) Some time back, a hotel/inn manager posted a query regarding such surcharges. Does anyone remember who he was, and/or how to reach him? I'd like to forward his feelings to Mr. Marriott. Q3 ;-} Anyone know where to find a coin slot with an RJ-11? wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (305) 255-RTFM ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Can AT&T/Sprint/MCI Serve Motels? Date: 1 Jul 91 21:19:47 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA A few days ago, I was staying at a "motor inn" (nice motel) on Cape Cod and had occasion to make a phone call to a town two exchanges away. In Mass., that makes it a toll call, since it's a noncontiguous exchange. The instructions on the phone said that to make an LD call, use the normal procedure (9+0+...) and 10xxx calling was fine. They even indicated that to use AT&T, dial 9+10288. No dishonesty intended. Right? So I dialed "9 0 508 xxx xxxx" and awaited the New England Telephone operator. Instead, after a rather long delay, a voice came on. He was from Tell-us-Fear, not NET. I said I wanted to make a call via NET, and he said he couldn't let me. So I hung up and rang the lobby. The manager answered "0" and said he'd try for me. After maybe ten minutes on hold (punctuated once by "I'm still talking to him") while he spoke to the AOS operator, he told me he was sorry but I couldn't use NET. But Tell-us-Fear would take my NET number and place the call at there rate. (Whatever it was!) Note that the AOS was probably far away so the 15-mile call would "splash" halfway cross the country and back! So I told him no, I wouldn't, but I would be hesitant about recommending the hotel since I don't like rip-off AOSs! I told him how some major hotels had returned to AT&T, and besides intra-LATA intrastate calls were NET's province, not that of LD companies. (I don't know if the AOS has a Mass. resale license. It's not automatic.) His answer was that he wanted to use AT&T, but just last week they told him they had no plan for him, so he was stuck with the existing service. If he hooked up AT&T, he could get long overseas calls on his bill without billing the room. I presume that's because a 9+0- call would not show its value on his little rate computer, and there's no HOBIC anymore. The current arrangement sends all calls to an AOS who won't let the hotel be billed for anything that doesn't show up. Is that true? I presume that there's some arrangement that a "real" carrier (vs. an AOS) can make to allow a motel's SX-200A to access the local carrier for intra-LATA calls. Anybody want to make a firm suggestion so I can hit the guy with it next time this happens? I walked down the hall to the pay phone. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: "wayne d. correia" Subject: Robert Bulmash Leads Charge Against Telemarketers Date: 1 Jul 91 22:14:33 GMT Organization: apple computer, inc. - macintosh system software WARRENVILLE, Ill. -- Robert Bulmash is the telemarketing industry's worst nightmare. He and a small army of followers, fed up with the modern epidemic of junk calls, are fighting back. Their motto is "Leave Us Alone or Pay the Price!" Their strategy is mischievous, ruthless and surprisingly effective. Bulmash instructs the 550 members of his group, Private Citizen Inc., to answer junk calls cordially and tease out all the information they can about the identity and location of the "junker." Then twice a year, he sends a notice to more than 800 telemarketing companies, with a list of his members and a warning on their behalf: "I am unwilling to allow your free use of my time and telephone ... I will accept junk calls for a $100 fee, due within 30 days of suchuse ... Your junk call will constitute your agreement to the reasonableness of my fee." Private Citizen members, who pay $20 a year for the service, say their junk calls drop 75% or more. As for the "invoice," it has left Sears, Roebuck & Co., ChemLawn, and a handful of other telemarketers so bemused they've actually coughed up the $100. Others, though not all, have had it dragged out of them in court. The leader of this rebellion is an intense 45-year-old paralegal with the flair of an angry stand-up comic. His little war, run out of his home in his spare time, has stirred up the giant telemarketing industry, where mention of the name Bulmash draws shudders of disgust. "Everyone in the industry knows Bob Bulmash," sighs Kenneth Griffin, an American Telephone & Telegraph Co. official and past head of the American Telemarketing Association. He worries that the Bulmash crusade will "regulate us and put us out of business," and adds: "I'm sorry, but we're going to defend ourselves." (In fact, AT&T right now is defending itself against a $100 claim from Bulmash.) At the other end of the telemarketing line, Bulmash is a hero. "Thanks for taking on the greatest annoyance to man since the invention of the housefly!" wrote a grateful Oregon woman who read about him in a local newspaper. In a 1990 national survey of telemarketing targets, 70% said they consider such calls an "invasion of privacy." Walker Research Inc. of Indianapolis conducted the survey via, of all things, random calls to U.S. telephone numbers. The survey also found that 44% of the targets considered their last telemarketing call "pleasant," and 41% think telemarketing serves a "useful purpose." All these calls are coming from an exploding industry with an awesome arsenal of new technology. American companies will spend an estimated $60 billion on telemarketing this year, up from $1 billion in 1981, says the industry association. One especially popular purchase, all too familiar to households, is the "adramp," short for automatic dialing recorded message player. It courses like a virus through the phone system, blaring its come-on to one number after another in sequence. Another hot new weapon is the "predictive dialer," which speed-dials one number after another, sending to live agents only the calls that answer. With one of these, a telemarketing shop can double the number of prospects its agents talk to in a day. Lawmakers are starting to worry about this calling frenzy. A proposed federal law would create a national list of people who don't want junk calls, and make it illegal to telemarket them. States have also introduced some 300 bills this year curbing unsolicited sales calls. Bulmash's group, Private Citizen, is reachable at Box 233, Naperville, Ill. 60566. wayne correia wdc@apple.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 21:25 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Lionel Hampton's Roots in Telecom History Most readers have probably at one time or many heard the jazz vibraharp recordings of Lionel Hampton. However, his taking it up as an instrument from its most famous role as the NBC radio network "chimes" is probably not so well known. In the June 22, 1991 {Parade Magazine} supplement to many U.S. newspapers, he was reported to have sta9ted in about 1930 as follow~: "One day, a 22-year-old drummer named Lionel Hampton was making a recording with his idol, Louis Armstrong, at NBC studios in Los Angeles. Armstrong pointed to an instrument sitting over in the corner and asked Hampton what it was. `It's called a vibraharp," Hampton said. NBC used it as chimes for intermission signals during radio broadcasts. `Do you know how to play it?' Armstrong asked. `Yeah,' Hampton lied. `Play somethin' then,' Louis Armstrong said. "Never having played a note on the instrument before, Hampton tapped out a solo he'd learned from an Armstrong recording. `Man, that sounds great,' Armstrong said. `Let's put it on record.' They did. `Memories of You' marked the first time jazz was played on the vibraharp. Hampton made sweet musical history and found his instrument." ("Today, at 83, Lionel Hampton -- one of the last of the great Big Band leaders -- gives upward of 200 concerts a year here and abroad...") ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 20:05:26 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: Phrack Magazine Timothy Newsham writes in Vol 11 Issue 61 (Jan 91): ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > There's an article in Phrack magazine Issue 11, File 9 that tells of > the potential problem that making programming information public would > be. It was written by a few engineers in the cellular industry. It > isn't an article written by a hacker. Good reading for the > comp.dcom.telecom type, check it out. Are issues of Phrack still available? Pat Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu [Moderator's Note: Since Craig N. is a regular reader here, perhaps he will respond with an address where people can obtain back issues of the magazine as desired. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: How to Phix an AT&T Phone Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 18:30:11 CDT From: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." I'm sure that the following information will be of use to some pholks out there ... I've seen three AT&T phones damaged by lightning with an interesting problem: it sometimes will ring/sometimes won't ring, and when it doesn't ring, it causes a problem which makes the calling party hear a ring, then busy when they try to call you. It has also manifested itself as a problem where the phone cannot hang-up (it will always be "off-hook"). The latest problem was where the phone rang once, then the CO sensed trouble and refused to let any of the other rings go through ... I've finally found the cause of this problem, and I'm forwarding the fix so that those in-the-know can apply it when needed. On all the new AT&T phones (in particular, the Traditional 100 desk and wall phones, but should be the same on the other phones), they have a bridge rectifier arrangement connected across ring and tip which provide power for both the telephone (ie. talk/receive) and number memory/dial sections. When lightning (or a very high voltage spike) is present on the phone line, it appears to exceed the PIV rating of the 1N4007 rectifiers (don't ask me how...) they use for the bridge. You'll know which ones they are by the fact that four of them are clustered together close to where the wires from the phone's RJ11 plug/jack enters the circuit board. One or more of these rectifiers are bad. If you change all of them, you'll probably fix the problem. You can also try replacing them one-by-one until you find the bad one(s). Always try the phone in both polarities when testing to see if you've fixed the problem. Important note: These rectifiers test "good" when you apply common sense to them. They are bad in some way, but I don't know enough about electronics to apply uncommon sense to figure out what's really wrong (I throw the bad parts away). I've repaired two AT&T phones this way already, and in all cases I've restored them to perfect working order. At $35 a phone, this $2 (at the most) fix is a great deal. It's a shame that the MOVs that are supposed to prevent this condition don't seem to do their job ... Gil Kloepfer, Jr. gil@limbic.ssdl.com ...!ames!limbic!gil Southwest Systems Development Labs (Div of ICUS) Houston, Texas ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: Tracing a Call on a DMS-100 Date: 30 June 1991 19:59 -0400 NET doesn't yet offer call tracing, but I'm on a DMS-100 exchange (Newton Mass). I need to know where a recent call originated. Is there anyway to ferret out this information in a standard DMS-100? Thanks. ------------------------------ From: Bill Kennedy Subject: TNC, BNC, N Cellular Connectors Date: 1 Jul 91 03:08:55 GMT Organization: W.L. Kennedy Jr. & Associates, Pipe Creek, TX I have a Motorola bag phone and it has a miniature UHF connector for the antenna. Both the rooftop and car whips have TNC, the mobile systems dealer wants to sell me an outdoor antenna which only comes with type N. Because of the thin ethernet cable that runs around here I have gobs of BNC connectors and the crimp tool for them. Maybe the same tool will work for TNC and mini-UHF, I haven't tried. The question is what connector is going to be the most reliable? The last time I knew anything about it 860MHz was nearly voodoo, so I'm way stale. My preference is BNC because I'm used to them but if some one knows one to be better, I'd like to know. Even if type N is the best it's the least convenient. Is it enough better? Thanks, Bill Kennedy uucp {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM or ssbn!bill@attmail.COM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 09:55:34 EDT From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" Subject: MCI Operator Assisted Rates When I was in Philadelphia last month, I was having trouble getting MCI's computer to accept my card number using 10222-0-###-###-#### (bong) card #. When I called customer service, they said to just dial 10222-0 and place the call through the operator. When I complained about having to pay assisted rates, they said they don't charge for operator assist anymore. Is this new? Also, when I use my credit card via 950-1022, it works fine. Why would 10222-0 not accept my card? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 14:03 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: A Snappy Higdon Salute to Pac Bell! The job is complete. The ten individual drops to an assortment of protection devices spanning a quarter of a century are history. Three brand new six-pair cables are in place to new six-line demark boxes which are nicely labeled. The six new lines are in and working. In view of the fact that as of Thursday of last week no pairs were available, this appears to have been a major accomplishment by the various installation crews of Pac*Bell. My hat is off to Pac*Bell in the handling of my service order. It was a first-cabin job from start to finish. 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 #505 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01920; 2 Jul 91 1:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22624; 1 Jul 91 23:37 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10637; 1 Jul 91 22:28 CDT Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 21:47:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #506 BCC: Message-ID: <9107012147.ab05579@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Jul 91 21:46:53 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 506 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Transoceanic Cables [Donald E. Kimberlin] AT&T Call Detail (was 'Free' Report Costs Thirty Dollars) [Jack Dominey] No Five on my Phone! [gypsy@silver.lcs.mit.edu] Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266 [Jim Smithson] Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacking' and 'Phreaking' [Steve Kuo] Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacking' and 'Phreaking' [Peter Creath] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 14:59 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Transoceanic Cables This is a very delayed response ot Tad Cook's (hpubvwa!ssc! Tad.Cook @beaver.cs.washington.edu) question in Digest v10,iss846 of 27 Nov 90: > In article <14897@accuvax.nwu.edu>, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John > R. Levine) writes: >> TAT-1 was only laid in 1956. Transatlantic telephone service >> started in 1927, but until 1956 used SSB radio. > I thought single sideband radiotelephone wasn't developed until after > World War II. Use of amplitude modulation with only a single sideband is another of those bits of telecommunications technology with a surprisingly long historical tail. The histories of radio and telephone carrier telephone technologies were closely connected at the dawn of the electronic communications era. During the same 1891-1895 era that Marconi was developing his arc transmitters for radiotelegraphy, wireline telephone and telegraph workers were experimenting with similar techniques using wirelines for the transmission medium. One early researcher with the resonant name of John Stone. Stone demonstrated multiple-channel telephony on a wireline using small carbon arcs for the carrier sources in 1894. Obviously, Stone's "carrier" didn't sound any better than when radio researchers tried connecting a microphone into the antenna circuit of a raspy arc radio transmitter. But, both radio and wireline workers soon knew that the process of shifting speech signals upward in frequency produced dual resultant high frequency outputs - an upper and a lower "sideband" centered on the high frequency "carrier." This was known, but didn't matter much in that decade prior to having Deforest's three-element vacuum tube. Since in that decade, there was no such thing as amplification, hihg-frequency communication by either wire or radio relied totally on brute force transmission techniques simply to have enough signal left so the receiver detector could find it. The problem was more severe for wire workers than for radio because of course there was a finite limit to how much power the wire workers could use, while the radio workers could focus on building ever larger behemoths of radio transmitters -- right up to a million Watts of transmitted power. (From "Star Trek - The Nickelodeon": "I kinna gie ye a megawatt, Commander Kirk. It'll gie the Earth a magnetic hernia!" "Dammit, Scotty -- go ahead. We need to reach Africa with this thing!"> So, as soon as amplification could be utlized, reducing the amount of carrier power to be transmitted was of prime importance to wireline workers, and "suppressed carrier" transmission was used in the earliest wireline carrier systems to avoid need for larger, more expensive "repeaters." In the decade following availablility of Deforest's Audion, the art of building filters wasn't yet fully developed, so although it was already known that two sideband~ weren't needed for transmission, and represented even more unnecessary transmitted signal, techniques for removing the unwanted one at the transmitter weren't really in use. When workers like Campbell defined the art of electrical filter-building (and if you read into the early journals, you'll find there were plenty of German, French, (olish and Scandinavian developers who contributed to this), means became available to filter out one of the sidebands. This was around World War I, and radio was focused on providing something immediately useful to military and international communications, so telegraphy was the driver for radio. Its gargantuan transmitters were ever larger and larger sparks or high-frequency AC generators. Even though Reginald Fessenden had connected a microphone in the antenna of his Brant Rock, Massachusetts alternator and astounded ship radio operators on Christmas Eve, 1906 by presenting them his voice, violin and (acosutically played) phonograph records; and Lee Deforest broadcast speech using his vacuum tubes as oscillators at New York in the following year, radio users weren't as interested in spectrum and power conservation as telephone workers were. Meantime, telephone systems were under continuous development using but a single sideband and suppressed carrier in their "carrier systems." Spectrum conservation and power reduction became prime considerations in wireline telephony. Despite the vision David Sarnoff had of a "radio music box" in his memorandum to the management of his American Marconi Corporation managers, Marconi's focus was completely upon public message telegraph business. It wasn't until the U.S. forced Marconi to sell out to a new joiwt venture of Westinghouse, GE (and early on, AT&T) called The Radio Corporation of America that Sarnoff got a commercial manager's job and was able, as the record shows, to make RCA a leader in radio (and later television) broadcasting. There wasn't much pressure to extend the telephone across oceans, so it wasn't until October, 1927 that Bell Laboratories, using a rented RCA transmitter at Rocky Point, Long Island exchanged signals with the British Post Office, using the radio frequencies of 55 kilohertz one way and 60 kilohertz the other to establish a radiotelephone circuit across the Atlantic. Although numerous amateurs had spanned the Atlantic and other oceans prior to this time, the operational requirements of commercial use were for a "circuit" that could be maintained 24 hours per day, all year, and only low- frequency radio could do this. With the strong bent its wireline- oriented engineers had, this link operated using SSB techniques. To them, it was merely an extension of what they had been using more and more widely on wire transmission. Shortwave radio, meantime, developed around the globe using mostly ordinary double-sideband AM, largely because it was an heroic enough effort to simply generate and receive signals at those frequencies with high power levels. By the late 1930's "SSB" high-frequency radio was beginning to come into use for international radiotelephony, which itself first started out using DSBKAM. During the WWII era, SSB on HF continued to expand unitl finally just after WWII, it explod{d into becoming the common commercial operating method on HF radio. By 1950, SSB was becoming of great interest to amateur radio operators, but even them it was still quite complex and expensive for the "home-brew" amateur operator. (All this does not mean to say that a curtain drops on one stage of the drama of telecommunications technO}]logy when another rises. As late as 1966, the one commercial radiotelephone circuit from the Caribbean island of Antigua to the U.S., put in operation for Jackie Kennedy's use when she was at her Caribbean hideout, as an ordinary old double-sideband AM link from St. John's, Antigua to Ft. Lauderdale, FL. I doubt Jackie was very concerned if her voice rode one or two sidebands. Security heads would have been shocked, though. It wasn't encrypted at all. If they simply had a receiver and knew the frequencies, the {National Enquirer} could have known All About Camelot!) ------------------------------ From: jdominey@bsga05.attmail.com Date: Mon Jul 1 16:39:46 EDT 1991 Subject: AT&T Call Detail (was 'Free' Report Costs Thirty Dollars) Chip Rosenthal writes in Digest Vol 11 #503: >> I was overjoyed when I learned that AT&T could provide detail reports >> on my (pro*wats) phone usage. >> Surprise #1. The reports never arrived. I figured my request got >> filed in the bitbucket. Suddenly, after a four month delay, a 0.25" >> stack of paper arrives in my mailbox. There it is, in glorious >> detail, how much it costs me to feed the Trailblazer. >> Surprise #2. A month passes. Another 0.25" stack of paper arrives. >> A few days later, a teensy weensy envelope with a bill for $30 from >> `AT&T Detail Manager' arrives - $10 apiece for my `free' reports. #1 I've heard about delivery problems with Detail Manager, but no one has seen fit to tell me where the problem is or who's fixing it. Sorry I can't help out on that count, Chip. #2 Initially, the three reports were free, but pricing has changed this year. Your sales rep gave you out-of-date info. The current price list follows. There was a promotion going on during the early part of this year, but I forget just when it ended. It sounds as though you got your first month's reports under the promotion. Basically, the Detail Manager people would much rather send out disks than paper reports, and have priced the service accordingly. There's a number down below for a demo copy of the software. There may actually be a way to get your modem calls broken out on the bill for free. If you're getting billed by AT&T, you can try dialing 0 + and after the 'bong', dial 15xx. This should get your calls to show up on the bill with a breakout for the xx code. DETAIL MANAGER PRICING - As of 05/10/91 PAPER MEDIA: PER REPORT REQUESTED VOLUME NUMBER RATE OF STEPS RECORDS RATES 1 01-1000 $ 10.00 2 1001-2500 15.00 3 2501-5000 20.00 4 5001-10K 25.00 5 10001-25K 30.00 6 25001-50K 35.00 7 50001-100K 40.00 8 100001- > 100.00 PC APPLICATION: SOFTWARE FEE: $25.00 ONE TIME CHARGE MONTHLY DATA DISK FEE: FLAT $10.00/MO. FEE FOR UNLIMITED DISKS PER SERVICE/LOCATION $10.00 UPGRADE - ONE TIME CHARGE WHEN CUSTOMER WANTS NEW SOFTWARE For a copy of a demonstration diskette, call 1-800-722-7742. Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA V: (404)496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey ------------------------------ From: gypsy@silver.lcs.mit.edu (The Gypsy) Subject: No Five on my Phone! Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 21:33:22 GMT Some of you may have heard comedian Steven Wright joking about how he can't call everyone he wants because his phone "has no five!" Anyway, for me it is no joke! The "5" on my phone just plain died yesterday! I can't figure it out -- I've checked any connections that could possibly cause a problem. Since all the other tones work -- and are made up of two tones each (as you all know about DTMF) -- it doesn't make since! The two tones for "5" MUST be working -- but they aren't. It's just a cheap-o phone, so I don't want to spend much money or anything, but if someone can tell me how I can simply build a circuit to produce a "5" or has any ideas on fixing the phone, let me know! Thanks. ALSO: If someone tells me how to build that circuit, it may solve my second problem - my answering machine. The "remote" thing is wasted, but according to the bottom of the device, it is a Dual-Tone (like touch tone) of 600 and 950 hertz - so if you can give me a simple circuit to produce that, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. The Gypsy gypsy@silver.lcs.mit.edu [Moderator's Note: Is it possible it is the *contact switch* under the 'five key' on the keypad which is broken, or not making proper contact? Take off the cover and try pushing hard on the contact where the plastic 'five cap' sits. See if it works okay then. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jim Smithson Subject: Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 10:17:08 MESZ > It's trivial to intercept cellular calls at random over the > air, but a court-ordered interception of a single cellular phone must > physically tap all the cells, because calls from that phone could go > through many single physical places -- there is no central point > common to all the calls, except the portable phone itself. It is not as difficult as you believe to monitor cellular calls. I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with trunk loop around. > The FBI *wants* phone system designers to start thinking about > interception -- in particular, they want interception to be easier. > Just like the East German secret police. You are way out of line drawing any comparisons between the STASI and the FBI! I'm as much a civil libertarian as anyone, but I want the cops to catch the crooks anyway they can. ------------------------------ From: sdkuo@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Steve Kuo) Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and "Phreaker' Date: 29 Jun 91 06:08:12 GMT Reply-To: sdkuo@argo.acs.oakland.edu Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI In article , jdl@pro-nbs.cts.com (Jennifer Lafferty) writes: > 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! Hacker -- Person that obtains free phone service by entering (or hacking out) someone else's long distance codes (which can very from five to seven digits). This is outdated as dial-1 service is now available Phreaker -- Person that gains control of phone services by "tricking" long distance truncks and controlling them. In the olds days (pre- 1987ish) a 2600 Hz tone would gain control of a trunck. Now control tones are out of band (greater than 3100 Hz) or computer controlled, thus this method is outdated (as far as I know.) Steve Kuo [Moderator's Note: I think most folks here would disagree with you on 'hacker'. The correct term there would be 'cracker' or 'phreak'. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Peter Creath Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1991 21:51:26 GMT > Using a computer to steal it is no different morally than breaking > down my door and rifling my filing cabinet. You, sir, appear to know nothing about hacking. Morally, fine, you may be right. But I think a more accurate analogy would be something along the lines of: Using a computer to steal it is no different morally than going house to house, finding somebody who left the key under the door-mat, entering the house, and rifling their filing cabinet. Hackers could not operate were there not utterly comical security. If there weren't an easy place to get in (ie: some Unix with an unpassworded "root" account), hackers couldn't learn more complicated strategies for better-secured computers. You wouldn't have the bulk of hacking (trying all default accounts), and your amount of "elite" hackers (those who can get around something like that -- none that I've heard of) would decline. Instead of shafting the over-curious kid who steps a legal boundary and browses through your files, how about fixing the security? It's almost a case of attractive nuisance. You put up a computer with the "front door" wide open. Someone comes in, you prosecute, execute them, etc. Let's take a little responsibility for our own oversights. Not that I condone hacking, I just think too many people get all self-righteous about it. Face it, if half the people who scream "HACKING IS WRONG!" actually spent an hour securing their computer, the overall incidence of hacking would probably be about 10% what it is now. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #506 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04822; 2 Jul 91 2:23 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16901; 2 Jul 91 0:42 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22624; 1 Jul 91 23:37 CDT Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 22:37:00 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #507 BCC: Message-ID: <9107012237.ab23924@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Mon, 1 Jul 91 22:36:35 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 507 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Pac*Bell Trivia [Jim Redelfs] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [John Higdon] Re: Official Phone Tapping in UK [Macy Hallock] Re: Highly Remote Extensions [Macy Hallock] Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [John Higdon] Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc. [Frederick Roeber] Re: IDDD From a Cellular Phone [Kent Borg] Re: Edison's Recordings and Energy Conservation [Chris Jones] Re: What is This Number? [Dave Neibuhr] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 08:12:01 CST From: Jim Redelfs Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Trivia Reply-To: ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@uunet.uu.net Organization: Macnet Omaha John Higdon wrote: > They didn't make the due date (6/28). Argh! I'm beginning to see "the light" about Pac*Bell! > the six new lines (I upped the order) are yet to be installed. > Earlier in the week, my rep told me that the order had been referred > to the "P102" desk. That's probably their name for where our "PFd" (Plant Facilities are lacking) orders go. It doesn't happen much in my area but I have yet to install a "jillion" residential lines, fed from an aerial cable to the home of a telefanatic. (grin) > It seems that the neighborhood facilities are under some strain. I'll bet! Depending on your particular area, they may well have to climb poles and open numerous closures to REPAIR their defective pairs -- JUST to provide the service you requested. They may in fact have to hang new cable. > the only reason the PUC was now "letting" Pac*Bell finally replace > all the crossbar was so that the company could provide 976/900 > blocking universally. If true, it goes right along with our > regulatory embarassment that calls itself a PUC. Apparently, > providing modern, useful telephone service is not important; > protecting idiots (those who cannot help dialing 976/900 numbers) is. You may be right that the CA PUC is afflicted with cranial/rectal inversion. It seems to me that the ADVANTAGES (read: income potential from CLASS) of upgrading to ESS would be obvious. I'm amazed that you're STILL XBar! As for the new drops demarcd on individual RJ11s: Do you prefer that? Surely your setup by now must include backboard(s), 66 blocks and the like. I think I'd rather have a single, RJ21X w/amphenol plug -- although I'd simply pull the bridging clips to test an individual line. Good luck. Let us know how it ends up! -- Tabby 2.2 MacNetOmaha(402)289-2899 Multitasking w/MacOrphans (1:285/14) [Moderator's Note: As pointed out in an issue earlier Monday evening, the work got finished today. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 20:49 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Greg Andrews writes: > I'm not saying that I would be called upon to respond to a > fire or automobile accident, but that the need to contact me regarding > the imminence of death to my immediate family DOES constitute an > emergency. Maybe to YOU. I have no spouse. I have no children. No one needs to reach me on an emergency basis EXCEPT for my clients. But I have made provisions for this with many lines, pagers, cellular phones, etc., ad nauseum. It is important for my clients to reach me FAST in some cases. It is NEVER necessary for any of them to use the operator to interrupt my conversation. So if it is so transcendentally important to you that you be reachable concerning family emergencies, then shoulder burden of the mechanism yourself rather than insist that all of the rest of us endure the most annoying and ineffecient procedure of "operator interrupt". What I hear in your post is that you would like to be notified about certain emergencies, but don't feel the need to establish the environment for that notification. You want it on a "casual" basis. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 13:23 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Official Phone Tapping in UK Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 In article : > To avoid possible confusion: the term `engineer' is widely used in the > UK for any sort of technician or service person. All those > `engineers' needed to tap phones are certainly not the sort with > engineering degrees from universities. In the US, this is also true, but in a slightly different fashion. The title engineer is used for anyone technical whose time costs more than $100 per hour. Thus the terms: Customer Engineer = Repair Tech + $100/hr billing Field Service Engineer = Slightly more knowledgeable Repair Tech + $100/hr etc. Although I do not have a degree, I have been a telephone engineer for 20+ years. Draw your own conclusions. [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: Sun, 30 Jun 91 13:18 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Highly Remote Extensions Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 In article : >> ....No way, say the few people I have asked who ought to know. >> But I think they probably have a vested interest in not having to take >> the trouble to figure it out. I have no knowledge of the switch >> itself, or any apparent access to its features: I have to pay some >> moron $100/hour to come and do adds&changes (which I have managed to >> avoid doing so far). > Take the advice of a "MORON" (I assume you mean someone who has > trained and worked hard to learn and be proficient at their skills) ... > If you have no knowledge of the switch, leave it alone! > I've had to correct *doit yourself and save* mistakes before. Most of > the techs I know are compelled to charge double for this kind of work. Well, as both a moron and the owner of a company employing morons, I guess I'll add a few words to this disucssion: I replied to this message directly when it first appeared, giving suggestions about use of the Mitel LCR feature and asking for the software generic level so I could frame a more specific reply. Even with my background, I did not interpret this request as a "do it yourself" project. The comments about avoiding "do it yourself" programming on a PBX you know little or nothing about are quite valid. I, too, have cleaned up quite a few messes made by indviduals who assume they know everything based on little or no actual knowledge. I have posted previous articles on my pet peeve: plant electricians who think they know everything about telecom and computer wiring. However, this forum exists because it is often difficult to obtain specific or authoritative information from many telecom vendors. How many times do we discuss "the phone co. told me it couldn't be done" in this digest a week? Personal experience has shown that this problem is not a monopolized by the telco's and carriers. Quite a few equipment vendors are either unwilling or unable to discuss anything but the simpliest operational requirements with customers. I spend a lot of time visiting sites where XYZ Co. or ABC Co. has told their customers that "it couldn't be done the way the customer wanted it" and then arrange to have my company proceed to do the requested work. The only notable exception to this problem is during the proposal process for the sale of a new system: then all vendors are willing to say all things are possible [1/2 grin here]. I have absolutely no problem discussing any aspect of the operation, installation, programming or maintenance of a telecom or computer system ... in this forum I assume I am working with people experienced enough to know that they do not know all the answers, and some things are best done by experts. I also assume all Digest readers know that no single person or organization has "all the answers" (tm) ... and is intelligent enough to seek help when confronted by the answer "you can't do that" ... especially when there is a lack of confidence in the organization making that statement. In talking to my customers and propective clients, I do find myself making the statement "I'm not sure I an accomplish your request in a manner you would find cost effective" .. and I am usually prepared to back that statement up with a number .. and sometimes that number is replacement cost for their PBX ... of course I have established my technical competence to make that statement in a credible manner by then. In summary: 1. No one knows it all, and many know very little. 2. All things are possible if your budget is large enough. 3. Keep you hands off technology you do not understand. 4. Ask and listen carefully to the answer you get. (Notable Exceptions to the above rules: the opposite sex and money.) Gee ... I've never responded so positively to being called a moron before, guess the net just brings out the better aspects of my personality. 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: Sun, 30 Jun 91 21:26 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions Bob Izenberg writes: > On June 19th, I mailed a FEEDBACK message to CompuServe's > customer service account. I had some questions suggested by a FidoNet > sysop's concern over a message in German that passed through his > system. I don't know how FidoNet works, but why would this have been a concern? My computer processes literally thousands of Usenet articles a day as well as many hundreds of private e-mail messages. I have absolutely no idea what is in 50% of the Usenet articles and no idea what is in 100% of the e-mail messages. I would not know if they were in German, Russian, Venusian, or any other language. By the time I read a Usenet article, it has already passed to many other sites and is probably queued to many others. Is there some suggestion here that I am responsible to become root and read every one of the mail messages that pass herethrough? Many of them are processed and passed on within seconds (outgoing mail is immediate to local neighbor sites). If so, what standards am I to use in "censoring" this mail, and what software should I use to accomplish it? If I really am responsible for every article and pass-through e-mail message that writes to my disk drive, then I lack the facilities (mostly manpower) to remain an intermediate UUCP site. If not, why would a FidoNet site operator be held responsible? Inquiring minds want to know. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: roeber@cithe1.cithep.caltech.edu Subject: Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc. Date: 30 Jun 91 09:42:26 PST In article , sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu (Stan Reeves) writes: > My wife and I are planning to build a house beginning in a few weeks. > I've been trying to think ahead and figure out if there's any extra > wiring we might like to put in the house before the sheetrock is put > up. When my father's office building was being built, he asked me the same question. What I suggested was to install empty conduits along likely paths. Later, when you decide to actually put in a LAN, CATV net, or something not yet invented, you just blow a string and pull whatever cable is needed. This avoids the guessing, saves you buying expensive wire that might never be used, and gives you flexibility for the future. After having installed a CATV network and other miscellaneous wiring in my parent's house, I can highly recommend keeping such flexibility. If you do install wire during building, be sure the electricians and contractors all thoroughly understand its purpose. Some 30 years ago, when my family was building our house, we put in speaker wires between every room and the living room Hi-Fi. After most of the house was finished, but before all the details were completed, some airhead of an electrician decided to take an inspection tour. When he saw these wires he didn't recognize, he thought to himself "messy, messy," and proceeded to clip off all the loose ends. We could only rescue one room's connection. Of course, my solution is to skip the sheetrock and use plywood and paneling, *screwed* into place. Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research e-mail: roeber@caltech.edu or roeber@cern.ch | work: +41 22 767 31 80 r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 42 19 44 ------------------------------ From: Kent Borg Subject: Re: IDDD From a Cellular Phone Date: 29 Jun 91 00:29:41 GMT Organization: Camex Inc., Boston MA In article wright@ais.org (Carl Wright) writes: > John is right. The rate of change of the [cellular] subscriber > enrollment is so high . They even have coined a name for it. They > call it "CHURN". Actually the term "churn" predates cellular telephones. It is a great word though, isn't it? Kent Borg internet: kent@camex.com AOL: kent borg H:(617) 776-6899 W:(617) 426-3577 ------------------------------ From: Chris Jones Subject: Re: Edison's Recordings and Energy Conservation Date: 30 Jun 91 17:13:56 EDT Reply-To: Chris Jones Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp In article , 0004133373@mcimail (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes: [Thomas Edison penned a jingle...] > "It went like this: `Save the juice, save the juice, turn out the > light when not in use!" ... > Edison was, however, a little inaccurate in his refrain, as Dear > Abby responded: > "Dear Doris: With all due respect to Mr. Edison, `juice' is saved only > if the lights are switched off for ten minutes or longer. According > to a spokesperson for the Department of Water and Power in Los > Angeles, there is a power surge when lights are turned on, so lights > should be left on if one plans to be in and out of the room. Perhaps > the jingle should be amended to read, `Save the juice, save the juice, > burn out the light if it won't be needed for ten minutes or more.' Of > course, the meter is all wrong, but the message is accurate." This may or may not be true for fluorescent lights, but I don't believe it's true for incandescent lights. I just tried flipping a light on and off while watching the electric meter. There was little enough drain on the meter (it runs lights and circulators in the common area of my building, and on a summer day there's almost no electricity being used) so that I could see the effect of the light going on and off. There was certainly no surge. It may well be that there is wear and tear on the switch and bulb so as to render it more cost-effective to leave the light on, but that's not what the LA Power department said. Chris Jones clj@ksr.com {uunet,harvard,world}!ksr!clj ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1991 13:12:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Re: What is This Number? In telecom11.485.7@eecs.nwu.edu, rs@mhuxu.att.com writes: > I have an 800 number that I would like to find out who owns and where > they are located. Do you know of anyway to get this info? The number in > question is (800) 698-1614. Try calling them and see what they say. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #507 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06784; 2 Jul 91 3:25 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12906; 2 Jul 91 1:48 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16901; 2 Jul 91 0:42 CDT Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 0:06:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #508 BCC: Message-ID: <9107020006.ab05222@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Jul 91 00:06:02 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 508 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Is Pacific Bell Giving AT&T What is Due? [John Higdon] Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [J. Philip Miller] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [David Cornutt] Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc. [R. Kevin Oberman] Re: Bellevue Prefixes (Washington State) [Jeff Carroll] Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? [Max Rochlin] Re: Call Message Delivery [Lars Poulsen] Re: Poor Abused Phreakers [Jon Allen] Re: C & P Outage: What's the Story? [Doug Fields] Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' [Charlie Mingo] Caller-ID Data Sources and Format Information [Will Martin] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 22:08 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Is Pacific Bell Giving AT&T What is Due? "Steven M. Palm" observes: > My problem is this: I highly distrust their count of my phone calls. To which the Moderator replies: > If you find their count is wrong, and can prove it, I'd be surprised. Perhaps Ameritech is blessed with better accuracy than Pacific Bell. Let me tell you about an ongoing case of gross billing error perpetrated by Pac*Bell that continues to this day. I have a "Full State 800" service line. It has two bands and two rate periods. The bands are "Pac*Bell-IntraLATA" which includes all calls from within the San Francisco LATA; and "AT&T" which includes calls from the rest of the state. The number is not reachable from outside California. Note that the IntraLATA rate is significantly higher than the "AT&T" rate. In other words, a call from next door costs more than a call from San Diego. All calls come from a small handful of people, all located in southern California -- well out of the San Francisco LATA. In addition, those calls are always made during the lower time-of-day rate. For the past several years the bill arrives showing about 60% of the usage charged as IntraLATA calls and the other 40% billed correctly as AT&T traffic. The total hours shown is correct, as is the time-of-day usage. The bill, because of the incorrectly billed IntraLATA usage, is significantly higher than it should be. At first, there was great skepticism on the part of the Pac*Bell reps. How did I know where all the calls came from? Answer: I know personally every single person who calls and where he is calling from. Perhaps there were calls answered by others on the premesis. No, there is no one else here. The difference was credited. Again -- the next month. "We'll look into it and let you know." In the meantime, it was credited once again. Over the years, the following has taken place: I was told that they did not actually bill according to usage, but to a formula. I pointed out that others who could accurately track usage had been properly billed. I also said that nowhere in any of the advertising was it said that usage was "estimated" and that such a policy was contrary to the history and customs of US telephone service. They backed down on that little piece of pacification. A "trap" was put on the line for two months to find out where the calls "really" came from. One thing was for sure: they did not come from within the LATA, according to the results of the trap. "Programmers" were presented with the problem. No one, but no one had an answer. The billing errors persisted. I submitted a two-month detailed record of ALL calls received on the line. The report included time of the call, duration, and the area code and number originating the call. No luck. A rep suggested that I convert to Pac*Bell "custom" 800 and reject the IntraLATA exchanges. No soap. Custom 800 charges are significantly higher than the service to which I subscribe. To my knowledge, there has been no recent progress in tracking the billing problem. Right now, someone in the business office pulls up my bill each month, recomputes the charges based on total AT&T usage, and then issues a credit that appears on the following month's bill. This happens month after month. The reps do this now without even being told. But the billing problem remains. Not long ago, an associate who is also in the SF LATA, who has the identical service for the identical purpose complained of the identical problem. Month after month, his bill shows Pac*Bell usage when there is none and it is in reality AT&T usage. He also gets credits by the business office, but not yet automatically. He is also served out of a different CO and rate center than myself. We are in the peculiar position of being to state categorically where calls do and do not originate, but what about businesses that have this service? How many Pac*Bell accounts do you suppose are out there that have inaccurate billing and that are completely unaware of it? How much money do you suppose AT&T is being screwed out of since it is not being credited with the calls by Pac*Bell's billing computers? The moral of all of this is that if you have any reason at all to suspect that telco is improperly billing you -- CHECK IT OUT! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "J. Philip Miller" Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 6:33:09 CDT John G Dobnick writes: > Say what? I fail to understand the reasoning here. Someone wants to > use *my* phone line for some "emergency purpose" by *calling* me? > This scenario makes no sense whatsoever. Well, perhaps here is a scenario that makes sense: Someone in your immediate family (e.g. spouse, child) is in an accident. Authorities need to contact you to arrange a variety of details involved in treating your loved one (e.g. what hospital to take them to, who their docotor is, permission given for treatment, details of medical history). If this is not an emergency in your book, I am glad I am not in your family :-) 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: David Cornutt Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Organization: NASA/MSFC Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1991 13:17:28 GMT I know that there is a law in Alabama which makes it a misdomeanor (sp?) to "hinder or interfere with the extinguishing of a fire". There was a rather notorious case a few years ago of a gas station owner who was convicted under this law when he refused to allow use of his fire extinguisher to put out a burning car (which was not on his premises). I would assume that the same would apply if there was a car on fire in the street in front of your house, and you refused to allow use of your phone to call the fire department. David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL (205) 461-6457 (cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies) "The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer, not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary." ------------------------------ From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov Subject: Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc. Date: 1 Jul 91 17:14:04 GMT In article , sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu (Stan Reeves) writes: > My questions: > 1) Would ISDN require special wiring in the home, or would it use > existing phone lines? It uses "standard" phone wire; one pair. You will get the best results (by far) if the wiring is a twisted pair that is not twisted with any other pair. While it may be in the same jacket as other pairs, I would be prone to keep it seperated from analog lines. The ring current gets ugly! Standard telco wiring has met these requirements (except seperate jackets) for some time. Some older wiring may be four or more wires all twisted together. If you are having a home wired, make sure it is done to Bellcore PDS specs. > 3) Would you recommend trying to wire the house in anticipation of > ISDN service becoming widespread and being offered in my area? Since it requires no special wiring, no problem! > 4) Do you have any advice that I should consider for wiring the house > to make it easy to add other communications devices as desired (smart > house wiring)? Put lots of holes on the headers and any firebreaks. Put strings (nylon, cotton rots) in the walls to an accessable point in the attic or basement to allow you to pull through the holes. Record where the strings are located. > 5) Are there other newsgroups that might be more appropriate for some > of these questions? You might try comp.dcom.lans. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything. ------------------------------ From: Jeff Carroll Subject: Re: Bellevue Prefixes (Washington State) Date: 1 Jul 91 18:08:32 GMT Reply-To: Jeff Carroll Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics In article cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > In a recent Digest is listed: >> Bellevue, WA Central Office: 641, 643, 644, 747 >> and possibly others now (area 206) > Other Bellevue prefixes as of 1982 were 451,453,454,455,746. There are two COs in Bellevue. The Glencourt CO serves 451, 453, 454, 455, 462, 637, and 646, and the Sherwood CO serves 562, 641, 643, 644, 746, 747, and 865 (which is mostly if not completely handled by Boeing's 5ESS). This info from the June 1990 directory. I understand that 957 is also being used by Boeing in Bellevue, and a friend recently gave me a new phone number which, if memory serves, was in the 958 exchange. Both of these would be routed through the Sherwood CO, which I believe is now serving 649 as well. The Sherwood CO is located at 148th Avenue SE and SE 16th St. The Glencourt CO is located in downtown Bellevue somewhere. Jeff Carroll carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com ------------------------------ From: Max Rochlin Subject: Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? Organization: Gupta Technologies Inc Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 21:54:53 GMT In article mtxinu!Ingres.COM!elvira@ uunet.uu.net writes: > We are looking of a way in which a program, probably on a Sun > Sparcstation, will call a phone number and after a few seconds dial > another number. Easy as pie,;make the page part of the dial string. Call the pager manually a few times and time the interval from the last digit until you get the enter number beep from the paging company. Divide the time by two and add that many commas between the number for the pager and the numeric string you want to send. eg: dial string ATDT999-9999,,,12345 will call the pager, wait six seconds and dial 12345, the numeric message to be sent to the pager. This technique also works for answering machines that have what is called a call transfer feature. My Sony 820 pages me whenever I get a message because I put my pager number and a numeric message in the "Transfer" phone number. max@gupta.com | Max J. Rochlin | decwrl!madmax!max ------------------------------ From: Lars Poulsen Subject: Re: Call Message Delivery Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 22:04:01 GMT In article 0004715238@mcimail.com (Sean Williams) writes: > MCI provides the MCI Messenger Service. [ dialling instructions deleted ] > With MCI's service, you can record a one-minute message and have it > delivered to any direct-dialable phone. You can delay delivery up to > 48 hours, and the system calls back every 20 minutes for 5 hours until > it gets through to someone. I bet this kind of service does not interact positively with an answering machine. Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM ------------------------------ From: Jon Allen Subject: Re: Poor Abused Phreakers Reply-To: Jon Allen Organization: AT&T IMS - Piscataway, NJ (USA) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1991 11:57:02 GMT In article tex@bsu-cs.bsu.edu writes: > I see that you get really pissed off about phreaks poking around where > they shouldn't, but what about coorporations poking around where they > shouldn't, in your presonal finances? They SELL the information they It's time to fight back and sell their information. With Caller-ID spreading across the country it's now possible to compile telemarketer lists. Just think if there were some central list where each person could send the Caller-ID numbers of telemarketers. These lists could then be sold for a nominal charge to ordinary folks to avoid, and could be sold to corporations who like to exchange lists. (Maybe you could sell these lists to telemarketers who market telemarketing gear! The possibilities are endless). jon_r_allen@att.com Piscataway, NJ USA ------------------------------ From: doug@admiral.uucp (Doug Fields) Subject: Re: C&P Outage: What's the Story? Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1991 23:15:49 GMT In article Charlie.Mingo@f421.n109.z1. fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) writes: > I tried it and it worked, but I wondered if it was legal for MCI to > carry intra-LATA calls. Didn't John Higdon mention that all IXC's > (other than ThriftyTel) should reject intra-LATA calls, or does this > restriction apply only to AT&T? I am under the impression that all LD carriers must do that; however, they can accept the call and route it back to the local company and let them do the billing, I'd suppose. Personally I hate those laws -- it costs me $20 to call from New Haven to Greenwich (45 miles) using SNET for 1.5 hours while AT&T'd cost me $9.50 or so (if it were a 2500 mile call). 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: Charlie Mingo Date: 01 Jul 91 22:37:53 Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' Last Sunday, the {New York Times Magazine} ran a column on computer lingo, that stressed the distinction between 'hacker' and 'cracker'. As this publication is fairly widely read by other journalists, we may soon see more careful usage of the term 'hacker' ("an endearing term for people who were interested in computers"). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 12:17:08 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Caller-ID Data Sources and Format Info The August '91 issue of {Radio-Electronics} magazine has a "Hardware Hacker" column beginning on page 69 which contains a list of the Bellcore papers on caller-ID specs, their prices, and a source to order them from. There are also some figures and text on the details of the data format used. It's not complete, but is mainly a preliminary introduction, and refers to the papers for more info. [Note: Don't ask me for more info; I just saw this in the library and made note of the publication to pass on the pointer. Same with the WSJ info I posted some days back -- the WSJ is available just about *everywhere*, so I posted citations. Those who are interested can easily get to a copy to read the complete text.] Regards, Will wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil OR wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #508 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02858; 3 Jul 91 0:39 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02370; 2 Jul 91 23:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13496; 2 Jul 91 21:54 CDT Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 21:12:20 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #509 BCC: Message-ID: <9107022112.ab00446@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Jul 91 21:11:52 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 509 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Greensboro NC Phones Crap-out 7/1/91 (Southern Bell) [William T. Sykes] Cellular ESN Fraud: Any Help For Victim? [Phil Wherry] Power Surge Myth (was Edison Recordings) [Bruce Perens] New Boston/Conn. DMX? [Douglas Scott Reuben] Obselete Parts For a GTE Microwave System [Aodh Dalton] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wts1 Subject: Greensboro NC Phones Crap-out 7/1/91 (Southern Bell) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 17:24:02 GMT Reprinted from the _Greensboro (NC) {News & Record}, Tuesday, July 2, 1991, pg. B1 "COMPUTER GLITCH STOPS TELEPHONES Greensboro Firms Endure a Long, Quiet Afternoon by Meredith Barkley and Betty Joyce Nash - Staff Writer A computer glitch at Southern Bell's Eugene Street switching station shut down 45,000 telephone lines in central Greensboro Monday, causing an anxious afternoon for downtown businesses and affecting 911 emergency service in both Greensboro and Winston-Salem. About one-third of all telephone lines in the city were silenced by the outage. Service was fully restored by 4:40 p.m., but Southern Bell officials were still not sure what caused the computer foul-up. Computer software problems are also blamed for disrupting service to more than 1 million customers in southwestern Pennsylvania Monday, as well as nearly 10 million customers in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles last week. Clifton Metcalf, Southern Bell spokesman, said company officials "have no indication that there is anything more than coincidence, no indication that they are in any way connected." The failures originated from glitches in the technologically advanced computer switching system that has been adopted by all the major telephone companies. Basic 911 emergency service for both Greensboro and Winston-Salem was restored within minutes. Those calls, which are routed through the Eugene Street station from both cities, were rerouted until the problem was solved. The rerouted calls, though, did not give dispatchers such vital information as the caller's address and telephone number - information that enables emergency crews to respond even if a caller cannot speak. Southern Bell officials said they believe the problem occurred when information in the computer system was being updated between 8:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. The glitch knocked out service most of the afternoon to customers with telephone numbers beginning with the prefixes [AC919] 230, 271, 272, 273, 274, 279, 337, 370, 378, 379, 680, and 691. The disruptions were frustrating for many Southern Bell business and residential customers. "It had an effect because this is a telephone business and anything that takes away from our ability to provide services to our customers we don't view in a positive way," said Hugh Williams, manager of the Shearson Lehman Brothers stock brokerage. Guilford County Emergency Service's dispatchers used direct communications with Moses Cone Memorial Hospital to help a patient get in touch with a doctor. "We just happened to be lucky we could get through to the doctor's phone," said George Drake, shift supervisor for the county's 911 communications." [END of ARTICLE] William T. Sykes AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies Burlington, NC UUCP: att!burl!wts att!cbnewsb!wts1 ------------------------------ From: Phil Wherry Subject: Cellular ESN Fraud: Any Help For Victim? Reply-To: Phil Wherry Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1991 12:14:01 GMT After reading the accounts in comp.dcom.telecom regarding the fraudulent use of another's cellular ESN, I am somewhat curious as to how such a situation would be resolved from the point of view of the fraud VICTIM. Say, for instance, my ESN is "grabbed" and stored in someone else's modified cellular phone, and that the fraud is discovered. I assume, then, that the ESN would be blocked and put on the national "hot list." This would then deny me the legitimate use of my phone. How is this situation resolved? Can the ESN be reset by exchanging a part in the phone, or is the victim simply out of luck? Phil Wherry Member of the Technical Staff MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA psw@mitre.org 703-883-6694 ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com Subject: Power-Surge Myth (was Edison's Recordings) Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 02:04:11 GMT I'm entertained by the endurance of the "power-surge" myth in . This is the myth that one can only save money by turning off a light if the light will be off for some long time, ten minutes, half an hour, it differs every time I hear this. The explanation given for this is that there is a power-surge when the light goes on. There is indeed a power surge, but it isn't as big as they'd have you think. Say the break-even point was ten minutes. Think about how much power it takes to run the light for just five minutes. Now, pack all of that power into a surge that is supposed to happen in the _second_ you turn the light on. If it didn't throw the circuit breaker it would vaporize the house wiring! In the case of an incandesent (Edison) lamp, the resistance of the filament varies directly with its temperature, so a cold filament does conduct _much_ more power. It heats up extremely quickly, so the surge is very short in duration, perhaps a tenth of a second. During that time, say it uses 200 times the normal power (an absurdly large amount), and that would still place the break-even point at only twenty seconds. Perhaps what they are talking about is the cost of the bulb: the shock of the rapid temperature change when it is turned on shortens its life. Bruce Perens ------------------------------ Date: 2-JUL-1991 03:28:14.31 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: New Boston/Conn. DMX? I recently noticed a few odd things going on between Metro Mobile/CT and Cell One/Boston. I got a call about week ago, via call forwarding from my Metro Mobile number. No big deal right? I asked the caller how he was calling me (as call-forwarding costs airtime), and he replied, "Oh, through the roam port", ie, using the car call-forwarding, so I intended to call him back. So I said "Ok, I'll call you back in Hartford, ok?" and my friend (Scott) replied "Hartford, why should I be in Hartford? Aren't you in Boston? I'm calling the Boston port!" Now the fact that call-forwarding will work even through the roam port is nothing new. In areas that are "DMXed" together, usually two bordering systems, a DMX allows this sort of thing. Although a DMX is generally intended to offer cross-system paging (ringing) and use of Custom Calling features outside of your home area (ie, in the nearby DMXed areas), it seems a bit less well-known that a DMX also (generally) allows a customer's call-forwarding to be utilized by callers via a roam port, as well as using the roam port as a means to (ahem) save on some toll charges (although this at times is more costly than dialing direct, since the ports always "supervise" (answer) so it is a dubious savings at best). For example: I have Call-Forwarding (*71 let's say) active to forward to my house. I have a CT mobile number. A friend in Providence, RI wants to reach me. Instead of dialing me in CT, a long-distance call, he can call the Rhode Island roam port, a free call, enter my mobile number, and this will page me in ANY area that is DMXed to RI, namely Boston and CT. Note that although this is a way to save some money, it also has some valid uses, as it allows a roamer to give out fewer roam ports. Thus, if you are going to be in the "New England Area", you may just want to give out the RI port, which will get you all over Southern New England, ie, all the systems which are DMXed to the Rhode Island system. (You will be billed by whatever carrier you are being serviced by when you receive the call, NOT only the RI system, even though all your callers used that port). Additionally, since the Rhode Island system is DMXed to to CT system, *AND* I have service in the CT system, the RI port will "pay atention" to my Call-Forwarding commands (*71 in this case), and thus when someone calls me through the RI port, they will get my home number which I had forwarded my cell calls to. The same would work for a Boston customer who was access through the RI port; ie, generally, any system that is DMXed to your home system will respond through its own roam ports as if someone had called you mobile number directly. (Since this means that you can, in effect, get "free" long-distance, many carriers have taken the "easy" solution, and started charging airtime for call-forwarding. That is, if I forward my calls from my CT mobile number to a friend in CT, anyone in RI can use the port to call my mobile number, which will forward to my friend, all for free! By charging airtime for all call-forwarding, this practice is discouraged.) Which brings me to Boston: Apparently, Boston now has a "psuedo-DMX" to CT. It has been DMXed to Metro Mobile/RI for a while now, but when I first spoke with Metro/CT, they said no such thing was in place yet with the CT system. When I asked them "So why can callers reach me through the Boston roam port via call-forwarding?" they said "Well, we have a new PRV system (positive roamer validation, I think), that may have something to do with it." So I go "Hmm ... that's weird" and say goodbye. However, this got me thinking: Dialing my number through the Boston port will NOT page me in CT. It *queries* my phone, ie, I can actually hear the thing click after I enter my number into the Boston port, but it won't ring me. It *will*, however, follow my "Busy-Transfer" or "No-Answer Transfer" instructions, so I fowarded these to my own mobile number, and, amazingly, it works! So now callers can use the Boston roam port to reach me in CT and NY/NJ, which they previously could not do. (I may pay double airtime for this - ie, for the actual airtime and airtime for the "call-forward" to myself ... this will no doubt confuse the hell out of Metro's billing system!) So great, a neat new hack I can play around with, which increases my coverage area for poeple calling me from Boston. Previously, since Boston was only DMXed to RI and New Hampshire (maybe Maine as well?), someone calling me at the Boston Roam port could only get me in these areas. Now, although I may pay double airtime, I can be reached in a much larger area through the Boston port. I drove up to Boston this weekend, to visit friends, and try out this new "feature" a bit more (and YES, in that order! :) ). On my way up, as I enter the Boston system from CT (I-84, old I-86), I see the "roam" light come on, so I know I am in the Boston system. So I call myself in CT. Usually, since Boston was not DMXed to CT, the call would just die in CT, or forward to wherever I sent no-answer- transfer to before leaving the CT system. However, this time, I got a busy signal, since my phone was being used, in the Boston system! Ok, "great" I said, another new neat feature. Callers calling me will know when my phone is busy ... looks like a DMX to me! Then I think "Hmmm ... DMXs allow for call-forwarding, etc. Let me try that". And sure enough, *71 (no-answer-transfer), *72 (call-forwarding) and *73 (cancel all forwarding) worked fine! Really neat! I can now forward my calls to any landline phone from within the Boston system! Very impressive expansion of the "call forwarding" features! Interestingly, *74, or "busy-transfer" didn't work. Does Cell One/Boston have this? Do they use some other code? Strange how this didn't work. So very happy to "discover" this apparently new DMX, I called my friend Scott (who started this whole thing!), and told him: "Hey, Scott, I'm just outside of Boston, but call me back through CT!". After I explained the "new" DMX, we hung up, and he tried to call back. But it didn't work! All Scott got when he called me was a short ring, and then a re-order. As a matter of fact, all attempts to call me directly (NOT via the Boston or RI or whatever roam port) failed. I took the phone indoors, and saw what was happening. When someone called me directly (no roam ports), the call would seem to come to Boston, my phone would "click" as it always does before it starts ringing, (letting the system know it is active?), yet not ring. The call would just "die" in the Boston system! And when I turned my phone off, so that I could not be queried in Boston, everything returned to normal, ie, calls would ring 3 times (in CT), and then go to my "No-answer-transfer" number as they always had done in the past. It would seem then, that my phone being active in the Boston system had an effect on the way my home system processed calls. So I called Metro Mobile today, explained to lots of people what was going on, and said "Look, the new features, like Call-Forwarding and my phone returning a busy signal when I use it are great ... let's keep that ... but WHY isn't my phone ringing?". Needless to say, they were stumped, and just couldn't answer. (Which is better than Metro's usual "Say anything to get the customer off of our backs!" attitude.) They said that they were planning a DMX to Boston, but that it was by no means in place yet, and PRV or interactive validations would NOT do this. So they are going to get back to me. I recall the same thing happened last year between GTE/San Francisco and the Pac*Tel/Sac system, ie, you roam into Sac, callers just get a re-order even though your phone is queried, and when you turn your phone off in Sac, everything goes back to normal, except, of course, you can't use your phone! (Call-Forwarding did not work as it does with Boston, though.) I was told then by GTE that this was due to some sort of interactive validation as well, but later, they corrected themselves, and stated it was due to the (presently active) interactive roaming systtem ("*28") that was slowly being implemented in California and Nevada. (The "replacement" for Follow Me Roaming in these states). Thus, has anyone had any similar experiences? I am particularly interested in Cell One/Boston customers who roam into Connecticut. When callers dial your Boston number, and you are in CT (away from RI so you don't get that system), do THEY also get a re-order? Is your phone queried? (Hard to tell, I know...). Of course, any help, information or similar anectdotes from other systems will also be very interesting to me, as well as helpful. Sorry for another long "cellular" post ... and thanks in advance for any help! (BTW: A good test to see if there is a DMX between your system and nearby ones (but not 100%): Call your mobile number directly, or somehow make it busy. (Call 611? :) ). Then, while your phone is still busy, call the nearby roam ports, and enter your number. Chances are if you get a busy signal through the roam port, there is a DMX, or the functional equivalent of one in place.) Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 12:50 GMT From: ELEDALTON@vax2.ucg.ie Subject: Obselete Parts For a GTE Microwave System Can anyone help me to locate the following diodes for a GTE CTR144, 3.55 - 4.2 GHz microwave system (1800 telephone channels or TV links) Manufactured '72 - '76 in Milan. GTE # Part# Description 402/006-82 Varactor Diode in VCO 402/406-01 DH742-01 Varactor Diode in Up Converter 402/403-06 826BAY Diode I can be faxed at +353 91 26896 (Galway, Ireland.) Thank you, Aodh Dalton ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #509 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05695; 3 Jul 91 1:46 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06372; 3 Jul 91 0:08 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02370; 2 Jul 91 23:01 CDT Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 22:24:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #510 BCC: Message-ID: <9107022224.ab31209@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 2 Jul 91 22:24:07 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 510 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?) [Brian Cuthie] Bell Atlantic SS7 Problems [Ron Atkinson] Latest Outage in Pittsburgh, PA [Dave Querin] Big Service Outage in Pittsburgh [Kevin Brown] 007 Loses License to Call [David E. A. Wilson] Caller ID Against Telemarketers [Cris Pedregal-Martin] More on IMR Telecom [Bob Frankston] Radio Based Car Recovery Systems (was: Cellular Phone Jamming) [David Neal] COCOT and Local Calling Areas [Neal Goldsmith] Is Randy History? [Ed Hopper] Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia [Steve Forrette] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Cuthie Subject: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?) Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 14:49:26 GMT Several recent postings, and some friends in the right places, have mentioned that the cause of the phone outage here in the DC area was the result of a poorly behaved signaling transfer point (STP). An STP is, as I understand it, roughly the equivalent of a gateway. What is truely amazing to me is the architecture of this network. You mean to tell me that there are only *FOUR* STPs for four states!? This seems absolutely ludicrous to me. I mean, what were these guys thinking? For many moons, as most of us are aware, the government has sponsored research in the area of survivable networks. We have all come to know and love one of these networks as the ARPA net. Granted, it has *it's* problems too, but it does not have any inherent choke points. Points, who's loss or incapacitation would cause the entire network to go down. Why do the phone companies seem to have ignored the results of millions of dollars worth of study? Now, before you flame me, I admit that I know virtually nothing about SS7. What I *do* know, however, is that it is just plain insane to have an entire region's telecommuncations controlled by at best, four points. Not to mention that many areas, such as mine, are fifteen miles from the nearest STP. There are lot's of things that can happen in fifteen miles of fiber. It just seems unconscionable that two central offices, two miles from each other, must get routes from an STP fifteen miles away. I certainly can understand why an STP would be needed to place calls out of the immediate area, but calls between neighboring switches should be routed at a different level. And, yes, I am aware that SS7 allows calls to be setup out of band, in their entirety. However, this goal can be accomplished without a centalized control scheme. There is no need to involve an STP in Baltimore with a route from East Columbia to West Columbia (all of two miles). The way it is now is equivalent to all of the campus LAN traffic first going through some machine in Baltimore for *every* college campus in the state. Thus, if the machine in Baltimore, or one of the links connecting me to it, goes down, I suddenly can't talk to the machine down the hall. Would you tolerate this in a computer network? Should you tolerate it in your telephone network? I don't know why the network is structured the way it is, but I also don't trust the *phone company* to necessarily know how to do it right. Considering the importance of local phone service to the health and well-being of us all, I think it may be time to get some outside oversight to make sure the phone companies don't engineer us into a cost effective, but highly vulnerable, network. After all, it's not like the old days when survivability was the *key* issue in any design. These are now profit seeking companies and they are going to do everything they can to maximize profits; and we all know what that means. brian ------------------------------ From: Ran Atkinson Subject: Bell Atlantic SS7 Problems Reply-To: randall@Virginia.EDU Organization: University of Virginia Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 18:54:16 GMT By now readers of this list should be aware of the problems recently in LA, Washington/Baltimore, and yesterday in Pennsylvania involving switches from a Texas manufacturer and new SS7 software. News reports from local press in the VA/DC/MD area indicate that the DC area problem arose during or shortly after a software change being made to the originally failing switch. Today's paper is indicating that there are now serious concerns about the software implementation of SS7 by the Texas firm that made the switch and its software. News reports appear to indicate that the switch hardware wasn't much of a factor in the problems. I inquired about the problems with a former cohort who now works for C&P Telephone and he said that some of the folks there are seriously concerned about insufficient software testing and verification on the part of the manufacturer. The view of those with the concerns is that if adequate testing and verification had occurred then these problems would never have happened. These folks are probably ex-Bell System people and there may be some bias against non-AT&T equipment implicit in their views. AT&T practically wrote the book on fault tolerant electronic systems beginning at least as far back as 1ESS days. The articles also report that the Chairman of the switch manufacturer was called in to meet with high-level Pacific Telesis officials to discuss their concerns with the LA incident. My contact also indicated that a few folks are beginning to express internal concern and uncertainty about whether the SS7 protocol itself might have problems. He didn't offer details about where their concerns lie, but news reports indicated that it was "a flood of maintenance messages" to the non-faulted switches that ultimately caused them to fault. It would be interesting if anyone on the list might be able to find out what kind of testing/verification was applied to the protocol itself (as opposed to a particular implementation). Ran Atkinson randall@Virginia.EDU ------------------------------ From: Dave Querin Subject: Latest Outage in Pittsburgh, PA Date: 2 Jul 91 13:32:15 GMT Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station I caught a news blurb this morning before I left for work. Apparently there was another service outage on the east coast yesterday. It seems that another software error caused a fairly massive service outage in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The extent of it was not accurately mentioned, but interestingly enough, the reporter stated that the three service outages nationwide in the past two weeks have been software related, and all from the same vendor (didn't mention the vendor however). David Querin dmq6899@tamsun.tamu.edu The message contained herein is my own. It reflects not upon my university or employer. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 19:09:05 EDT From: brownK@moravian.edu Subject: Big Service Outage in Pittsburgh Did anyone else here about the outage in Pittsburgh, PA? Apparently more than one million customers lost most local *and* LD service around 11am. The area code involved was 412. Some were restored by 3pm, but most by 5pm. Cause is unknown, but there is a team looking into the problem. Sounds familiar to the C&P problem ehhh?? It is known that the computers that failed to process the calls were from a single manufacturer. I wonder what area is next? -kev- ------------------------------ From: David E A Wilson Subject: 007 Loses License to Call Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 06:47:45 GMT On the 30th of June this year 6,500 phones using Telecom's MTS (Mobile Telephone Service) were made obselete. Launched in 1981 and using the 007 prefix, this was the original mobile network. It was overtaken by Telecom's newer Mobilenet (launched in 1987) using the 018 prefix. Mobilenet has 290,000 users. The Federal Department of Transport and Communications has withdrawn the bandwidth used by this service. MTS users will have to buy cellular phones if they wish to continue mobile communications (Telecom is offering A$500 off the A$1000 retail price of a new cellular phone). In the near future Mobilenet itself may become obsolete when new digital mobile phone networks based on the European GSM (Groupe Societe Mobile) standard. If this were to occur, Mobilenet would be run in parallel with the new system until at least the year 2000 (because of the large number of existing users). David Wilson Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong david@cs.uow.edu.au ------------------------------ From: Cris Pedregal-Martin Subject: Caller ID Against Telemarketers (was Poor Abused Phreakers) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 11:02:39 EDT Reply-To: pedregal@vax1.cs.umass.edu In article , Jon Allen suggests: [quote from someone on selling CID info on companies] > It's time to fight back and sell their information. With Caller-ID > spreading across the country it's now possible to compile telemarketer > lists. Just think if there were some central list where each person > could send the Caller-ID numbers of telemarketers. [...] Nice Idea (tm). One more chore to take care of just to be left alone. And one more gadget (or service) to buy (you don't expect your "ordinary folks" to scan a list of thousands of telemarketer's numbers each time their phone rings, do you?). And a service. I picture this situation: [Riinnng] ... Hello? Hello, this is the ultimate, and last, telemarketing call you will ever receive. For $49.99 plus shipping, we will send you the device that stops all calls from telemarketers! ... and for only $9.99 a year, we will update on-line the list of numbers in your reject-a-call box. Or this: [TV or newspaper Ad] Tired of all the advertising? All the telemarketing calls at dinnertime? Dial 1-900-CUT-SLEAZE and we will take care of it for you. No more unwanted calls to your number! [in small print, or very rapid voice in the background] "Only $29.99 per call, we make our customer lists available to selected companies." :-) Cristobal Pedregal Martin COINS Dept. -- Univ. of Massachusetts / Amherst -- pedregal@cs.umass.edu ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: More on IMR Telecom Date: 2 July 1991 12:30 -0400 IMR seems to stand for "In Medias Res". They called back and are actually trying to compete with New England Tel on price. They have a filing with the Mass DPU (91-30, dated June 24, 1991) to challenge NET's ability to give their own phones a preferential rate. They are also selling their service to the commercial sites by contending that the pay phone should be a customer convenience and not a profit center. Their rate table for calls from Boston: Minutes : 1 2 3 4 Bell Springfield Ma: 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.75 Bell Chicago Il: 2.05 2.30 2.55 2.80 IMR Anywhere in 48 : .25 .50 .75 1.00 states using Call America Bell is their shorthand for NET and/or ATT. Since I'm suspicious of COCOTS in general, others more up on the issues might want to look into this some more. The number and address on their filing: IMR Telecom 1451 Concord Street Framingham, Ma 01701 608-877-1070 PS: I saw another COCOT variation at a small restaurant. It was a simple desk set at the cashiers table with a quarter slot. Looks like a low tech way of offering convenience to customers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 12:01 CDT From: David Neal Subject: Radio Based Car Recovery Systems (was: Cellular Phone Jamming) The latest issue of {Mobile Office} (June, 1991) covers the five car locating devices now offered. Briefly, they are: LoJack $595 hidden kill switch, add $100 "A coded, high frequency radio signal (173.73 MHz) acts like a homing beacon for any police cars within a 12 to 25 square mile range which are equipped with on-board tracking systems." [The tracking equipment and software is leased to law enforcement agencies for $1/yr.] Code Alarm's Intercept $995 or $1495 with required Diamondtel Cell Phone "Tracks a stolen vehicle with Loran-C, a nationwide, low-frequncy (100kHz) radar system maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard." Teletrac $500-$700 "This system uses a technique called spread-spectrum RF Telemetry (900 MHz) to pinpoint the location within 100ft..." "The unit, backup battery, and antenna can be hidden in any of 25 spots within the vehicle." Mets $595 "Uses them same basic spread-spectrum technology as Teletrac, [can be hidden a dozen different places on the vehicle]..." Locator $695 Uses Loran-C but also has one-way radio link to the car to warn perpetrators that the alarm has been activated and that police are about to be called. ----------- The article also mentions that some systems are still in pilot stages or are not actually yet deployed, but that LoJack claims a 100% recovery rate in Los Angeles and offers FULL replacement value if the car is not recovered. The article is well written and goes into many details that I have skipped here. For those who may not have access to {Mobile Office}, the West Coast Office # is (818) 593-6100, East Coast office (212) 213-9590. But, they have an 800 for subscriptions: (800) 627-5234. and are also under Compu$erve as CEForum. MCI Mail Id: Mobile Office, Compu$werve, 76646,3722. Pretty well connected for a magazine, no? ------------------------------ From: Neal Goldsmith Subject: COCOT and Local Calling Areas Date: 2 Jul 91 18:56:05 GMT Reply-To: Neal Goldsmith Organization: Sybase, Inc. Last month Pacific*Bell changed the local calling areas in the SF Bay area. This past weekend I was in San Francisco and needed to call home in the East Bay (now a local call). All I could find was a COCOT and of course it wanted 65 cents to complete the call. Do COCOTs have to follow the PAC*BELL zones, or can they slip by over charging users who may not know better? Neal E. Goldsmith Sybase, Inc. nealg@sybase.com 1650 65th Street What I sez is my opinion and not my employers. Emeryville, CA 94608 (415) 596-3338 ------------------------------ Subject: Is Randy History? From: ED HOPPER Date: Mon 01 Jul 91 00:47:25 CST Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575 In Digest #498, our Moderator mentioned the Randy Borow's affair. He mentioned that Randy "was fired" over the disclosure of confidential information regarding an AT&T customer. My last recollection of the affair was that Randy had been suspended and that nothing had been settled on Randy's continued employement. What's the story, Pat? Ed Hopper AT&T Computer Systems (for now) [Moderator's Note: The story is you caught me using the common parlance for people in Randy's predicament. I *assume*, with no basis for this other than gut-feeling, that he is indeed fired by now. The last word I had was several weeks ago, when I talked briefly with Randy on the phone and the union was attempting to get him back on the job. At that point he had lost the first two rounds in the process, but had yet a third appeals level to use. He did not seem enthusiastic when I spoke with him last. Maybe Randy or someone from AT&T would be willing to speak for the record at this point. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 11:02:49 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article David Wilson writes: > A push-button phone using the new tone dialling will also > enable you to access services such as home banking, voicemail and > pagers. This sounds like the Pacific Bell White Pages, which claims you must have TouchTone service in order to use a modem on the line. How much do you wanna bet that this will not be in the new directories now that TouchTone is free? Since this "useful information" will no longer generate additional revenue, it probably won't be considered "useful" anymore. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #510 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14084; 3 Jul 91 5:41 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30124; 3 Jul 91 3:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19196; 3 Jul 91 2:20 CDT Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 1:42:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #512 BCC: Message-ID: <9107030142.ab17514@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Jul 91 01:42:11 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 512 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel [Irving Wolfe] Re: Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel [Marty Brenneis] Re: Phrack Magazine [Brendan Kehoe] Re: Phrack Magazine [John R. Schutz] Re: TNC, BNC, N Cellular Connectors [John Higdon] Re: TNC, BNC, N Cellular Connectors [John A. Limpert] Re: MCI Operator Assisted Rates [Sean Williams] Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc. [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Bell Labs: Shakeout Follows Breakup [Steve Forrette] Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott [Richard L. Reynolds] What Kind of Exchange Am I On? [Jamie Mason] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com Subject: Re: Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel Date: 29 Jun 91 01:09:32 GMT Reply-To: Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island What exactly IS an "off-premises extension" anyway? I have a phone system that claims to support them (with an add-in card) but the manuals fail to give any idea what one is. Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com Happy Man Corp. 206/463-9399 x101 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 fax x108 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 09:52:09 PDT From: Marty the Droid Subject: Re: Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel Jim Hickstein, Teradyne/Attain, San Jose CA, asks: >> Now that this is possible, I want to set things up so that I can dial >> an "extension" (2xxx or 3xxx) on my phone, and have it somehow prepend >> the area code and exchange and hand it to a CO loop. >> Note that this is the INVERSE of the usual "off-premises extension". >> Is this possible without spending a lot of money? Is it possible at >> all? Sure Jim, this is easy on most modern PBXs. You need to set up an entry in the ARS tables to add digits when it sees those extension numbers dialled. (ARS = Automatic Route Selction). This will work if there are no conflicts with local extensions or feature access codes. You should try to get an interconnect with some better knowledge of Mitels, (and telephony in general, this may be like finding an honest lawyer.) Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis ...!uupsi!kerner!droid Industrial Magician droid@kerner.sf.ca.us (415)258-2105 KAE7616 - 462.700 - 162.2 KD6???? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 09:41:19 -0400 From: Brendan Kehoe Subject: Re: Phrack Magazine Organization: Widener CS Dept > Are issues of Phrack still available? They are available as part of the Computer Underground Digest archives: - FTP from ftp.cs.widener.edu [192.55.239.132] in pub/cud/phrack (note this number should change to 147.31.254.132 in the next week) - FTP from chsun1.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.60] in pub/cud/phrack - archive-server@chsun1.uchicago.edu (Subject: line of `help') It's requested that people get the Index to the Phrack issues first, and then get those issues they're specifically interested in, rather than hit the sites with transfers that're 2Mb a pop. Brendan Kehoe - Widener Sun Network Manager - brendan@cs.widener.edu Widener University in Chester, PA ------------------------------ From: "John R. Schutz" Subject: Re: Phrack Magazine Date: 2 Jul 91 15:09:40 GMT Organization: Those wacky, wacky fellas at UT's CSR The Moderator guy Noted: > [Moderator's Note: Since Craig N. is a regular reader here, perhaps > he will respond with an address where people can obtain back issues of > the magazine as desired. PAT] Hmm, well, I'm not Craig Neidorf, but Phrack (plus loads of other CU materials, if you're interested) are located in the CuD archives. For those with FTP look at chsun1.uchicago.edu (128.135.12.60). For those without FTP, there is a mail server at the same location. In fact here is a quick help file from it (stolen from CuD): A note about the e-mail archive server at chsun1.uchicago.edu: Please send any and all requests for files/help to: archive-server@chsun1.uchicago.edu This is not the address for receiving the latest issue of CuD from the mailing list. Either subscribe to alt.society.cu-digest on USEnet or send mail to TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET (although I'm not sure, you might be able to do uunet!NIU.BITNET!TK0JUT2 if you do not have a definition for .BITNET sites). The archive server is automated and it only understands a few commands placed in the body of the message you send. These commands are HELP, INDEX, SEND, and PATH (case doesn't matter). In short: help: sends a help file describing each command in detail index: sends an index of available topics. If the topic is on the same line, it will send a detailed index of that topic. Available CuD topics are: ane ati bootlegger chalisti cud hnet law lod narc network nia papers phantasy phrack phun pirate school synd tap send: sends a file. Commands for send must be in the following format: send topic filename send topic filename1 filename2 filename3 ... Please note that the arguments are separated by spaces, not slashes or any other characters. Also, some mailers between this site and yours might not be able to handle mail messages larger than 50k in size. You will have to make special arrangements to receive these files (see address below). path: This command forces a specified return path. Normally, the server will guess what the return address should be (most of the time, successfully), but in some cases, it will cause the requested files to bounce, leaving you without your files. If this is the case, you should use the path command to set the return address. Please note, the mailer here cannot handle .uucp addresses, these addresses must be fully expanded. Here are some examples: path user@host.bitnet [for BITNET hosts, direct] path user%hosta.major.domain@hostb.major.domain path hosta!hostb!hostc@uunet.uu.net Some useful commands to give to the server (once you know your mailing address is OK) are: send cud cud-arch which sends the master Index for the CuD archive. send cud chsun1.email.files which sends a directory of all files that are in the CuD archives by topic, filename, size of the file, and other less useful information. This file is updated whenever new files are added to the archives. If you have any problems and wish to have someone help you with the server, please send mail to: archive-management@chsun1.uchicago.edu (also cudarch@chsun1.uchicago.edu) Bob Kusumoto chsun1 archive manager ------------- There, hope that helps. Sorry to steal your limelight, Craig . John R. Schutz | Email&NeXTmail: A learning NeXTie | john@csrnxt1.ae.utexas.edu (512)328-0587 | 3009 Hatley Dr., Austin, TX 78746 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 22:02 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: TNC, BNC, N Cellular Connectors Bill Kennedy writes: > I have a Motorola bag phone and it has a miniature UHF connector for > the antenna. Precisely the arrangement I have. I use a one-piece mini-UHF to TNC adaptor for a roof antenna. However... > The question is what connector is going to be the most reliable? The TNC is a miserable connector for quick disconnect. Since both the mini-UHF and the TNC have threads sometimes it is a crapshoot as to which one will unscrew first. When I get around to it, I will snip off the TNC, replace it with a BNC and change the adaptor. The BNC is perfectly capable of providing acceptable performance at 800 MHz. It is electrically identical to the type N which is the standard connector for broadcast auxiliary devices that operate at 950 MHz. > My preference is BNC because I'm used to them but if some > one knows one to be better, I'd like to know. Even if type N is the > best it's the least convenient. Is it enough better? Thanks, As I said, they are electrically the same. Use the BNC. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: "John A. Limpert" Subject: Re: TNC, BNC, N Cellular Connectors Organization: BFEC/GSFC Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 13:33:43 GMT bill@wrangler.wlk.com (Bill Kennedy) writes: > The question is what connector is going to be the most reliable? The > last time I knew anything about it 860MHz was nearly voodoo, so I'm > way stale. My preference is BNC because I'm used to them but if some > one knows one to be better, I'd like to know. Even if type N is the > best it's the least convenient. Is it enough better? Thanks, TNC, BNC and N are all good connectors for UHF applications. Threaded connectors are preferable for outdoor use (TNC and N). Since coax losses are high at 860 MHz your best choice would be to use N connectors with a good, low-loss RG-8 size coax such as Belden 9913 or RG-213. Make sure the coax has a non-contaminating jacket if you want it to last. John A. Limpert johnl@gronk.UUCP uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl Code 530.2 Goddard Space Flight Center ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 05:58 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: MCI Operator Assisted Rates "Joshua E. Muskovitz" writes: > When I was in Philadelphia last month, I was having trouble getting > MCI's computer to accept my card number using 10222-0-###-###-#### > (bong) card #. When I called customer service, they said to just > dial 10222-0 and place the call through the operator. Did you be sure to specify to customer service that you were using an MCI Card? When using your MCI Card, you should always use the "950" access number. This assures that you are reaching the MCI network. Then, and only then, should you dial 0+10D followed by your card number. Why wouldn't 10222+0+10D [ka-bong] accept your MCI Card? Because it isn't programmed to. Using this method accesses a shared telco database which contains card numbers issued by Bell Operating Companies and other independent telcos. It doesn't contain information about your MCI Card, and therefore won't accept it. At best, you will reach an MCI operator who will then complete your call -- but this is an inconvenience to the operator which you may be expected to pay for... > When I complained about having to pay assisted rates, they said they don't > charge for operator assist anymore. Is this new? What they may have meant is that there is no operator-assist charge when using the MCI "950" access number; this is so you can use your MCI Card from a rotary phone for the same rates as Touch-Tone(tm) capable customers. I would be suprised to see that regular operator charges have also been waived from 10222+0+10D calls. There may have been just a simple misunderstanding. To review the dialing procedures for your MCI card, follow the simple instructions on the back of the card, or call MCI's Card "Test-Drive" at 1-800-950-TEST. A recording will walk you through the procedure. Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | Have a nice day! PO Box 227 | <> Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 | voicemail: +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc. Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 15:47:11 GMT oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov writes: > In article , sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu > (Stan Reeves) writes: > 4) Do you have any advice that I should consider for wiring the house > to make it easy to add other communications devices as desired (smart > house wiring)? > Put lots of holes on the headers and any firebreaks. Put strings *****************************************!!!!!!!!!! > (nylon, cotton rots) in the walls to an accessable point in the attic > or basement to allow you to pull through the holes. Record where the > strings are located. Just in case the name of this structure does not mean anything to you, the purpose of a firebreak is to stop fire from spreading within a wall, floor or ceiling structure. Unfilled holes (even relatively small ones) defeat this by letting hot gases travel from the fire area to the (previously) uninvolved area -- causing ignition of the new area. You don't need to worry about this if you promise never to have a fire. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 10:57:14 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Bell Labs: Shakeout Follows Breakup Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article you write: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 501, Message 5 of 11 > Prior to divestiture Bell Labs was really a national resource, paid > for by a "tax" on all telephone users. After divestiture AT&T was a > much smaller company, operating in a highly competitive business > environment, so it's no surprise that Bell Labs could not be supported > in the style to which it had been accustomed. Although I think that a lot of good things have come from divestiture, one of the biggest losses was the Bell Labs. Just think of how much this nation, and the world, has benefitted from such Bell Labs advancements as the transistor. If the United States is to maintain whatever lead we have left in such things, it would seem that the University setting will have to fill the gap. And we all know who pays for their grants, don't we? By and large, the Federal Government, which means more political, less efficient operation and decision- making. Will the AOS folks fill the gap with their "enhanced services?" Who knows, with their rates, they might just have the money! :-( Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: "Richard L. Reynolds" Subject: Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott Organization: Colorado SuperNet Inc. Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 18:42:40 GMT The charge of $.75 is rather standard around the country. I spend upwards of 75+ nights a year in hotels (mostly Marriotts) and the one item on the bill that always burns my tail is the charges for calls. In some areas where they have unit pricing on all calls I can see the reasoning but they don't charge to flush the toilet or turn on the TV!!!!!! The last straw was when I was at the Portland Marriott and got charged for two calls to their 800 reservations number. As as Platinum Honored Guest member they refunded the charge and fell all over themselves trying to apologize. The easiest was to fix this would be jack up the cost of the room a couple of dollars and stop this stupid practice of charging for calls. The cost and hassle of tracking all of these little charges are a nightmare. After another lengthy stay at the Irvine Marriott, my bill was 63 pages long. The hassle of trying to figure that one out was really a nightmare!!!! Rich Reynolds flier@csn.org ------------------------------ From: Jamie Mason Subject: What Kind of Exchange Am I On? Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1991 00:14:09 -0400 Bell Canada does not feel like telling me this; I am curious to know what kind of switch I am on and what other exchanges share the same physical switch. I am even more anxious to know now that a particular implemntation of SS7 seems to be failing all over the US. I would also be curious to know simmilar information for other exchnages in the area. Is there a list in the archives listing the technology used for each exchange and/or which exchanges share a physical switch? The closest I could find were the NPA exchange charts, but this is not the info I am looking for. Jamie [Modserator's Note: It would have been helpful had you given us the area code and prefix of your telephone number; then someone would have looked it up and sent a note back to you with specifics. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #512 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15819; 3 Jul 91 6:19 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21086; 3 Jul 91 4:35 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30124; 3 Jul 91 3:28 CDT Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 2:21:47 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #513 BCC: Message-ID: <9107030221.ab30294@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Jul 91 02:21:30 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 513 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: A Day Off; Catchup, Then More Time Off [TELECOM Moderator] Re: SPECIAL REPORT: NY Tel Plans For Caller ID [Bob Hale] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Mickey Ferguson] Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? [Toby Nixon] Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Brad Hicks] Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or What Were *These* Guys Thinking?) [S Forrette] Re: Call Message Delivery [Sean Williams] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 1:55:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: A Day Off; Catchup, Then More Time Off There will be no issues of TELECOM Digest Wednesday overnight/Thursday morning, July 4. Publication will resume late Thursday evening. Then over the weekend, July 5-7 I will catch up on messages pending in the queue, in anticipation of a few days off line between July 8-13. I will be in and out much of next week, and someone with access to my account will publish an issue or two of the Digest *if* and only if there is some important news story which arrives. So please, let's finish up existing threads of discussion, and hold new topics until the end of next week. Obviously, if you feel something is really important, do send it in ... but publication next week will not be guarenteed. Have a happy and safe holiday! Patrick Townson TELECOM Moderator ------------------------------ From: Bob Hale Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: NY Tel Plans For Caller ID Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego Date: Tue, 02 Jul 91 21:31:16 GMT In article cyberoid@milton.u. washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: [ about telco diatribe defending per-call blocking of caller-ID ] > This has GOT to be bogus. Isn't SS7 and associated services fully > reprogrammable, so that 911 calls get special treatment regardless of > line-blocking for usual calling? If not, we as ratepayers are getting > rooked twice over, once for an expensive service and again when it's > able to be used only in conjunction with the collection of personal ID > for marketing purposes. By the same token that the switching equipment is programmable, the user equipment is (or can be) programmable. That is, if these Caller-ID plans go into effect I expect that someone will soon be marketing a phone that automatically inserts *67 (or anything else, for that matter) before it outputs the first of the keyed-in digits. It would also be smart enough to not insert the *67 for a 911 call. Since, according to the telco spokespeople, already 30-40% of the customers have unpublished numbers there should be a huge market for such a programmable phone. Sign me up for two or three. Bob Hale ...!ucsd!btree!hale 619-535-3234 ...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu [Moderator's Note: Further followup on Caller ID should go to the Telecom Privacy Digest (telecom-priv@pica.army.mil). PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 14:41:28 PDT From: Mickey Ferguson Subject: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) John Higdon writes: > Greg Andrews writes: >> I'm not saying that I would be called upon to respond to a >> fire or automobile accident, but that the need to contact me regarding >> the imminence of death to my immediate family DOES constitute an >> emergency. > Maybe to YOU. I have no spouse. I have no children. No one needs to > reach me on an emergency basis EXCEPT for my clients. ... > What I hear in your post is that you would like to be notified about > certain emergencies, but don't feel the need to establish the > environment for that notification. You want it on a "casual" basis. I'm afraid I have to take issue here. I interpret your statements here to mean that you feel that everyone should have to be expected to throw money at their configurations because they don't have enough phone lines to handle emergency calls without the need for an operator break-in. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm *sure* that most people don't have multiple lines for such purposes. I only have one phone line, and if I need to receive an emergency message, I want to be interrupted even if what I'm doing will cause some sort of hardship. I, too, have no family here (in fact, none within 2000 miles of me!), but I'm not short-sighted enough to believe that no situations will arise that are more important than my data call (since a person-to-person conversation can always be interrupted temporarily). My conclusion is that if we have to choose between 1) not allowing any operator interruptions and 2) allowing them, any reasonable person will choose 1). Unless there is an option 3), for which I'm not aware. :) Mickey Ferguson Rolm Systems fergusom@scrvm2.vnet.ibm.com ------------------------------ From: Toby Nixon Subject: Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? Date: 2 Jul 91 18:30:29 GMT Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA In article , mtxinu!ingres.com!elvira@ uunet.uu.net (Eric G. Elvira) writes: > We are looking of a way in which a program, probably on a Sun > Sparcstation, will call a phone number and after a few seconds dial > another number. > Essentially have it call and maybe cat a file that has already the > touch tones stored on it or something similar. The problem is that > using a modem it will wait for a handshake in the other side and a > beeper is definitely not going to give a handshake back. You can prevent the modem from waiting for handshaking by ending the phone number with ";". The "D" (Dial) command is terminated, and the modem is left off hook but ready to accept another command. Additional commands can, in fact, be added on the same command line after the semicolon. Let's say that your beeper number is "555-1234", and the message you want to give is "9999#". You could call the beeper service, give the message, and hang up in one command line to the modem, as follows: ATDT 555-1234,,,,,9999#; H You may need to adjust the number of commas by trial and error so that it allows enough time, but not too much time, for the service to be ready to accept your message. Hopefully, the connect time is pretty much always the same. You could also use ONE comma, and set the S8 register to the number of seconds you want it to pause. Another possibility is to use the "@" dial modifier instead of commas. You'll need to do some testing to see if the service allows five seconds of silence to trigger the "Wait for Quiet Answer" function. Many do. In this case, you'd simply substitute a "@" for the commas in the command line above. The "H" after the semicolon disconnects the call, putting the modem back on-hook. You might want to add an additional comma AFTER the "9999#", before the semicolon, so that you're not hanging up instantly after sending the "#". I'm happy to try to help more, if you like. 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 tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net ------------------------------ Date: 02 Jul 91 19:15:05 EDT From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <76012.300@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions In TELECOM Digest #11.507, John Higdon writes: > If I really am responsible for every article and pass-through > e-mail message that writes to my disk drive, then I lack the > facilities (mostly manpower) to remain an intermediate UUCP site. John, in every meeting of four or more sysops I have been at in the last three years, I have heard this one argued. I have submitted this exact question to maybe a half-dozen lawyers. The only thing that ALL agreed upon was that until we have three or more cases prosecuted in the federal courts, no one knows whether you are liable or not. Mike Godwin, the EFF's attorney, told a bunch of us that he's been researching this exact question for most of a year, and so far it comes down to three broad categories: (1) ENTIRELY PRIVATE, ONE-TO-ONE MAIL Covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Sysop/sysadmin is not liable for content; may read for technical reasons such as to check service; may not disclose to anyone for any reason without a court order. (Aside: Since the search warrant at Steve Jackson Games said nothing about third-party mail, in the seizure of Illuminati BBS the aptly-acronymed SS almost certainly violated ECPA over this very issue.) (2) ENTIRELY PUBLIC MAIL ON ONLY ONE SYSTEM (local BBS messages) Only limited case law, but it does appear that the sysop is liable in general. More cases or new laws will be necessary to determine WHEN the sysop becomes liable ... e.g., if somebody posts a Sprint access number on your BBS, you are definitely liable if it is still there a month later. But what about the next day? An hour later? Five seconds later? Nobody knows until the lawyers fight it out. Godwin thinks it comes down to "if the sysop could reasonably have known about it" -- and then some poor ignorant bunch of jurors will get to decide how often a "resonable sysop" checks his mail. (3) WIDELY-DISTRIBUTED PUBLIC MAIL (newsgroups, echomail, mail lists, etc.) No readily applicable law. No CLEAR precedent ... but the few half- precedents, taken from the world of ham packet-radio repeaters, suggests that in fact, you are liable for any public message residing on your system, even if it originated elsewhere. If you allow your system to forward public messages before you clear them, you may find yourself charged with moving illegal messages across state lines. As an ex-sysop of seven years' experience, #3 horrifies and terrifies me. I almost got caught in this trap myself, when a Dallas TV station tried to persuade police that as the conference moderator on MagickNet, I personally was responsible for a message on MagickNet offering assistance to a man seeking to smuggle his daughter out of the country so his inlaws couldn't take her away. (Note: message from someone else, to a third party outside the country, and the hue and cry arose two days before I even saw the message.) Maybe common sense will prevail in the courtroom. (And maybe chickens have teeth.) Maybe Congress will pass clear, reasonable, technically feasible legislation to clarify the issue and President Bush will sign it. (And maybe we =can= balance the budget in 1993.) Or maybe the Rehnquist court will recognize this as an important freedom-of-speech, freedom-of-association, freedom-of-press issue and grant appropriate protection. (And maybe we'll find a universally popular solution to the abortion issue tomorrow after lunch, and everybody will agree to it.) . . . Riiiiiight. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 22:28:12 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?) Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article Brian Cuthie writes: > Considering the importance of local phone service to the > health and well-being of us all, I think it may be time to get some > outside oversight to make sure the phone companies don't engineer us > into a cost effective, but highly vulnerable, network. Perhaps we can lobby Congress to pass legislation which details how the STPs should be placed to provide maximum reliability. :-( Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 06:19 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Call Message Delivery I wrote: >> MCI provides the MCI Messenger Service. [ dialing instructions deleted ] >> With MCI's service, you can record a one-minute message and have it >> delivered to any direct-dialable phone. Lars Poulsen writes: > I bet this kind of service does not interact positively with an > answering machine. Actually, it works very well. The message repeats several times, so the machine is bound to get the whole message even after playing an outgoing greeting. I would think that AT&T's Voicemark (sm) also repeats its message. By the way, the "dial from home" method that I described no longer works from my house, and I have also tried it from a friend's house who is also using MCI. I called MCI Customer Service, and reported the apparent problem. After about half-an-hour reviewing my account, verifying that I hadn't been switched to another carrier, and talking to the MCI "network people" the problem was logged as being technical in nature. I was informed that I shall be receiving a call from MCI within the next 24 hours. It's not just my house, but at least the whole exchange that's being affected (assuming the 1-700 number still works). We'll see what happens. Your note brought recollections of other messages I have received on my voicemail saying "press one to accept this collect call" from the automated Bell of Pennsylvania operator. Too bad the voicemail system couldn't decide for me ... Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | Have a good day! PO Box 227 | <> Duncanon, PA 17020-0227 | voicemail +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #513 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01428; 3 Jul 91 13:14 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01260; 3 Jul 91 7:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19196; 3 Jul 91 2:19 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03076; 3 Jul 91 1:09 CDT Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 1:02:59 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #511 BCC: Message-ID: <9107030102.ab27727@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 3 Jul 91 01:02:45 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 511 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Tarl Neustaedter] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Bruce Albrecht] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Mark Brader] Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [Jordan M Kossack] Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [Marc T. Kaufman] Re: Telescam: Be Careful Who You Send Checks To [David B. Thomas] Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266 [John Higdon] Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266 [Dennis G. Rears] Re: Poor Abused Phreakers [Rick Farris] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tarl Neustaedter Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Date: 2 Jul 91 06:10:39 GMT Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc. In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Maybe to YOU. I have no spouse. I have no children. No one needs to > reach me on an emergency basis EXCEPT for my clients. > What I hear in your post is that you would like to be notified about > certain emergencies, but don't feel the need to establish the > environment for that notification. You want it on a "casual" basis. How about on an emergency basis? Dean Ing (random author) documents a case where he had to notify his neighbor about the fact that he (the neighbor) had a chimney fire. Dean could see it from his house a mile away, but the occupant of the house clearly could not. In that particular case, he didn't try calling the owner (for various reasons, lead by stupidity -- he ended up hoofing the mile in foul weather on a icy road), but it's the kind of case where there is an emergency that the recipient didn't predict. Maybe you don't own any property either. Maybe a friend needs you to bail him out. You say he could wait until morning? I suppose that's the same thing as saying you don't have any friends either. Abuse of such a system would be a crime; If a telemarketer pulled this on me, I'd sue his gonads off. But I've received enough real emergency calls (from "my car died" to "someone's breaking in") to be convinced they exist. In these cases, I would even have wanted the operator to break my data connection. Tarl Neustaedter tarl@vos.stratus.com Marlboro, Mass. Stratus Computer Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1991 20:10:40 -0500 From: Bruce Albrecht Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) In Volume 11, Issue 496, message 4 of 7, Gordon Burditt writes: > I claim that an 'emergency call' directed TO > ME, a person who does not work for emergency services, can never > happen because an emergency call is directed to emergency services, by > both legal definition and common sense. (When was the last time > someone was in an automobile accident and needed an emergency port of > UNIX to a new platform? How about the last time a building was on > fire and the fire department needed the root password to put out the > fire?) I must disagree. I can think of two examples where calls to you could reasonably be considered emergency calls, in answer to the following comments. >> You are at work using the phone and your landlord or >> neighbor calls to say YOUR house caught fire. > This is not an emergency (unless I'm working at the fire department). > An emergency is a situation where human life or property is in danger > and prompt summoning of aid is essential. Not 'prompt notification of > the owner'. Not 'prompt notification of the next of kin'. Not > 'prompt claim processing from the injured's insurance company'. Not > 'prompt identification of the injured/dead bodies'. Not 'prompt > payment for medical services'. Not 'prompt signing of legal forms'. Suppose your house is on fire, and your neighbor suspects your children may be at home? It wouldn't necessarily be wise for your neighbor to charge into your house looking for them, but it would be important for the fire department to know whether they need to be looking for people in your burning house. Perhaps this is stretching the problems of our legal system and medical malpractise too far, but as next of kin, you may need to be notified of an automobile accident and give permission to perform the necessary medical treatment, for example, on minors. bruce@zuhause.mn.org ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 20:14:00 -0400 From: Mark Brader Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada I think there is a less drastic option available to people than refusing emergency break-ins. If falsely claiming an emergency is illegal, and you have reason to suspect that the interrupting caller is doing so, why not ask the operator to stay on the line and witness the first part of the conversation? Then if it *is* a false claim of emergency, you have a plausible legal threat against the caller, even though you might not want to carry it out. This is still pretty drastic, but less so than refusing an emergency call. By the way, I too remember rules similar to those already cited -- must yield the line for an emergency, must not falsely claim emergency -- but a search of the fine print in the current Toronto phone book reveals nothing. Either it's changed, or I'm remembering rules from somewhere else, or the rule is somewhere other than the Bell Canada tariff. There was a mailing about two years ago about operator interruption, very similar to the one that started this thread. The current fees here are like this: $1.50 to verify that someone's talking and then interrupt; $1.00 to just verify that someone's talking. These are in Canadian dollars and before taxes. There is no charge if: - the called line is idle - the called line's receiver is [presumably "was left"] off-hook - the operator finds evidence of trouble with the line - the request originates from a hotel switchboard (!) or - it is a call to which long-distance charges apply Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com ------------------------------ From: Jordan M Kossack Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 1:26:04 CDT Organization: Rice University Houston Texas In article , phil@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller) writes: > Someone in your immediate family (e.g. spouse, child) is in an > accident. Authorities need to contact you to arrange a variety of > details involved in treating your loved one (e.g. what hospital to > take them to, who their docotor is, permission given for treatment, > details of medical history). I have to agree with John Higdon on this one. Like him, I have neither spouse nor children. In addition, my parents and my brother live out of state and in neither case am I legally _able_ to give consent for treatment, etc. Finally, I have two phone lines -- if someone REALLY needs to reach me and one is busy, they are welcome to call the other and leave a message. Yes, I have two answering machines. I don't see why I should have to terminate a phone call because of situations that don't apply to me. As John Higdon said, "shoulder burden of the mechanism yourself rather than insist that all of the rest of us endure the most annoying and ineffecient procedure of 'operator interrupt'." Jordan 'I hate Call Waiting' Kossack | kossack@taronga.hackercorp.com ------------------------------ From: "Marc T. Kaufman" Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 15:38:42 GMT "J. Philip Miller" writes: > John G Dobnick writes: >> Say what? I fail to understand the reasoning here. Someone wants to >> use *my* phone line for some "emergency purpose" by *calling* me? >> This scenario makes no sense whatsoever. > Well, perhaps here is a scenario that makes sense: > Someone in your immediate family (e.g. spouse, child) is in an > accident. Authorities need to contact you to arrange a variety of >.details involved in treating your loved one (e.g. what hospital to > take them to, who their docotor is, permission given for treatment, > details of medical history). > If this is not an emergency in your book, I am glad I am not in your > family :-) Wait a minute. All of these scenerios are of the form "Authorities need to contact you..." So I suppose the Police or Hospital will pay the $1.60 in order to get authorization to treat your loved one. But this "service" is for a random user, not just authorities. Unless the random user is an itenerant brain surgeon who needs immediate permission to do surgery to your spouse in the field, I fail to understand why the "service" is needed, or under what conditions a true emergency would exist. To my knowledge, police departments have always enjoyed special privleges with respect to operator break-in. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ From: "David B. Thomas" Subject: Re: Telescam: Be Careful Who You Send Checks To Organization: yenta unix pc, rio rancho, nm Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 02:33:49 GMT I went for one of those one time. First I "won" their silly contest. Whoopee. They were offering travel to Las Vegas, and a few gambling freebies. The catches were many: (1) you had to travel within about a one week time slot (2) I don't think hotel accomodations or food were included. Of course, I hadda join their photo studio club, to claim my prize. That was $20. There were even catches there -- you got some large number of pictures you could get for your $20, a good deal. But -- you had a narrow time window in which to take advantage of each, so it was unlikely that many would get their money's worth. They were eager for me to say the word, and they would be on me like ... I mean ... they would come to my door, and give me a certificate for the $20. It *just happened*, though, that I was already planning a trip to Las Vegas, in exactly that time frame, so even with their $20 charge, I would come out ahead. I had my tape recorder rolling and made sure that I clearly understood what I would be getting. At one point the girl had asked me my age, and I told her I was 21, and I asked her if that made a difference. She said no, I still would be able to collect my prize. Well, it sounded good. I figured ... okay, it's a gamble. They offer people something that's virtually impossible to actually take advantage of. I just happen to be in a position to actually use it, so in this exceedingly rare case, I'm wise to go for it :-/ So the viper shows up in short order, and I hand her the check and she skips off with it, leaving me a certificate with lots of glorious big print, and ominous fine print. For one thing, if you're under 25, you can't have a trip prize. HUH?? That was the *only* reason I went for this thing!! So I started the tape recorder and called back, and got a supervisor. He said the girl was mistaken, and that in fact, I couldn't have my trip. I was outraged, and let him know that I had the whole thing on tape. He tried offering me all sorts of other slum that I didn't want, but he wouldn't budge on a refund. I told him I had put a stop payment on the check, and he didn't believe me, but it was true! I decided I would rather pay the bank $17 than let those slime get away with any of my money. In fact, I would have used a stop payment even for $5. It's the principle of the thing. I probably should have sued them, but I already felt like I beat them and I had learned an important lesson, which has paid off to this day. Too bad I wasn't a comp.dcom.telecom reader then!! little david ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 23:46 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266 Jim Smithson writes: > You are way out of line drawing any comparisons between the STASI and > the FBI! I'm as much a civil libertarian as anyone, but I want the > cops to catch the crooks anyway they can. Statements such as this make me very nervous. Particularly troubling is the phrase, "anyway they can". Communications systems designed around easy surveilance are not necessarily the best at providing performance for the users they are supposed to be serving. It would be useful for the police (at any level) to be able to monitor anyone at anytime at will. This would certainly fall under the category "anyway they can" and as any member of the force would tell you, some crooks slip away while warrants are being obtained. Do you mind having all of your calls possibly monitored? Do you have something to hide? If the FBI and our Congress are going to insist that communications system be designed with monitoring in mind, then considering what was discovered in East Germany about the telephone system the phrase, "if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck..." takes on new meaning. As a civil libertarian myself, I would rather seem some of the crooks get away than have citizens in general rousted and/or spied upon. It has been said that it is much easier for someone to deal with crooks than to deal with a repressive government. I tend to agree. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 13:04:33 EDT From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" Subject: Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266 Jim Smithson writes: >> The FBI *wants* phone system designers to start thinking about >> interception -- in particular, they want interception to be easier. >> Just like the East German secret police. > You are way out of line drawing any comparisons between the STASI and > the FBI! I'm as much a civil libertarian as anyone, but I want the > cops to catch the crooks anyway they can. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I hope this was a mistake. You can't possibly mean it. Do you include: o unlawful search & seizure o confessions made after the cops beat the shit out of someone o tapping phone at random to see if a person is commiting a crime o paying children to inform on their parents as "anyway they can". If you do, do you believe cops should have the right to summarily execute the criminals they caught "anyway they could"? I am all for law enforcement groups to uphold the law and catch criminals but only if the alleged criminals have intact their constitutional rights. The biggest loser of the "Drug War" is the American citzenry and the constitution. dennis ------------------------------ From: Rick Farris Subject: Re: Poor Abused Phreakers Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California Date: Tue, 02 Jul 91 17:10:14 GMT In article Jon Allen writes: > It's time to fight back and sell their [telemarketer's] information. > Just think if there were some central list where each person > could send the Caller-ID numbers of telemarketers. Sell, hell! I expect lists of numbers that you *don't* want to take a call from to be one of the hottest items available on the BBS scene. Of course, I'm not sure that telemarketers operating out of boiler rooms in Nevada (for instance) will generate usable CLI in California... Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #511 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18380; 5 Jul 91 0:27 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11195; 4 Jul 91 22:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27301; 4 Jul 91 21:50 CDT Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 21:00:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #514 BCC: Message-ID: <9107042100.ac12646@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Jul 91 21:00:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 514 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Bob Izenberg] Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [K Kleinfelter] Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott [Ethan Miller] Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott [John R. Levine] Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or What Were These Guys Thinking?) [R K Oberman] Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or What Were These Guys Thinking?) [F Goldstein] Re: What Kind of Exchange Am I On? [Jamie Mason] Re: Answer Supervision on DID Trunks [Steven A Minneman] Re: Power Surge Myth [Steve Thornton] Re: Power-Surge Myth [R Kevin Oberman] Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc. [Bob Hale] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions From: Bob Izenberg Date: Wed, 03 Jul 91 02:03:09 CDT Organization: Teenage Binge and Purgin' Turtles john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > I don't know how FidoNet works, but why would this have been a > concern? > If not, why would a FidoNet site operator be held responsible? I can't speak for the FidoNet sysop (and he wouldn't have to be a Fidonet sysop to have this on his mind) but I am reminded of Tom Tcimpidis' trouble with the telco that served his community in Florida (Southern Bell?). His BBS had a fraudulently-obtained credit card number left in a message. The message and card number expired, and then he was held liable for having the card number (at one time) on his machine. Seized hardware, possible illegal entry by telco officials, but no charges. He sued his phone company, won in court, and got his equipment back in bad shape. There are more recent examples of email facilities that are no more because of what they passed on. "attctc" and "jolnet" spring to mind ... Opinions expressed in this message are those of its author, except where messages by others are included with attribution. Bob Izenberg [ ] bei@dogface.austin.tx.us home: 512 346 7019 [ ] CIS: 76615.1413@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" Subject: Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions Date: 3 Jul 91 11:18:58 GMT Organization: Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Bob Izenberg writes: >> On June 19th, I mailed a FEEDBACK message to CompuServe's >> customer service account. I had some questions suggested by a FidoNet >> sysop's concern over a message in German that passed through his >> system. ... > If I really am responsible for every article and pass-through e-mail > message that writes to my disk drive, then I lack the facilities > (mostly manpower) to remain an intermediate UUCP site. If not, why > would a FidoNet site operator be held responsible? Recently, several ham radio operators were fined by the Federal Communications Commission, based upon the content of messages forwarded through their packet-radio computer network. The messages solicited calls to a 900 number, and the FCC forbids commercially related messages. (I believe that the fines were rescinded in most cases.) The FCC DOES believe that the operator of a network node is responsible for its retransmissions, if that node uses amateur radio for its communication link. How this affects non-radio nodes is not clear; it may be considered a precedent. Kevin Kleinfelter @ DBS, Inc (404) 239-2347 ...gatech!nanoVX!msa3b!kevin Dun&Bradstreet Software, 3445 Peachtree Rd, NE, Atlanta GA 30326-1276 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 00:42:39 PDT From: ethan miller Subject: Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott The easiest way to fix this would be jack up the cost of the room a couple of dollars and stop this stupid practice of charging for calls. The cost and hassle of tracking all of these little charges are a nightmare. Why would jacking up the rate of the room even be necessary? Motel 6 provides free local calls at a room rate of $25/night. Other "cut-rate" hotels do the same thing. For some odd reason, the more expensive hotels are the ones which insist on charging for all calls. It'd probably be *cheaper* to just let all local calls go through and block long distance calls which aren't charged to another number. The loss in revenue would be made up for by simpler billing and by more rooms filled by business travelers who hate checking every little call on the bill. ethan ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 2 Jul 91 12:44:20 EDT (Tue) From: "John R. Levine" In article is written: > Q3 ;-} Anyone know where to find a coin slot with an RJ-11? Not really a joke, these days. You can find public phones with data jacks all over the place in airports, particularly in the airline VIP lounges. The AT&T desktop coinless card reader pay phones now all seem to be made with RJ-11s on the side, and at O'Hare nearly every bank of phone booths has one with an RJ-11 jack below the phone. Admittedly, these are all coinless payphones. I have to admit that I can't recall seeing a public phone with a coin slot and an RJ-11, but I can't say that it'd be all that satisfactory to have the operator cut in half way through a uucp transfer to ask for another nickel. There is also the technical problem that while a coinless pay phone is wired to the CO the same way as any other phone and an extra extension in parallel is no problem, a coin slot phone generates signals when you put in the money that are both easy to interfere with accidentally and relatively easy to spoof if you could plug into its phone line. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov Subject: Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?) Date: 3 Jul 91 15:18:20 GMT In article , umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu!brian@uunet.uu.net (Brian Cuthie) writes: > For many moons, as most of us are aware, the government has sponsored > research in the area of survivable networks. We have all come to know > and love one of these networks as the ARPA net. Granted, it has > *it's* problems too, but it does not have any inherent choke points. > Points, who's loss or incapacitation would cause the entire network to > go down. Why do the phone companies seem to have ignored the results > of millions of dollars worth of study? Brian has some valid points, but the "ARPA net" may not be the best of examples. First, it no longer exists. It was decommissioned over a year ago. But since other networks had been put in place to carry all of its traffic, almost no one realized it had vanished. But the real problem is that there are exactly TWO primary network commection points for the ENTIRE Internet! FIX East just off of the UMD campus and FIX West at Nasa Ames in Mt. View, Calif. Often only one of these critical tie points has been available and they are almost always badly congested. Routing does not effectively handle them and when both are down (and it has happened more than once) large parts of the net become disconnected. So who is ignoring what here? The real problem is that these things are expensive and difficult to maintain. And having more of them makes handling traffic much harder. I don't know anything about SS7 either, but I do know that packet routing is still not well understood (witness the current disputes over the use of distance-vector and link-state routing algorithms) and simply adding more interconnect points to a network does not always improve reliability. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything. ------------------------------ From: "Fred R. Goldstein" Subject: Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?) Date: 3 Jul 91 16:02:14 GMT Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA In article , umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu! brian@uunet.uu.net (Brian Cuthie) writes... > What is truely amazing to me is the architecture of this network. You > mean to tell me that there are only *FOUR* STPs for four states!? > This seems absolutely ludicrous to me. I mean, what were these guys > thinking? It doesn't matter what they were thinking. If the outage is caused by software, then it doesn't matter if there are four or forty STPs. If they're all running the same software, and it has a bug, then they'll all be prone to the same errors! An interesting detail about the Internet is that there are many vendors of routers ("gateways"), each implementing the same protocols with their own code. The bugs are in different places. But with SS7 nets, you have only a few vendors. If a telco buys all their STPs from one vendor and upgrades the software all at once, then it's time for the Tom Lehrer song to be sung, "And we will all go together when we go." Personally I don't trust the SS7 protocol either. I don't know it well, but it's very complex and unique at all layers. It doesn't draw upon years of datacomm experience. It's just now getting exercised in real, heavy American-style loads. Most likely the protocol itself isn't "broken", but it may indeed put heavy loads on switches, causing them to exercise little-used code. Remember the January, 1990 AT&T outage? A silly little bug in a little-exercised piece of code. Only exercised during certain high-load conditons. Oops. Fred R. Goldstein Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA goldstein@delni.enet.dec.com voice: +1 508 952 3274 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let alone a multi-billion dollar corporation? ------------------------------ From: Jamie Mason Subject: Re: What Kind of Exchange Am I On? Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1991 03:27:17 -0400 In article the Moderator Notes: > [Moderator's Note: It would have been helpful had you given us the > area code and prefix of your telephone number; then someone would have > looked it up and sent a note back to you with specifics. PAT] Oops. Silly oversight on my part. FINGER would reveal it, but, alas, all the world is not the Internet. I am in 416/481. Jamie ... Lurker in the Process Table Written On Wednesday, July 3, 1991 at 03:23:45am EDT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 12:34:13-1795 From: "Steven A. Minneman" Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on DID Trunks Reply-To: stevem@fai.fai.com (Steven A. Minneman ) Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc. In article kitty!larry@uunet.uu.net (Larry Lippman) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 502, Message 10 of 11 > In article bruce@pixar.com writes: >> In a PBX with DID trunks, what happens if something breaks and the PBX >> never does return supervision? Does a two-way audio path exist? Will >> the connection stay up as long as desired, or time out? I'm not sure what you mean by "something breaks". PBXs these days are software controlled. I assume that you mean something in the trunk card breaking and therefore not returning answer supervision, despite the proper setting by the software. > If the PABX were never to return answer supervision, a two-way > voice path would never exist. > DID installations where bi-directional transmission is > "enforced" by supervision from the PABX still exist today. > At the other extreme are wink-start outgoing DID trunks > running directly from the CO to the customer PABX without one iota of > restrictive interface apparatus. That's right -- no special apparatus between the PBX and the CO; however, remember that PBXs have to be certified under FCC part 68, which requires that the PBX only provide answer supervision under very specific circumstances. The PBXs I'm familar with also BLOCK INCOMING AUDIO prior to returning answer supervision. As I'm sure you're aware most, if not all, PBX manufacturers are very reputable companies; they have an interest in making sure that fraud is not perpetrated through the use of their equipment. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jul 91 09:20:11 EST From: Steve Thornton Subject: Re: Power Surge Myth Oh, well. So much for Dear Abby as a source of technical wisdom . Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / +1 617 495 3724 netwrk@harvarda.bitnet / netwrk@harvarda.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov Subject: Re: Power-Surge Myth Date: 3 Jul 91 15:00:38 GMT In article , bruce@pixar.com writes: > Perhaps what they are talking about is the cost of the bulb: the shock > of the rapid temperature change when it is turned on shortens its > life. Nope. It's pure myth! The lifetime of a light bulb is primarily influenced by the migration of tungsten atoms from the filament to the glass envelope (bulb). That's what causes the gray discoloration of old lights. When too much of the tungsten has left the filament, it will fail, usually under the stress of a power cycle. Since bulbs usually fail at turn on, it's widely assumed that cycling a lamp off and on shortens its life. And, it does, slightly, as it speeds the migration of atoms. But the effect is largely insignificant. One reason halogen bulbs are so much brighter is that the halogen gas acts to limit the migration of tungsten, so the filament can run much hotter. And those surge-suppression thermistors for lights DO help. But not because of the surge suppression, but because they lower the operating voltage on the light so that it runs cooler. The problem is that it is also dimmer. Boy, have we ever gotten off of the subject here! This would have been sorta appropriate back when tubes were used in telecom, but not today. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything. [Moderator's Note: A janitor I once knew whose duties included changing burned out 15/25 watt light bulbs in emergency exit signs said he found a way to make them last for *years*: The electic lines were 110 volts, but he used 40 watt *220 volt* bulbs. He got about the same amount of illumination as he would from a 25 watt bulb at 110 volts; the bulb emitted a softer glow, never got hot and never burned out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bob Hale Subject: Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc. Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego Date: Wed, 03 Jul 91 23:19:43 GMT In article sjreeves@eng.auburn.edu (Stan Reeves) writes: > My wife and I are planning to build a house beginning in a few weeks. [ questions about what to build in to the house deleted ] During June there was a discussion of this very subject in misc.consumers.house. If your site hasn't expired these articles then this would be a good place to start. The suggestion of installing empty plastic conduit or ENT in the walls has been mentioned by several people. The obvious advantage is that it does not lock you out of technologies that haven't been invented yet. Perhaps the phone companies will eventually be able to run fiber to homes; then people like John Higdon can have all their lines on a single fiber. Bob Hale ...!ucsd!btree!hale 619-535-3234 ...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #514 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20749; 5 Jul 91 1:33 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27798; 5 Jul 91 0:04 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11195; 4 Jul 91 22:57 CDT Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 22:00:18 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #515 BCC: Message-ID: <9107042200.ab25336@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Jul 91 22:00:00 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 515 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [John Higdon] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Steve Forrette] Emergencies and Selfishness [Jerry Leichter] Quirky Laws (was: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60) [Rob Stampfli] Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? [Paul Lutt] Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? [Alan Millar] Re: Cellular ESN Fraud; Any Help for Victim? [Joe Abernathy] Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' [Doug Fields] Re: More on IMR Telecom [Carl Moore] 508 508 508 508 508 508 (was IMR Telecom) [Bob Frankston] Anybody Know Where I Can Get a Crossbar Switch? [haynes@felix.ucsc.edu] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 02:32 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Tarl Neustaedter writes: > Maybe you don't own any property either. Maybe a friend needs you to > bail him out. You say he could wait until morning? I suppose that's > the same thing as saying you don't have any friends either. I own property and I have friends. My neighbors can bang on my door if there is a problem. My friends can call any of my various numbers, cellular phones, pagers, etc., before there would be any need to have the operator "break in". But this is all very silly. Many people have unlisted numbers that their neighbors do not even know. Many people have listed lines that they never answer. There are even people who do not have telephones. There are many, many reasons that people might be unreachable, one of the least is that the line is busy. By the way, ever heard of "call waiting"? I used to know someone who used interrupt as casually as if it was call waiting. Before I excized him from my life, he would routinely (and ignorantly) interfere with my modem traffic, embarass me when on important calls, and was a generally an obnoxious pest. Believe me, if there had been an operator interrupt equivalent of "billed number screening", I would have used it to block all such attempts to my lines. Incidently, over the years it has never been necessary to "bail a friend" out of anywhere. Draw your own conclusions. > Abuse of such a system would be a crime; If a telemarketer pulled this > on me, I'd sue his gonads off. But I've received enough real emergency > calls (from "my car died" to "someone's breaking in") to be convinced > they exist. In these cases, I would even have wanted the operator to > break my data connection. Why then do you not get another line (or get call waiting) rather than routinely have this done manually? I have never had a legitimate case where a "break-in" was necessary. And what good, pray tell, does it do to have the operator "break [your] data connection"? Is someone going to explain to your modem that so-and-so has stalled on the freeway? Or do you sit and watch your modem and if it hangs up, you immediately pick up the line to see if it might be an "emergency"? I have five modems here with calls going in and out twenty-four hours a day. For all I know, any number of operators could have come on the line, but unless they spoke PEP, my computer was most likely not interested. Mickey Ferguson writes: > I only have one phone > line, and if I need to receive an emergency message, I want to be > interrupted even if what I'm doing will cause some sort of hardship. Have you ever heard of "call waiting"? Or is it that you want all of your otherwise call waiting traffic to be screened by the operator so that you only have to be interrupted with "important" calls. Unfortunately, I have to pay for my "call waiting" -- and it is not screened like yours. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 08:01:44 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom In-Reply-To: Organization: University of California, Berkeley I know of a case where Emergency Interrupt was abused on a routine basis. It was known in my high school best friend's house that his sister would call his mom at 11pm sharp every night. If we were talking past 11:05 or so, there would be an emergency interrupt. You could set your watch by it. I can't think of a more flagrant abuse of this service. I'm surprised someone didn't notice that the sister's bill had five or so interrupt charges each month, all to the same number at exactly the same time. (BTW, until 1984, the exchange was #5 Crossbar, so Call Waiting was not an option). The way Pacific Bell does the interrupt seems well thought out, though. Before the operator comes on the line, there is a single-frequency tone that sounds for five seconds or so (it seems like a LONG time!), so you know to stop any private conversation that you don't want overheard. In cases where the operator is just listening to check the line status, and not interrupting, the audio is scrambled somehow so that the content is not understandable. I think it's the same thing that is used for simple radio scrambling; is it called "band inversion" or something? It's really weird to listen to. You can tell that the people are speaking English (or whatever language), can tell their intonation, but you just can't decipher the words, even though the sounds are loud and clear. You can even hear an accent. In this "listen only" mode, there's no indication that the operator is listening, but then again, since she can't tell what you're saying, who cares? Does someone in-the-know know if this is still the case with Pacific Bell? I'm sure some test personnel somewhere could listen in if they really wanted to. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 08:47:27 EDT From: Jerry Leichter Subject: Emergencies and Selfishness The OED defines an "emergency" as "A juncture that arises or turns up, especially a state of things unexpectedly arising, and urgently demanding immediate action". For the last week or so, TELECOM Digest has seen a good number of articles protesting the existence of operator breakin in emergencies. The response to laws that say "You must yield your line to someone who has declared an emergency; it is likewise a crime to declare an emergency when none exists" has been to find reasons why some person's line COULD NOT POSSIBLY be needed for an emergency. Their calls are SO precious that under no conditions should they be interrupted. Really, I've never seen such self-centered, selfish rot. If we were dealing with a real problem here - if operator breakins for non-emergencies were a commonplace, and there was no recourse - that would be another story. But we're not; I have yet to hear anyone even claim that they've been pestered repeatedly in this way. If someone is being pestered, the laws I've seen quoted are drafted with just the right balance of penalties. Besides, if Aunt Ethel has a habit of breaking in on your conversations to tell you her cat's gone astray again, and you really don't want to sic the law on her -- all you have to do is thank the operator for the message and then not call her back. Aunt Ethel may be a bit dim, but after ten or twenty attempts to interrupt your calls that gain her nothing but charges on her phone bill, she'll think of something else to do. How many comedy scenes have been written in which a person INSISTS on not being disturbed, yells at the person who taps on their shoulder or knocks on their door for disturbing then -- and then finds out that the interruption they refused to acknowledge led them to say embarrassing things in front of the boss, or have their car towed, or whatever? The '70's was supposed to be the "me decade". Well, here we are in the '90's. Is this we have come to? A demand that the sanctity of our phone conversations -- or, perish the thought, our dialup computer connections -- is so great that they mustn't be interrupted for ANYTHING? Those of you who think so might ponder: How about an interruption by a knock on the door? Seems much more intrusive to me. Perhaps when your building is on fire, you wish to be left undisturbed to finish your reading of TELECOM ... Jerry ------------------------------ From: Rob Stampfli Subject: Quirky Laws (was: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1991 04:52:05 GMT While taking a peek at the Ohio Bell white pages to see whether they specifically mention party lines in regard to yielding a line in an emergency (they do), I found the following: One is "not permitted" to record phone conversations unless *all* parties are made aware and consent to being recorded. However, it is not a "criminal violation" to wiretap a phone so long as *one* of the parties on the line agrees to it (or, of course, there is a court order). Go figure that one out. Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, res@kd8wk.uucp (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), kd8wk@n8jyv.oh ------------------------------ From: Paul Lutt Subject: Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1991 19:10:55 GMT I had an application not long ago that required a PC to call a pager number and leave a message. I tried the modem trick of dialing the number and inserting commas to delay until the pager prompt tone came and went, but the dial and answer times were quite variable and my message typically got truncated or missed altogether. I called the paging service (Northwest Telepage) and explained my problem. Low and behold, I found out that there is a paging computer that can be called with a modem to send out both alphanumeric AND digital page messages. The computer prompts for a simple log-on, asks for the pager phone number, and prompts for the digital message. I put together a crude kermit script that would call the paging computer and interact with it to send the message. Worked like a charm. I also worked up an "expect" script that uses tip on a Unix system to do the same thing. You might contact your paging company and ask about this sort of service. Good luck. Paul Lutt Domain: pwl@tc.fluke.COM Voice: +1 206 356 5059 UUCP: uunet!fluke!pwl Snail: John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box 9090 / Everett, WA 98206-9090 ------------------------------ From: AMillar@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 14:29:11 PDT I set up a program to call a beeper, and had some timing problems. The beeper service was VERY inconsistent about how long it took for the call to go through (anywhere from 5 to 25 seconds!) _AND_ there was a five-second timeout after which it would hang up! (Actually, it may have been the PBX I was dialing out through that caused the delay, for what it's worth.) If you dialed and it answered after ten seconds, you had five seconds after that to do your tones. If you waited a full 25 seconds to allow for the longest call setup, it would have already hung up on you before you sent your tones. However, if you did one tone, you could wait three or four seconds to enter the next tone. It would not hang up if you did another tone within five seconds of the prior tone. (Did I explain that clearly?....) What I did was to precede the actual number I wanted to send with a bunch of "1"s (arbitrary) spaced three seconds apart. If the paging service answered after 5 seconds, it would hear the "1" and wait for the next tone. Since the next tone came before five seconds, the service would keep waiting. If the call setup took longer, you would only miss the leading "1"s. After the "1"s (nine or ten at three seconds apart), I did a star (which made a hyphen on the display) and the number I really wanted to send. The recipients were just told to ignore the leading "1"s before the hyphen. The whole thing is kind of kludgey, but it worked.... :-) Alan Millar AMillar@cup.portal.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 18:15:52 CDT From: Joe Abernathy Subject: Re: Cellular ESN Fraud; Any Help for Victim? One of our photographers here recently took about a $400 hit on his bill, and the company was going to absorb the loss -- the cellular companies at least claim that they always take the loss. Because of the way the fraud scene works, though, you usually aren't denied use of the phone once it's compromised. If it's a tumbler ("magic") phone, it usually only makes one or a few calls with a particular ESN. If it's an ESN being used by a fraud shop, they know precisely how long they can use an ESN before the billing cycle has a chance to catch up with them. ------------------------------ From: Doug Fields Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS Date: Thu, 04 Jul 1991 20:47:49 GMT In article Peter Creath writes: > It's almost a case of attractive nuisance. You put up a computer with > the "front door" wide open. Someone comes in, you prosecute, execute > them, etc. Let's take a little responsibility for our own oversights. It can hardly be called an attractive nuisance. There are cases (so I have heard) of someone leaving their car unlocked, the thief stealing the car, subsequently crashing and getting into an accident, and suing the owner (from who he stole the car) and winning -- the owner being at fault for failing to protect the "public" from an avoidable situation. Similarly, leaving a loaded gun in an accessable place rather than taking the two minutes to hide it from children is a crime. > Not that I condone hacking, I just think too many people get all > self-righteous about it. Face it, if half the people who scream > "HACKING IS WRONG!" actually spent an hour securing their computer, > the overall incidence of hacking would probably be about 10% what it > is now. Nor do I. I have taken every precaution that I can forsee against it here at my system. But there's always going to be the user "John Doe" who changes his password to "DoeJohn" and there's no helping that ... even after you explain to them to use passwords like "x98cY2h*" and why. 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: Wed, 3 Jul 91 11:59:06 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: More on IMR Telecom You gave an address in Framingham, MA 01701, with a phone number starting with 608-877. Framingham's area code is 508, with 608 being in Wisconsin. ------------------------------ From: frankston!Bob_Frankston@world.std.com Subject: 508 508 508 508 508 508 Date: 3 July 1991 14:10 -0400 Sorry about the typo in my message on IMR. The area code should be 508, not 608. (My spelling checker doesn't do area codes yet). ------------------------------ From: 99700000 Subject: Anybody Know Where I Can Get a Crossbar Switch? Date: 3 Jul 91 21:17:19 GMT Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Open Access Computing ... for museum purposes. haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@ucsccats.bitnet [Moderator's Note: Why don't you ask Larry Lippman? He might have something like that available for museum purposes. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #515 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23471; 5 Jul 91 2:52 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27338; 5 Jul 91 1:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27798; 5 Jul 91 0:04 CDT Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 23:16:52 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #516 BCC: Message-ID: <9107042316.ab29645@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 4 Jul 91 23:16:45 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 516 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson RBOC's and Cable TV Services [Tom Coradeschi] Praise For Miami Herald's Southern Bell Coverage [Col. Journalism Review] Canada -- No More Cheap Calls via the US [CS Monitor via Andy Rabagliati] Does Anyone Have the Spec to ATT SYS75 Datapacket? [John A. Pham] Telecom World Magazine [John Pettitt] Cellular Tracking (was New Boston/Conn. DMX) [Tony Harminc] American Consumer Protection [atj@ariest.uucp] How to Fight an Overcharging AOS [Bruce Perens] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 9:41:26 EDT From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: RBOC's and Cable TV Services Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ {Network World}, 1 Jul 91, p. 6 "Proposed legislation would open cable biz to RBHCs" By Anita Taff Washington Bureau Chief WASHINGTON, DC - Lawmakers last week got feedback on a hill that would allow the RBHCs to enter the cable television business in exchange for a commitment from them to upgrade the public network to broadband fiber-optic facilities over the next two to five years. Reps. Mike Oxley (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), along with Sens. Al Gore (D-Tenn.) and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), introduced the bill three weeks ago. At a hearing last week, the four claimed the proposed legislation would yield double benefits to the public. First, it would discipline the largely monopolistic cable industry, which has generated numerous consumer complaints about price gouging and poor service. Second, it would ensure that the U.S. public net stays on a par with those of international rivals. Because Japan has instituted a program to deploy a fiber-optic, digital net by the year 2015, the bill targets that date for completion of the network upgrade here. Sponsors claim a fiber net will support a variety of interactive services that will aid businesses, education and health care. But opponents question the need for fiber in the local loop, fearing carriers will raise rates in order to fund new cable ventures or finance the upgrade, which is estimated at about $400 billion. At a hearing before the House Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee, opponents raised those arguments against Oxley and Boucher's bill. Gene Kimmelman, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America, criticized the bill for choosing the regional Bell holding companies over possible competitors as the vehicle to deliver new broadband services. "Requiring the FCC to prevent cross-subsidization and ensure that video investments or asset transfers are without cost to the ratepayers is like 'Mission Impossible' with the commission's limited auditing capacity and extensive responsibilities," he said. Decker Anstrom, executive vice-president of the National Cable Television Association, said there is no need for the fiber-optic investment by the RBHCs since "virtually every service conceivable, except video, can be provided over the telcos' existing copper-based facilities. "[The bill] would require American consumers to finance the telcos' $400 billion bet on becoming the TV tycoons of the 21st century," Anstrom said. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) also voiced reservations. He said he supports efforts to establish goals for the national network but worries that the bill could hurt ratepayers. "We must ensure that consumers don't have to foot the bill for services they don't want or investments that do little else than gold plate the network," Markey said. He added that the bill would have to include "strong fire walls to prevent cross-subsidies and anticompetitive behavior." Rep. Dennis Eckart (D-Ohio) expressed exasperation at the RBHCs' grand claims about the benefits that will flow from the fiber investment. "It sounds to me like this bill will cure everything but baldness and the heartache of psoriasis," he said. At the hearing, however, Boucher pointed out that a fiber-optic network capable of supporting broadband applications is vital to the future competitiveness of the U.S. "I don't want us to lose our leadership in the telecommunications industry," he said. "If we do, the results could be severe." Several members of the subcommittee applauded the bill, which has six cosponsors' as well as Senate and White House support. Officials from the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration said the administration would endorse the plan if the mandatory date of 2015 was eliminated. tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 10:31:45 PDT From: Herb Jellinek Subject: Praise for Miami Herald's Southern Bell coverage This is reprinted from the {Columbia Journalism Review}, July/August 1991, p. 17, in the column "Darts And Laurels." I don't recall seeing anything about the cited Herald articles in TELECOM Digest, and I thought this might be of interest: * LAUREL to {The Miami Herald} and staff writer Tom Dubocq, for getting through to the phone company's unlisted numbers. Since his ringing revelation in November 1989 that Southern Bell had underpaid, by hundreds of thousands of dollars, the commissions that the utility is required to pay to government agencies on calls made from pay phones on public property, such as airports, courthouses, and jails, Dubocq has stayed on the story line, reporting on the utility's denials of wrongdoing, claims of technical error, refusal to produce records, and termination of a whistleblower; he has also covered the state's fifteen-month investigation which, according to the attorney general's office, was prompted by his articles. In February 1991, Dubocq was able to report that Southern Bell had agreed to repay $5 million in back commissions and interest. By March, he was covering four other investigations of Southern Bell for allegedly withholding millions of dollars due customers for out-of-order phone lines. ------------------------------ From: Andy Rabagliati Subject: Canada - No More Cheap Calls via the US Organization: SGS-Thomson/Inmos Division Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 18:17:39 GMT An article I read in {The Christian Science Monitor} of 2 July 1991. Cheers, Andy. --------------- No More Cheap Calls Via the US By Fred Langan - Special to {The Christian Science Monitor} CANADIAN long-distance rates -- double those in the United States -- look as if they will stay pricey after a ruling by a federal regulator. Just as Canadian consumers head south in search of cheaper gasoline and groceries, Canadian business is routing telephone calls south to take advantage of lower long-distance charges. It is cheaper to skip across the continent on the American side and divert calls north after bypassing almost all of the Canadian long-distance lines and charges. Now telephone resellers in Canada will not be allowed to reroute calls through the US. Here's how Bell Canada compares to American Telephone & Telegraph Company on a coast to coast call dialed direct at peak times during the week: Montreal to Vancouver costs 43 cents (US) a minute; a call from New York to Los Angeles is just 24 cents a minute. A wide variety of discounts are offered in both countries, especially to business customers. So it is cheaper to route a Vancouver-Montreal call down into Washington state, zap it across AT&T lines to New York state, and then push it over the border into Canada where dedicated lines owned or leased by the reseller take it to Montreal. This is now a no-no, according to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). And the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement doesn't include telephone calls. "Bypassing of Canadian facilities by resellers and companies with private networks results in our domestic carriers losing revenues, which undermines the strength of the Canadian telecommunications system," said CRTC chairman David Colville. In spite of the ruling, the practice may be impossible to stop. "This is a tricky thing to police," says Elisabeth Angus, executive vice president of Angus Telemanagement, a Toronto consulting firm. There already is an agree- ment between Bell Canada [the largest Canadian phone company] and AT&T that calls should go one way and not back again. But it is almost to impossible to tell when calls are being rerouted over private and leased lines." THE government ban on routing calls through the US came after Teleglobe Canada -- which has the monopoly on handling overseas calls from Canada -- made a request that the practice be stopped. Resellers could also save money routing calls through the US to overseas destinations. The rules governing telephones and long distance are up for review. Unitel, a firm that has many of its own fiber optic telephone lines within Canada, is also challenging Bell Canada and other Canadian telephone firms for the right to compete more vigorously in long-distance service. One reselling firm, Fonorola, says charges are already dropping in Canada because of domestic competition. "We offer volume users savings of up to 34 percent in Canada and from 25 to 50 percent over Bell Canada for calls to the United States," says George Tkachuk of Fonorola in Toronto. He says his firm does not offer bypassing, but lowers costs by leasing lines from Bell Canada or Unitel, reselling them at a discount. Even the CRTC chairman wants more competition. "We recognize that the effective long-term solution for reducing bypass is to lower Canadian long-distance rates," said Mr. Colville. But Canadian business says it is being hurt by higher Canadian operating costs, including long-distance charges. One Montreal banker whose firm uses telephone resellers denounced the government ruling saying, "It only hurts Canada's competitive position to regulate higher long-distance charges." ------------------------------ From: John_A_Pham@cup.portal.com Subject: Does Anyone Have the Spec to ATT SYS75 Datapacket? Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 00:44:20 PDT I was playing in our switch room (we have a Sys75/definity) which connect to a 7404D data phone. There is also a data terminal connect to it. I connect a standard pc with serial to the 7404 at 9600 baud and was able to get some data, but how do I interpret it? I want to simulate my pc like that expensive ATT data-terminal ... I notice that all data-packet starts with 7F (HEX) but each data-packets are of different length. Does anyone have any docs on SYS-75? and yes, I have been looking through our SYS-75 administrator manuals!! John ------------------------------ From: John Pettitt Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 12:37:05 BST Organization: Specialix International Subject: Telecom World Magazine I have just received a copy of British Telecom produced publication called {Telecom World}. It contains a number of interesting semi-technical items about BT which may be of interest to Digest readers. A brief summary of two of the more interesting items follows: 1) `Centre Vision' A two page article on the new directory assistance centre for handicapped users that is being installed by BT in Sheffield. The centre employs 300 people and takes 60,000 calls a day. Users have a PIN number that allows them free assistance calls (BT now charges for normal `192' DA calls). Other information of note: * DA calls to the centre take on average twice the time of normal DA calls due to the special nature of the users. * The system is the first DMS100 installed in the UK. * The system uses TOPS MP terminals which (BT say) are used to provide DA to 246 million people in north america. 2) `OPENING the GATE' This item is about the new international switching centre at Madley (`Madley B'). This is based on a DMS300 which it says can handle 128000 lines ! It implies that the new switch will provide international caller ID. The switch will handle all international ISDN from the UK (single point failure here we come :-). The claim is it's `probably the biggest international gateway anywhere in the world'. There ar 45000 ports on the system now and capacity is planned to sustain a peak of 560,000 busy hour call attempts. I'm not sure what I did to deserve a copy - however it's published by BT (+44 71 356 6542 voice +44 71 356 6546 fax). John Pettitt Specialix International jpp@specialix.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 03 Jul 91 12:13:31 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Cellular Tracking (was New Boston/Conn. DMX) Douglas Scott Reuben wrote: [ most of long and interesting cellular discussion deleted ] > However, this got me thinking: Dialing my number through the Boston > port will NOT page me in CT. It *queries* my phone, ie, I can actually > hear the thing click after I enter my number into the Boston port, but > it won't ring me. > I took the phone indoors, and saw what was happening. When someone > called me directly (no roam ports), the call would seem to come to > Boston, my phone would "click" as it always does before it starts > ringing, (letting the system know it is active?), yet not ring. This is fascinating: your phone "clicks" but doesn't ring? There is an "audit" order in the data stream sent from the land to the mobile station. It would be intriguing if your phone was quietly letting you know that you are being audited. The specification for audit requires the phone to respond to the network (if it is in range obviously), but says nothing about telling the user that the audit request has been made. Are there cellular test-sets that display all the orders received? Perhaps a test mode on a fancy phone? Tony H. ------------------------------ From: atj@ariest.uucp Subject: American Consumer Protection Date: Wed Jul 3 13:40:33 1991 Sad to say, I got burned by the people offering, of all things, credit card protection services and discount prices, etc. plus a prize worth at least $400 (the $1000 U.S. savings bond if cashed immediately) just for the price of $199.00. My lesson, whatever, *whatever* they say, it *is* a scam!!! The girl even promised me that it was not a scam when I asked :-) The good news: it was not an expensive lesson. I eventually got the credit card refund even though I waited for more than sixty days to contest the charge. Another point: does any legitimate business ever have one address for the people offering services, another address that bills you, and a third address (usually in Beverly Hills, CA :-) that actually provides the services? If so, I don't know why they would. From experience, that is a Bad Sign. What about phone solicitations with a recording saying to call 1-900-... and the call does not indicate any charge for that call??? Alex ------------------------------ From: bruce@pixar.com Subject: How to Fight an Overcharging AOS Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1991 05:24:32 GMT I just got a bill of $4.03 for a nine-minute credit card call from a motel in California to New York. The carrier was Telesphere. I tried to call their billing questions number, 1-800-864-0606 but I just get a reorder signal (I use ATT at home). The $4.03 certainly won't hurt me, but it is much more than they should have charged, and there was certainly no notice on or near the phone that they would be gouging me for the call :-). It's time to put a stop to this nonsense. I have lots of time. Do you guys have any suggestions? The things I've thought of so far, are to instruct Pacific Telephone to not bill for them, and require them to bill me directly, and make a format complaint to the CPUC. What else can you guys think of? Bruce Perens ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #516 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25577; 5 Jul 91 3:49 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25994; 5 Jul 91 2:20 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27338; 5 Jul 91 1:12 CDT Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 0:20:23 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #517 BCC: Message-ID: <9107050020.ab24941@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Jul 91 00:19:58 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 517 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: Fireworks, Food, Huge Crowds [TELECOM Moderator] Service Outages Across the Nation [Star-Ledger via Tom Coradeschi] 900 Start-up Information Please [Shel Talmy] Information Wanted on 800 Information [Will Martin] AT&T PBX and Macintosh [Brad Hicks] Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and "Phreaker' [Ranjan Bagchi] Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott [Robert J. Woodhead] Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott [Jack Winslade] Re: Can AT&T/Sprint/MCI Serve Motels? [Mark A. Van Buskirk] Re: Is Randy History? [Mark A. Van Buskirk] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 23:37:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: Fireworks, Food, Huge Crowds Wednesday night, my brother, sister-in-law, the baby, myself and about one million other people went to 'Taste of Chicago', the 1812 Overture and fireworks display downtown on the lakefront. Official crowd tally according to this morning's {Chicago Tribune} was slightly over a million people. The lines for the porta-potties was exceeded by or equal to the line for the pay phones. People with cell phones (a few thousand of us by my rough estimate based on my line of sight) were selling phone calls to the folks who did not want to wait for the pay phones. Illinois Bell had set up a special bank of pay phones (maybe three dozen), but they were constantly in use. During the day Thursday we went to a picnic and then back to Taste of Chicago fcr the final day, followed by fireworks at Centennial Park in Evanston this evening. I think it is time for a vacation! :) Due to a lot of events next week, I'll be in and out quite a bit, so will not have regular issues of the Digest again until about July 13. From now through the weekend, I'll clean out the queue here of stuff arriving in response to recent articles, etc. *New* non-time-sensitive articles should be held until the end of next week. Important news articles will be sent out next week should any show up. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 9:37:22 EDT From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: Service Outages Across the Nation Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ The (Newark, NJ) {Star-Ledger}, Wednesday, 3 Jul 91, p. 59 "Telephone sleuths are on the trail of mysterious service interruptions" Washington Post Wire Service WASHlNGTON - East Coast and West Coast, the pattern has been the same: At about 11 a.m., an entire region's telephone system collapses. For the past six days, solving the mystery of the failing phones has become an obsession for the nation's service-conscious telephone companies. Yet despite recurring similarities and clues in the half-dozen failures to date, which have struck Washington, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh and San Francisco. the detective work remains mired in unanswered questions. Yesterday, telephones in Pittsburgh were disabled for about two hours for the second day running, underlining the phone systems' vulnerability. The basic pattern was the same-an unexplained deluge of electronic messages shutting down a computer built by DSC Communications Corp. of Plano, Texas. The telephone companies know that the failure is in complex electronic systems that route calls. But they cannot say why the systems are failing, why the failures are occurring within days of each other and why they all begin at the same time of day. They cannot explain why the failures occur in computers that are not linked electronically and use different versions of software, the coded instructions that tell computers how to operate. Experts yesterday continued to probe whether the cause could be sabotage, the result of a rogue program deliberately released into the computers to disable them. "Nothing is being eliminated" as a possible cause, said Anton Campanella, president of Bell Atlantic Corp. parent of the Washington area's Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. But he and other specialists interviewed yesterday said the cause was more likely accidental, the result of a mistake in the hundreds of thousands of computer instructions that run the telephone equipment. A DSC official yesterday said it was unclear whether its equipment was to blame. "There has not been an identification of a problem," said company spokesman Terry Adams. "We can't point to a software issue or a hardware issue." He also noted that the equipment was built to industry standards that themselves might turn out to be flawed. The DSC computers route calls over local telephone networks. Their complex software is designed to handle thousands of calls simultaneously and stay in touch with other computers in the network through a constant exchange of "maintenance messages." The software also watches over the machines' internal operations second-by-second in an attempt to automatically correct any problems. Each of the afflicted machines has for some reason generated millions of maintenance messages, which normally help a computer keep track of its internal operations and communicate with others in the network. These messages generally have priority over messages that are routing calls. Too many maintenance messages meant there was no room for routing calls, and the DSC machines ceased to function. The key question, said John W. Seazholtz, Bell Atlantic vice president for technology and information services, is "why is their (DSC's) system going into overload every time we get a little rinky-dink issue that should have been automatically dealt with? The software obviously has a major problem." In 1988, a large national network of electronically linked research computers known as Internet was immobilized by a "virus" that a young graduate student released into it. A virus is a program that copies itself and spreads within a computer system. In some cases, it may lie dormant until the computer's clock activates it and leads it to execute some action, such as the destruction of data. Phone system experts have suggested that a virus might explain why the failures have been occurring within days of each other and at the same time of day. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into whether the failures were deliberately caused. But getting a virus into the computers would be difficult, even for insiders. While thousands of computer users can "sign on" to Internet telephone companies normally guard carefully any electronic access from the outside to the computers that route calls. tom coradeschi <+> tcora@pica.army.mil ------------------------------ Subject: 900 Start-up Information Please Date: Wed, 03 Jul 91 18:41:32 PDT From: Shel Talmy A friend of mine with a very successful "premium" phone service in the United Kingdom, wants to open a similar service in America. He's interested in any information, words of wisdom etc., available on the "900" number situation. He'd also like to get a list of 900 number services already in existence. Is there such a list? I toldh him I'd ask the net, as they have all the answers! I'd appreciate anybody with info to post it here or e-mail me, and I'll forward it to him. Thanks in advance. [Moderator's Note: I doubt there is any one single directory of all the 900 numbers available. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 15:20:19 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: Information Wanted About 800 Information How does 800 information work now that there are a multitude of vendors selling 800 service? Does AT&T run 800 information for everyone and charge the other carriers? Are *all* 800 carriers in the 800 information database now, or are some missing? How does the information provider charge the other carriers for their services -- on a per-call basis, with a fee for every inquiry that results in a reference to that carrier's 800 prefices, or on a flat-fee basis, perhaps based on the percentage of all 800 numbers that that carrier supports, or a percentage of the prefices it is assigned? How likely is it these days that the 800 information database is correct and complete? If I call 800-555-1212 and ask "Is there an 800 number for Zygote Corp. in Milwaukee?" and they say "no", how likely is it to be true that Zygote really does not have an 800 number? How up-to-date is the database; how long does it take a new 800 number to be available to information? What percentage of 800 numbers are "non-published"? Is being listed in 800 information or not a charged-for "feature" either way? What about all those "personal" 800 numbers that some Telecom-ers have and which have been and are being marketed widely -- is the purchaser/ subscriber asked if they want to be listed in 800 information when they get the number, or isn't it an option for individuals? [If your personal number can be listed, do you have the option of specifying a phony company or individual name for the listing, or does it have to be the billing name?] Regards, Will wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil OR wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil [Moderator's Note: When I first subscribed to 800 service from Telecom* USA, they asked if I wanted to be listed in the database. The price quoted was $12 *per month*, which they said was the same amount they were charged by Southwestern Bell (the telco which operates 800-555-1212). They simply passed along what they were charged, anbd said they did not activity promote listings. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 03 Jul 91 11:37:39 EDT From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <76012.300@compuserve.com> Subject: AT&T PBX and Macintosh [I'm posting the following question for one of the internal developers here at MasterCard. Please reply directly to master.dev@applelink. apple.com; if there's enough interest, I'll have Mark give me the replies and I'll summarize to the best of my ability. jbhicks@mcimail.com] ------- I have a Macintosh IIfx that I need to connect with a AT&T Difinity G2 phone system, and a 7406+ phone. This connection must provide me the ability, through program control, to utilize most of the AT&T functions (e.g. hold, transfer, conference...). The 7406+ phone is digital connected to the pbx digitally. I've tried bridging an analog andsLe%al line to the same phone number, and using a modem on the analog line to dial. This works ... kinda .. NOT. You issue an "AT" command for the modem to dial, but you must then press the "Speaker" button on the digital phone to hear what's going on. And to hang-up, you issue an "AT H" command from the modem, and you must still press "Speaker" to drop the line from the digital set. I need a solution similar to a ROLM 244PC. That phone allows me complete control over the phone features. When I issue a dial command to the phone, and the head set is still in the cradle, the phone would automatically select speaker-phone for me. When I issued a hang-up request, the phone would drop the line. By the way, the ROLM 244PC has a serial connection. HELP ... HELP ... HELP! Thanks in advance, Mark Lawrence ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 23:34:12 -0400 From: Ranjan Bagchi Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' > Nor do I. I have taken every precaution that I can forsee against it > here at my system. But there's always going to be the user "John Doe" > who changes his password to "DoeJohn" and there's no helping that ... > even after you explain to them to use passwords like "x98cY2h*" and > why. Ah, but you can. This site, for instance, seems to have pushed a COPS-like program within 'passwd', so that passwords are checked versus a list of stupid passwords, and anything from this list is thrown out. rj ------------------------------ From: Robert J Woodhead Subject: Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott Date: 5 Jul 91 02:55:44 GMT Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Tokyo Japan elm@allspice.Berkeley.EDU (ethan miller) writes: > It'd probably be *cheaper* to just let all local calls go through and > block long distance calls which aren't charged to another number. The > loss in revenue would be made up for by simpler billing and by more > rooms filled by business travelers who hate checking every little call > on the bill. Ah, but the _bills_ of most business travellers are paid by their companies, not by themselves. Marriott, which caters to the business crowd, tacks on surcharges because the final recipient of the bill is usually not the person using the services [he's not paying, so he usually doesn't care], and in any case rarely sees an itemized bill -- it's just a line on the old expense account. Motel 6, on the other hand, caters to travellers who are much more likely to be paying out of their own pockets, and thus much more likely to bitch. Also, their customers are much less likely to make phone calls in general, and long distance in particular. Given the small size of their motels, the investment in the billing systems usually isn't worth it -- cheaper to stick in a bargain basement PBX with a few (very few!) outside lines and toll restriction. Plus, of course, it would be bad for business if the phone bill was greater than the room bill. Bad PR, doncha know ... Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jul 91 15:02:16 CST From: Jack Winslade Subject: Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs!jack.winslade@uunet.uu.net Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha David Lesher writes: Anyone know where to find a coin slot with an RJ-11? In the 'bag of tricks' I carry with my Zenith laptop, I have an RJ-11 cable with 'EZ Hooks' on one end. Although I haven't used this with a pay station (yet?) it has come in handy for worst-case travel locations, where it was physically difficult to get to the actual phone jacks. It can be used almost anywhere a live connection to the phone can be realized. In one hotel, I had to unscrew the transmitter and clip across the two spring contacts. It worked, although I could tell there was a slight loss through the network in the set. I got it to dial by operating the switch hook manually and then having the modem dial the usual atdt9,,1npanxxabcd sequence. The only real problem I have had is bypassing the Hotel's rip-rate service by dialing the Foon Card number, pausing just the right length, and then blasting away with the number I am calling plus the Foon Card number. The first few tries it timed out, a live operator came on line, who got a blast of tones in the ear. I suppose this type of a cable would work from a pay station, although I can see myself in an airport or bus terminal struggling to remove the mouthpiece and being accosted by the local constable. ;-) Good Day! JSW Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5 [200:5010/666@metronet] Omaha, Best-Connected BBS City. (200:5010/666.0) ------------------------------ Date: Thu Jul 4 05:14:09 GMT 1991 From: attmail!mvanbuskirk (Mark A Van Buskirk) Subject: Re: Can AT&T/Sprint/MCI Serve Motels? HOBIS or HOtel BIlling System is alive and well at AT&T. Any hotel or motel can subscribe to this service, It appears that the motel Mr. Goldstein stayed at didn't want to pay for HOBIS service. Mark Van Buskirk ATTmail !mvannbuskirk ------------------------------ Date: Thu Jul 4 05:14:09 GMT 1991 From: attmail!mvanbuskirk (Mark A Van Buskirk) Subject: Re: Is Randy History? To clear up questions regarding Randy's employment with AT&T this is the information available as of July 3, 1991. YES, Randy was fired. Currently he has a grievance pending with the CWA on his termination. Shortly his grievance will be appealed on the third level and if this fails (almost certainly will) it will move to arbitration. I don't hold much hope for Randy getting his job back because the union is generally powerless. Maybe I can get Randy to post his side of the story. Mark Van Buskirk ATTmail !mvannbuskirk ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #517 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07971; 5 Jul 91 20:58 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27071; 5 Jul 91 19:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22214; 5 Jul 91 18:23 CDT Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 17:28:07 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #518 BCC: Message-ID: <9107051728.ab00969@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Jul 91 17:28:04 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 518 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or What Were These Guys Thinking?) [W C Stewart] Re: Anybody Know Where I Can Get a Crossbar Switch? [John Higdon] Re: Anybody Know Where I Can Get a Crossbar Switch? [Donald E. Kimberlin] Hotel Surcharges, Best Western (was: Marriott) [Stan M. Krieger] Re: Where Do They Get Off? [Wolf Paul] Re: The Former West Berlin [Jan Hinnerk Haul] Re: What Kind of Exchange Am I On? [Eric R. Skinner] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 01:41:14 EDT From: William Clare Stewart Subject: Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?) Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Special Services Division In article umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu! brian@uunet.uu.net (Brian Cuthie) writes: > What is truely amazing to me is the architecture of this network. You > mean to tell me that there are only *FOUR* STPs for four states!? > This seems absolutely ludicrous to me. I mean, what were these guys > thinking? For many moons, as most of us are aware, the government > has sponsored research in the area of survivable networks. [....] I last worked on survivable signalling around divestiture, so some of my comments are a bit out of date. At the time, there were about 20 STPs for the entire country, which is more than enough unless there are large numbers of nuclear devices flying about, and the military has contingencies for that, too. SS7 is basically a packet-switched network for passing signalling information, and is designed with reliability, uptime, and flexibility as its primary goals. Everything is connected to more than one STP, STPs know how to back up other STPs and have the capacity to do it, and most of the computer equipment has downtime specs of one hour per 40 years. The number of STPs isn't a significant RISK, or there'd be more of them. The real vulnerabilities lie in the usual software- design areas, and potentially protocol deficiencies, because those can give you common-mode failures, as seems to be happening in the recent problems. STP-based SS7 significantly *improves* network reliability, because it allows the network to use much more flexible call-routing algorithms than we had in the old days. This also reduces network costs, and significantly reduces call setup time. The paths your call follows are relatively independent of the signalling packets. Associated signalling is available, at a significantly higher cost. > Considering the importance of local phone service to the > health and well-being of us all, I think it may be time to get some > outside oversight to make sure the phone companies don't engineer us > into a cost effective, but highly vulnerable, network. Divestiture has had a significant impact on this, as has technology. At the time I was doing this work, the network still had a largely hierarchical design, with about half the long distance served by dumb switches, either crossbar or older ESS, and about half the local service using step-by-step. That's changed significantly. Common- Channel Signalling (either CCIS or SS6 and maybe SS7) reached most of the AT&T Long Lines network, but wasn't installed in local class-5 offices because of economics, even though the added signalling capability would permit lots of features and efficiencies. That's changing as well. In addition to hierarchical routing, there were also a lot of "high-usage" trunks which provided alternate routes where there was high traffic. At the time, our survivability studies hoped to find that we could use these, by augmenting the routing translations or building special boxes, to provide highly diverse routing paths through the network to provide highly reliable communications for the government during "emergencies". It turned out that this was unrealistic -- the network had lots of highly interconnected cliques at the class-5 level, but the connectivity was highly local, due to economic and traffic needs -- the long-distance connectivity we were looking for really started at class-4 and above (the bottom-level toll switches.) Divestiture has aggravated this, by separating the local phone service from the long-distance carriers' Points Of Presence (POPs) in each LATA. In one sense, this helps -- local-office problems tend to isolate themselves, and long-distance and local routing decisions are made independently. This has increased the ability of the long-distance carriers to experiment with better routing methods, since the local phone company switches don't all have to be upgraded to support it. It also means, if something goes wrong with ONE long-distance carrier, you can try using the competition, as long as local service works. Cellular phones add another layer of options. On the other hand, if the government wants to increase reliability (for *their* users) beyond what the market provides for its own needs, they can no longer simply ask the monopoly phone company to add more trunks or nuclear-blast-and-EMP-harden all the new switches, and charge it to your phone bill, because the long-distance companies really do have to care about costs -- and if it gets paid for out of taxes, they've got to justify the spending to Congress. In article forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: > Perhaps we can lobby Congress to pass legislation which details how > the STPs should be placed to provide maximum reliability. :-( (enter Foghorn-Leghorn-voice mode) Ah say heah, bo', we gotta have one a' them there STPs in MAH district! Just don' put the thang in MAH back yard. Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 00:57 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Anybody Know Where I Can Get a Crossbar Switch? 99700000 writes: > ... for museum purposes. In September (I can get the exact date if you like), why don't you appear at 1615 Foxworthy Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125, and see what comes out the door? There is enough crossbar in that place to serve twelve prefixes. Maybe they will give some of it to you when they decommission it. Pac*Bell once tried selling its old crossbar equipment to some Asian countries, but they were too smart for that. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 12:09 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Re: Anybody Know Where I Can Get a Crossbar Switch? In article (digest v11iss515), asks where to get a crossbar switch: > ... for museum purposes. Which raises the question: Just HOW large is your museum? Several crossbars I've seen removed filled three to six forty-foot semi-trailers when packed in junk form. ;-> Our Moderator suggests: > Why don't you ask Larry Lippman? He might have something like that > available for museum purposes. Which raises the question: Just HOW large is Larry's warehouse? ;-> ;-> Ok, Ok. I know you really only wnat ONE part of a switch frame. The best straight scoop I can offer is to tell you that crossbars tend to get totally trashed about a year after their replacement is functional. In all the cases I've seen (being the replacer), they are bid for by the pound by offshore junk metal dealers. Wrecking crews are sent in that just saw up the cabling with bandsaws, drill the mounting screws out of the frames, and drop the whole mess in a heap on the floor. They push the heap out the door onto the truck that makes one stop on the scales on its way to the ship that hauls old crossbars and automobiles across the ocean to a smelter in places like Taiwan. There, it makes those fine pliers and screwdrivers you buy in the convenience store for $1.19; the ones that break or bend the first time you put a strain on them. The single BEST way to get one may be to "have a friend on the inside;" one who will dismount a frame for you before the wrecking crew arrives. This is still going on in the U.S. in states like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and California. There are likely others, but I know of these. To identify others, find places where the electronic exchange has been put into service within the past year or so. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 11:28:20 EDT From: S M Krieger Subject: Hotel Surcharges, Best Western (was: Marriott) Organization: Summit NJ > The easiest way to fix this would be jack up the cost of the room a > couple of dollars and stop this stupid practice of charging for calls. > Why would jacking up the rate of the room even be necessary? Motel 6 > provides free local calls at a room rate of $25/night. Other > "cut-rate" hotels do the same thing. For some odd reason, the more > expensive hotels are the ones which insist on charging for all calls. I posed similar questions to Best Western International after I stayed at the Best Western Mardi Gras in Las Vegas last summer. The hotel added a flat charge of $1.50 a day for unlimited local telephone use, and used an AOS for long distance calls. The points I raised were: 1. While the hotel is privately owned, as indicated in the Best Western guide, I expected Best Western International to try to resolve the problem in order to protect their own name and to make sure that the actions of few of their franchisees do not reflect negatively on the entire chain. 2. The $1.50 a day charge, while small, was nonetheless deceptive as it was not indicated in the chain guide nor in any literature I got from the motel; the first time I saw it was in a big sign behind the front desk. Also, I indicated that such a charge was ridiculous and, like electricity, air conditioning, and hot water, telephone service was one of the things customers have the right to expect as part of the room rate. 3. Finally, I pointed out that in using an AOS, the hotel was looking for the best deal for themselves instead of for their guests, and by blocking 10xxx (I supplied AT&T's, Sprint's, and MCI's code) they were preventing their guests from having the access they were entitled to. The reply I got, which is the usual practice for businesses whose hands have just been caught in the cookie jar, was to avoid responding to the specific points I raised. Best Western International, totally avoiding the point I raised about protecting their name and their franchisees, said they couldn't do anything about it and forwarded my letter to the hotel. The motel's answers were even more evasive: a. My point that telephone, like electricity, etc., was part of their overhead and thus should be factored into the room rate, was ignored. Instead it was justfied as "standard industry practice" in Las Vegas. b. The point about using an AOS instead of a more competitively priced company was also ignored, as was the blocking of 10xxx. All they answered (and this was true) was that I could call the hotel operator to get AT&T (what this didn't answer was how to get MCI, etc), nor did it address that I had to explicitely request direct-dialed calling card rates and often explain why I didn't use 10288 each time they connected me to an AT&T operator. c. Finally there was the usual crap about valuing their customer comments. I hope they value it enough to do something about it. 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 smk@usl.com policies of my employer. ------------------------------ From: Wolf PAUL Subject: Re: Where Do They Get Off? Date: 1 Jul 91 21:32:06 GMT Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria kossackj@marsh.rice.edu (Jordan M Kossack) writes: > 'junque mail' trying to sell me one thing or another, but I do object > to Southwestern Bell telling Sprint my new address, since they're > _not_ my long distance carrier and have no reason to know the > information. > I realize that this isn't illeagal but I do think it is kind of sleazy > for SWB to give out such information to Sprint, since they won't give > addresses to folk who call up directory assistance. > [Moderator's Note: The local telco is REQUIRED to share billing > information with long distance carriers. Whether or not you have a > non-pub number is irrelevant. PAT] Is this true even if the long distance carrier in question (a) is not my default (1+) carrier, and (b) I have not made any calls via that carrier? That would seem to be a violation of privacy: if the carrier provided no service, there is no billing information; any information they receive will obviously be used for other purposes. Can I just set up a (bogus) long distance service and suddenly get access to names, addresses and phone numbers of every subscriber in the USA? W.N.Paul IIASA, wnp@iiasa.iiasa.ac.at, +43-2236-71521-465 (till Jul 26, 1991) ALCATEL/ELIN, cc_wnp@rcvie.at (as of Jul 29, 1991) Home Phone: +43-2236-618514 (till Jun 30, 1991), +43-1-224-6913 (as of Jul 1) [Moderator's Note: I think if the local telco supplies *any one carrier* with information about you, i.e. change of address, new number, etc. they are required to supply the same information to *all carriers* on request; that is, if they wish to operate at 'arms length' from their old parent company, which of course is who they originally supplied the information to about you. So if they tell AT&T you have moved, so AT&T can solicit you for Reach Out America at your new address/number, they have to tell MCI/Sprint so those firms can solicit your business at your new location also. And in any event, once you dial a call over the network of another company, you become part of their records. Telco must supply your (non-pub) name and address for billing purposes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jan Hinnerk Haul Subject: Re: The Former West Berlin Organization: Me, Myself, and I - Wedel, Germany Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 22:57:19 GMT cmoore@brl.mil (VLD/VMB) writes: > 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. As it had since there is direct dialing (early fifties, I suppose). > [Moderator's Note: Prior to the unification, (or now for that matter) > how were 'local' calls between East and West Berlin dialed? PAT] Till about January calls from West Berlin to East Berlin were dialed with country code 37, as is till now for the eastern part of Germany (and will remain so till the Telekom reassigns the dial codes, which shall take place next year). From east to west you use country code 49, as ever. Nowadays you can dial intra-Berlin calls with a prefix of 9, this works both ways. When you want to call the eastern part of Germany, you have to take into consideration they have a hell of a telephone system. Getting a connection can take over an hour, if you call in business hours. And since private phones are rare, you cannot reach anyone outside ... Jan Hinnerk Haul +49 4103 15427 voice ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 10:55:35 EDT From: ers@xgml.com Subject: Re: What Kind of Exchange Am I On? Reply-To: ers@xgml.com Organization: Software Exoterica Corporation, Ottawa, Ontario In article jmason2@utcs.utoronto.ca (Jamie Mason) writes: > Bell Canada does not feel like telling me this; I am curious > to know what kind of switch I am on and what other exchanges share the > same physical switch. I am even more anxious to know now that a > particular implemntation of SS7 seems to be failing all over the US. I was wondering the same thing myself one day, so I called Bell Canada repair service (611), asked them, and they told me without hesitation that I was on a DMS-100 (I'm on 613-230). Bell seems to be standardizing on that switch, so odds are, you've got one too. Eric R. Skinner ers@xgml.com Software Exoterica Corporation +1 613 722 1700 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #518 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10915; 5 Jul 91 22:03 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11536; 5 Jul 91 20:34 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27071; 5 Jul 91 19:28 CDT Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 18:29:10 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #519 BCC: Message-ID: <9107051829.ab22270@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Jul 91 18:28:51 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 519 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or What Were These Guys Thinking?) [Brian Cuthie] Re: Service Outages Across the Nation [John Higdon] Re: American Consumer Protection [Rich Zellich] Re: Poor Abused Phreakers [Andy Sherman] Re: Emergencies and Selfishness [John Higdon] Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Andrew Payne] Re: The Way I Built and Operated an AOS [Andy Sherman] Re: What Kind of Exchange Am I On? [Charles Hoequist] Re: Caller ID Against Telemarketers [tex@bsu-cs.bsu.edu] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brian Cuthie Subject: Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?) Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1991 22:23:43 GMT In article oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov writes: > In article , umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu! > brian@uunet.uu.net (Brian Cuthie) writes: >> For many moons, as most of us are aware, the government has sponsored >> research in the area of survivable networks. We have all come to know >> and love one of these networks as the ARPA net. Granted, it has > Brian has some valid points, but the "ARPA net" may not be the best of > examples. First, it no longer exists. It was decommissioned over a > year ago. But since other networks had been put in place to carry all > of its traffic, almost no one realized it had vanished. Yes, I knew that. I just thought that since most people know it as the 'arpa' net that this would make the most sense to the most people. But thanks. > But the real problem is that there are exactly TWO primary network > commection points for the ENTIRE Internet! FIX East just off of the > UMD campus and FIX West at Nasa Ames in Mt. View, Calif. Often only > one of these critical tie points has been available and they are > almost always badly congested. Routing does not effectively handle > them and when both are down (and it has happened more than once) > large parts of the net become disconnected. Well, the real issue, is that the Internet is built arount protocols that are designed for lossy, unreliable link level interfaces. The fact that there *are* some critical points in the Internet, is a result of the fact that *it* does not need to be reliable. However, the military deployments of networks based on these protocols are *very* reliable. All this reliability is, more or less, free when you add enough links. The routing and transport protocols are already designed with this reliability in mind. > So who is ignoring what here? The real problem is that these things > are expensive and difficult to maintain. And having more of them makes > handling traffic much harder. I don't know anything about SS7 either, > but I do know that packet routing is still not well understood > (witness the current disputes over the use of distance-vector and > link-state routing algorithms) and simply adding more interconnect > points to a network does not always improve reliability. This is just plain *not true*. There are many papers that rigorously analyze the various routing pardigms. In fact, link state is one of the first routing algorithms that *does* have significant theoretical study behind it. Brian Cuthie brian@beerwolf.umd.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 02:32 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Service Outages Across the Nation Tom Coradeschi quotes from: The (Newark, NJ) {Star-Ledger}, Wednesday, 3 Jul 91, p. 59 > Phone system experts have suggested that a virus might explain why > the failures have been occurring within days of each other and at the > same time of day. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into > whether the failures were deliberately caused. Oh, that is a hot one! Are the FBI software engineering people going to analyze the source code for the SS7 implementations for functionality and intent, then disassemble the binaries and compare them with the sources to check for corruption, both intentional and unintentional? Some of us may look pretty stupid, but none of us is dumb enough to believe that anyone at the FBI would know an STP if it bit them in the butt. Conducting such an investigation is a little more involved than checking for jimmy marks on the doors and windows. Or maybe they will just seize everything in sight as they do in most of their other computer-related investigations. Give me a break. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 9:21:59 CDT From: Rich Zellich Subject: Re: American Consumer Protection > Another point: does any legitimate business ever have one address for > the people offering services, another address that bills you, and a > third address (usually in Beverly Hills, CA :-) that actually provides > the services? If so, I don't know why they would. From experience, > that is a Bad Sign. Actually a *lot* of firms, including some quite small ones, do this. In some cases, it is a large firm having several centers across the country, with each center having responsibility for one of the common functions of the whole company (like billing) in addition to their unique local functions. In other cases, it may be a small company contracting out functions that can more cheaply be handled by a special-purpose vendor handling multiple companies' business in volume. A common example of this is subscription and mailing-label maintenance services for magazines. Resubscription and billing for magazines may also commonly be handled by a contractor. Rebates is another *very* common example; both for separate contractors and for a single location handling it for an entire nation-wide large company. My local utility companies also tend to have multiple addresses, but they are at least all here in town (although I could see SouthWestern Bell using a single bill-return/-processing center for the entire multi-state region, or at least for the whole state of Missouri. They don't, though). Cheers, Rich ------------------------------ From: Andy Sherman Subject: Re: Poor Abused Phreakers Date: 5 Jul 91 15:41:45 GMT Reply-To: Andy Sherman Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ In article , tex@bsu-cs.bsu.edu writes: > .... Maybe they could > set an example by asking our permition to disclose credit information > to others. When they do that, I'll ask them if they mind if I > write/distribute a file about how their ATM machines work. They do. Read the fine print on a credit application. By signing the application, you authorize the potential creditor to investigate your income and credit history and to share information with credit agencies. If you don't like that, don't apply for credit. (This is not a defense of abuses and shoddy workmanship in the credit bureau industry, but that is a different issue). > As a member of the scientific community I feel that the lunatic fringe > is where the revolutionary new discoveries/inventions/ inovations are > created, NOT in the main stream university setting. Main stream > science is great for backing up current knowledge and finding details > of current theories. Unless someone has called you a fool or a > criminal when you propose a new idea, you have not contributed > anything to the direction of science. As a fellow member of the scientific community, I think you've gone way out on a limb. Yes, a lot of great discoveries come from great minds breaking through the barriers of main stream thinking, but they have usually not been called criminals. For "criminal" the only one that comes to mind right off the bat is Galileo. As for "fool", that is a term that academics of all fields throw at each other all the time. Sometimes it's even deserved. :^) By the "being called a fool" criterion, there are few of us who don't meet your standards. Relativity (Einstein), wave optics (Fresnel), and statistical mechanics (Boltzmann) are three examples of breaking out of the mainstream. Einstein (while have been called backward in school) didn't meet a hell of a lot of derision for his theory. Indeed, he became a folk hero. Fresnel was called a fool and worse by the reigning prince of the French scientific elite (Poisson) but outlived Poisson and thus saw his work taken more seriously. Boltzmann was greeted with such derision that he committed suicide and was only embraces posthumously. A rather mixed record all in all, but none of it has anything to do with phreaking and cracking. These three scientists conducted their work with rather high and conventional standards of probity and ethics. 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! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 00:52 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Emergencies and Selfishness Jerry Leichter writes: > But we're not; I have yet to hear anyone even > claim that they've been pestered repeatedly in this way. If someone > is being pestered, the laws I've seen quoted are drafted with just the > right balance of penalties. Ok, Mr. Arbiter of Selfishness, consider this such a claim. Some years ago, I started noticing an increase in the number of failed UUCP connections to my Internet mail host. Lots of dead-end calls to my modem and even when in mid-converstation, the data connection would suddenly die. Not long after these observations, a phone man appeared at my door. He had a trouble report for one of my lines that had been turned in by someone I had never heard of. It seems that some idiot (maybe your Aunt Ethel?) had been trying to reach someone at one of my modem numbers. When she called, she got a strange noise (imagine that). She tried calling in the wee hours and got nothing but busy signals. So she had the operator interrupt the call. By the time the operator had actually come on the line, the data connection had been ruined and the modems had disconnected. When the stupid woman then called, she got the same strange noise again. So she called repair service. Fortunately, repair service has become much more sophisticated and recognizes the sound of modems. > The '70's was supposed to be the "me decade". Well, here we are in > the '90's. Is this we have come to? A demand that the sanctity of > our phone conversations -- or, perish the thought, our dialup > computer connections -- is so great that they mustn't be interrupted > for ANYTHING? I do not consider the interrupt from some buffoon who cannot even get the number right to be worth interrupting even a casual nap. Operator interrupts are very highly abused and I would be willing to bet that only a very small percentage of them could be construed as REALLY necessary. > Perhaps when your building is on fire, you wish to be left undisturbed > to finish your reading of TELECOM ... TELECOM is delivered to me over unattended modem connections in the middle of the night. Kindly explain how interrupting those data connections with an operator barging in would serve any purpose whatsoever. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) Subject: Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions Organization: Cornell Theory Center Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1991 15:56:35 GMT In article msa3b!kevin@gatech.edu (Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes: > Recently, several ham radio operators were fined by the Federal > Communications Commission, based upon the content of messages > forwarded through their packet-radio computer network. The messages > solicited calls to a 900 number, and the FCC forbids commercially > related messages. (I believe that the fines were rescinded in most > cases.) The FCC DOES believe that the operator of a network node is > responsible for its retransmissions, if that node uses amateur radio > for its communication link. How this affects non-radio nodes is not > clear; it may be considered a precedent. I don't think you can really compare. Ham radio has a whole slew of restrictions peculiar to ham radio: non-commercial, iternational third- party traffic restrictions, etc. I think the issue boils down to this: what makes one immume to liability for messages carried on one's telephone/e-mail/message system? AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc clearly seem to be immume (or else the phone company would get sued everytime there was a robbery plotted over the phone). BBS operators seem to be liable: several recent cases demonstrate this. What about the middle ground: MCI Mai and CompuServe? What's their status? Does it have something to do with the fact that the phone companies operate under tariff? Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: Andy Sherman Subject: Re: The Way I Built and Operated an AOS Date: 5 Jul 91 15:10:56 GMT Reply-To: Andy Sherman Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ In article , mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes: > marcus%cpva.span@sdsc.edu (Mark R. Jenkins 619-458-2794) writes: >> After some pauses, I got an operator which I "assumed" was AT&T and >> gave her my AT&T credit card number and completed the call. > I wonder if a solution to the problem of fakers is to ask "Is this > American Telegraph and Telephone?" If they answer 'yes' then either > they are AT&T, or they're lying, n'est pa? Does this work? It you actually have the opportunity to dial the call yourself, AT&T operator services are now electronically branded. You will hear a bit of music and a prerecorded "AT&T" *before* the bong inviting you to dial your card number or "O" for Operator. This may not help if the hotel operator, COCOT operator, or AOS connects you directly to an AT&T Operator. The above procedure *might* help in that case, but of course lying by AOS operators is not unheard of. 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! ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 91 12:02:00 EDT From: Charles (C.A.)Hoequist Subject: Re: What Kind of Exchange Am I On? Re the query of in Digest #512: Without the NPA, it's hard to be sure what sort of switch serves you, but if you're under Bell Canada's wing, then it's very likely an NT switch. BC is effectively a captive customer for NT CO equipment (80-85% of BC's CO switches are NT's). Since most of the switches are now DMS-series, it's likely one of those, though there are still a few NT-40s waiting to be scrapped. Assume a DMS-100 if you're living in the Toronto metro area. Charles Hoequist hoequist@bnr.ca BNR Inc. PO Box 13478 Research Triangle Park NC 27709-3478, USA 919-991-8642 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 21:03:05 -0500 From: "Dispater @ Club ESP" Subject: Re: Caller ID Against Telemarketers pedregal%sureal@cs.umass.edu (Cris Pedregal-Martin) writes: > And one more gadget (or service) to buy Hey, I'd help do it for free and put the list in 2600, TAP, or Phrack Classic (no association with Cherry Phrack, Diet Phrack, Phrack Lite or Phrack Inc.) BTW: Craig Niedorf has nothing to do with Phrack Classic. In fact he was thinking that Phrack #31 was going to be the last issue. (long before the SS gave him a visit). PC is edited by a critter called Crimson Death. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #519 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11012; 5 Jul 91 22:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11536; 5 Jul 91 20:38 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac27071; 5 Jul 91 19:28 CDT Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 19:11:36 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #520 BCC: Message-ID: <9107051911.ac12557@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Jul 91 19:11:21 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 520 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Alcor Email (ECPA) Case Settled [Keith Henson] Telesat's Anik E-2 Satellite Salvaged [Nigel Allen] ISDN BRI to RS232, RS422, Ethernet Connectivity Options [Casey Leedom] Modem Line Problems [Eric Dittman] The Future of the UK Phone System [Scott McIntyre] Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266 [Jim Smithson] Re: MCI Operator Assisted Rates [Andy Sherman] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com Subject: Alcor Email (ECPA) Case Settled Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 00:10:45 PDT The long running Alcor/email case against the County and City of Riverside, CA was settled out of court in April of this year. The announcement was delayed until all parties had signed off, and the check (for $30k) had cleared the bank :-). The Alcor Life Extension Foundation (a non-profit cryonics organization -- alcor@cup.portal.com) ran a BBS for members and prospective members from early 1987 through January 12, 1988. On that day, the BBS computer was removed under a warrant to take the computer (but no mention of any contained email) in connection with the investigation into the death of 83-year-old Dora Kent. (Mrs. Kent was placed into cryonic suspension by Alcor in December of 1987. During and following the investigation, Alcor staff members were publicly accused by county officials of murder, theft, and building code violations. No charges were ever filed and the investigation was officially closed three years later.) In December, 1988 Keith Henson filed a civil suit to force an investigation of the apparent violations of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act by the FBI, but the case was dismissed by the now convicted Judge Aguilar. In early 1990, just before the statute of limitations ran out, Henson and 14 others (of the roughly 50 people who had email on the system) filed a civil action against a number of officials and the County and City of Riverside, CA under Section 2707 of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act. Some time after the case was filed, the Electronic Frontier Foundation came into existence in response to law enforcement abuses involving a wide spectrum of the online community. EFF considered this case an important one, and helped the plaintiffs in the case by locating pro bono legal help. While the case was being transferred, the County and City offered a settlement which was close to the maximum damages which could have been obtained at trial. Although no precedent was set because the case did not go to trial, considerable legal research has been done, and one judgment issued in response to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The legal filings and the responses they generated from the law firm representing the County/City and officials are available by email from mnemonic@eff.org or (with delay) from hkhenson@cup.portal.com. (They are also posted on Portal.) The Plaintiffs were represented by Christopher Ashworth of Garfield, Tepper, Ashworth and Epstein in Los Angeles (408-277-1981). A summary of the settlement agreement is attached. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This agreement is made and entered into in Riverside, California, this _____ day of ______ by and between [long list of defendants and plaintiffs] I. FACTUAL RECITALS 1. This Agreement is executed with reference to the following facts for purpose of this Agreement only. 2. On January 12, 1998, some of the Defendants, pursuant to a search warrant, entered into the premises of Alcor Life Extension Foundation in Riverside, California. 3. Upon entry into the property, some of the Defendants seized various items, including electronic media containing E-mail owned by the plaintiffs. 4. On or about January 11, 1990, plaintiffs commenced civil action No. SAC 90-021js in the United States District Court, Santa Ana ("the Action"), against the defendants for injuries and damages allegedly suffered as a result of the defendants' seizure of plaintiff's E-mail. 5 It is now the desire and intention of plaintiffs, on the one part, and defendants on the other part, to settle, compromise, and resolve all the differences, disagreements, and disputes, which exist and may exist, including those which are the subject matter of, referred to, related to, or mentioned in the Action. Pursuant to this desire, and in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows. II CONSIDERATION 6. Upon the execution of this Agreement, defendants County of Riverside shall pay to plaintiffs, by check, the total sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000), inclusive of attorney fees and cost. 7. [The rest of this is boilerplate, except that they wanted confidentiality of the agreement, to which we would not agree.] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jul 91 09:36:30 PDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Telesat's Anik E-2 Satellite Salvaged Telesat Canada has unstuck the antenna on its Anik E-2 satellite. The satellite would have been useless if the antenna couldn't be deployed. Here is a July 4 story from the Canadian Press news agency: Sky-high rescue: $300-million satellite spins to life OTTAWA (CP) -- The Anik E-2 satellite isn't space junk after all. Telesat Canada technicians were jubilant yesterday after they finally succeeded in a three-month effort to dislodge a stuck antenna on the $300-million satellite. "There are champagne corks popping all over the place," said company spokesman Gilles Le Breton. Anik E-2, Canada's 10th satellite -- the biggest and most expensive to date -- is designed to carry most TV signals across Canada. The technicians gave the three-ton satellite a fast spin to shake free the antenna, which had been stuck. They hadn't dared to spin it fast before for fear of damaging the hi-tech hardware. But gentler maneuvres had failed, and insurance underwriters approved the risky salvage effort. Although the technicians still aren't sure, they think the arm was snagged on a protective foil known as a thermal blanket. Le Breton said five to seven weeks of further manoeuvres and tests will be needed before Anik E-2 goes to work, delivering TV programs to millions of Canadian homes. Most Canadian TV networks now rely on an older satelite, Anik D-1, which will run out of power by the end of the year. Telesat, which is owned by Canada's federal government and the country's major telecommunications carriers, would have lost $60 million if the satellite had failed to work. Insurers would have had to pay $240 million. Losing the Anik E-2 would also have been a blow to the prestige of Telesat, which put the world's first commercial communications satellite into orbit 20 years ago. The E-2 was blasted into orbit on April 4 from Kouru, French Guiana, aboard a European-built Ariane rocket. The satellite is capable of carrying 56 television channels and has an expected service life of 14 years. Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto (1:250/438) Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 INTERNET: Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG ------------------------------ From: Casey Leedom Subject: ISDN BRI to RS232, RS422, Ethernet Connectivity Options Date: 5 Jul 91 20:34:31 GMT Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Two problems regarding using an ISDN (Integrated Services Digital network) BRI (Basic Rate Interface) for data transport: 1. Allowing widely used serial devices cheap access to the ISDN BRI. This would allow, say, Macintoshes, PCs, terminals, workstations, etc. to use RS232, RS422, etc. to use an ISDN line for ``dial up'' applications. A device that implemented this functionality would function in much the same way as current analog line modems. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if such a device offered an ``AT'' command set. Obvious features would be ISDN synchronous ``B'' channel to standard RS232/RS422/etc. asynchronous bridging with buffering and flow control, V.42 and V.42bis for error control and compression, etc. 2. Allowing ``direct connect'' between ISDN and Ethernet via something like a terminal server with various network transport protocols like TCP/IP, DECNET, etc. to allow connection to network hosts and facilities. Our laboratory is currently getting ready to investigate a product from Gandalf that does this. My only experience with their products was nearly ten years ago, so I'm interested in all opinions about their product line today. Note that I am *NOT* interested in special hardware that plugs into Macintoshes, PCs, workstations, etc. to allow them direct access to the ISDN BRI. These devices are just too expensive right now and aren't available for enough hardware to make it interesting. I'm looking for something cheap like an ISDN ``modem'' that can be taken home and allow people to ``dial in'' and then something on the other end that can allow people to access the network via standard protocols (although in our my case I'm only interested in TCP/IP there are others who need DECNET/LAT and even AppleTalk.) Please send all responses directly to me. I will summarize all responses back to these groups in a couple of weeks. Also, ***PLEASE*** INDICATE ANY INFORMATION THAT SHOULD ***NOT*** BE INCLUDED IN SUCH A SUMMARY. I accidentally included information on a non-announced product in one summary because the respondent didn't tell me not to include that information even after I'd asked to be told what shouldn't be included. I guess it was in too small a type. And, just to make sure that doesn't scare you off from sending such information to me, I'll note that the laboratory has some 12,000 employees, has its own ISDN phone system and is actively looking for ways to provide ISDN connectivity to its employees in their homes throughout the Bay Area. I.e. we're a ***BIG*** potential market. If you wish, we will sign non-disclosure agreements, but remember, we're looking for cheap ways of providing connectivity because we're talking about so many installations. I.e. forget about sending me information on absurdly expensive ISDN ``modems.'' Sorry to be such a hard-*** about this, but I want everyone to know the ground rules right from the start. Thanks for your attention and thanks in advance for your input!!! Casey ------------------------------ From: Eric Dittman Subject: Modem Line Problems Date: 5 Jul 91 17:41:05 CDT Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility Last night I was downloading some files. About 5.5 hours into the download (big files at 2400 bps) carrier was lost. I tried to call back but got a NO CARRIER message. This puzzled me, so I connected my phone from the other line to my modem line. There was no dial- tone. I moved the phone back, and it worked. I then moved the phone back to the modem line and started listening as I plugged and unplugged the phone, pressed keys, etc (as this was 3:00 AM and I was sleepy, I never thought of calling the modem line from the voice line!) and I could hear a slight change in the "silence". I called the 24-hour repair line and reported the problem. At 7:30 AM I got a call on the modem line (I had left a phone connected there) asking if I was still having problems. I took the number of the repair person and was able to call them back. They said they had no idea what the problem was, but I know the problem didn't fix itself, since I tried at 4:00 and 5:00 and still had no dialtone. I had earlier checked and both lines are on the same switch (a 1AESS). The local company is SWB. Has anyone else seen this happen? I'm assuming that the switch dropped the line since the call was too long, but if this is the case, this is a new modification as I've had eight and ten hour calls before. Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility dittman@skitzo.dseg.ti.com Disclaimer: I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test Facility. I don't even speak for myself. ------------------------------ From: Scott McIntyre Subject: The Future of the UK Phone System Date: 5 Jul 91 09:22:20 GMT Organization: ?uestion Consulting After having talked with a Mercury bloke for a few hours last week I find myself wondering about the future of the UK phone system, or if there is one. He says that most of the lines are ISDN-able, and that they have lots of digital exchanges in London. Here in Exeter they are still using what seems like manual operators (joke). No doutbt they are using physical switches. What I would like to know is if anyone out there knows anything about the UK phone system, I've written to BT asking but only got a nice little prospectus about how wonderful they are and what the are doing in very broad language. In case you didn't already know, phone prices here are ASTRONOMICAL compared to anywhere in the the States or Canada. There is no such thing as a free local call; all calls are timed, and the rates change three times a day. Thanks, mcintyre@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Scott A. McIntyre SAMcinty@uk.ac.exeter.exua Cornwall House S_MCINTYRE@uk.ac.lut.hicom St. Germans Road mcintyre.s@uk.ac.exeter Exeter, Devon, UK ------------------------------ From: Jim Smithson Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 15:22:49 MET DST Subject: Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266 In an article in comp.dcom.telecom I posted a followup to: Mr. Gilmore: > The FBI *wants* phone system designers to start thinking about > interception -- in particular, they want interception to be easier. > Just like the East German secret police. Then I replied: > You are way out of line drawing any comparisons between the STASI and > the FBI! I'm as much a civil libertarian as anyone, but I want the > cops to catch the crooks anyway they can. Some gentlepersons were quick to point out my errant use of the word "anyway". It's good to see we have people on the net who are always vigilant against tyrants. Of course I in no way condone violations of privacy by the police. I was just trying to be brief in my statement. (I should've know better) By "anyway" I of course meant any moral, constitutional and legal way. I think that once a wire tap order is LAWFULLY obtained, then the law enforcement agency and tax payers(I still pay some taxes in the USA) have a right to expect that it can be efficiently implemented. Of course surveillence should not be a major design criteria for the network, but it should be a consideration. As for comparisons between the FBI and STASI(or any East Block agency), I still contend that few comparisons can be drawn. The worst victims of the of the FBI often live to tell the tale loudly and publicly. Those in the East Block don't live or have their minds chemically altered. My wife defected from Romania in 1981 because she couldn't put up with the harrasment by the Securitate who wanted to make sure that she as a teacher was teaching her students the "correct" things. I haven't heard complaints like that too often about American cops. Followups to misc.legal please, but I really have no more time for this. James Smithson, Bern, Switzerland I am not a lawyer. My employer doesn't even know I have opinions. ------------------------------ From: Andy Sherman Subject: Re: MCI Operator Assisted Rates Date: 5 Jul 91 19:59:01 GMT Reply-To: Andy Sherman Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ In article , 0004715238@mcimail.com (Sean Williams) writes: > Why wouldn't 10222+0+10D [ka-bong] accept your MCI Card? Because it > isn't programmed to. Using this method accesses a shared telco > database which contains card numbers issued by Bell Operating > Companies and other independent telcos. It doesn't contain > information about your MCI Card, and therefore won't accept it. It should be noted that 10288 supports both LEC card numbers in the shared database and AT&T's own card numbers. Class tells. 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! ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #520 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02982; 6 Jul 91 8:27 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22187; 6 Jul 91 7:24 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24078; 6 Jul 91 1:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24175; 6 Jul 91 0:40 CDT Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 23:48:31 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #521 BCC: Message-ID: <9107052348.ab09659@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Fri, 5 Jul 91 23:48:28 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 521 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Harold Warp's Pioneer Village [TELECOM Moderator] LATA and Leesburg [Greg Monti, NPR via John R. Covert] Phrack Magazine [Craig Neidorf] How do we Find Out About ISDN For Our Philadelphia Office? [Graham Toal] Caller ID Tech Details in Radio Electronics [Andrew Payne] Communicating Between the Internet and Other Networks [Dave Marthouse] Re: Do You Know of any Programs That Can Call a Beeper [Joe Stong] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 22:49:01 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Harold Warp's Pioneer Village I received a letter and photo a few weeks ago from Ronald Bean, a TELECOM Digest reader in Madison, Wisconsin. . He enclosed a photo of an old piece of telecom gear on display in a little museum called "Harold Warp's Pioneer Village", which is located 12 miles south of I-80 in Minden, Nebraska. Harold Warp was a Chicago plastics tycoon (originally from Minden) who, in the late 1940's or early 1950's started collecting various bits orf technology that 'normal' people were throwing away, to quote from Ron's letter to me. This exhibit is a lot like the Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. The collection includes horsedrawn wagons, stage coaches, about 350 cars, quite a few antique tractors and other farm equipment, and all kinds of household appliances and commercial equipment from the first half of this century, or before. The collection includes a large glass case of telecom equipment, including lots of old telephones, several early lineman's handsets, and a piece of step-by-step switching apparatus. Ron noted in his letter to me that a nearby sign identified the step-by-step switches as a portable demonstrator. It seems a Mr. Fred Delabarre of Boston carried this around to local telcos throughout the country from 1895 to 1901, to demonstrate the then-new technology. It is a wooden box about four feet square and eight to ten inches thick, with a glass front and a dozen steppers inside, in two rows of six. When Warp aquired it in the middle 1950's, it had been carefully wrapped in newspapers from the early 1900's. Ron thinks this is probably one of the oldest pieces of of automatic switching equipment in existance. The picture he sent me of this gear has other things in the background including what appears to be an operator's PABX console from about 1950, (or some sort of intercom/signalling system console), an antique phone hanging on the wall, and an outdoor sign which frquently was seen on the front of a store or restaurant with the large blue bell, the words 'public station' above the bell, and the words 'local and long distance telephone' inscribed on the bell itself. That sign must itself date from about 1900 or earlier, since 'newer' versions of the same sign I have seen elsewhere include the phrase "American Telephone and Telegraph Company and Associated Companies" in smaller print also on the bell logo. Ron Bean concluded his letter to me by mentioning the Motel-6 in Coralville, Iowa -- a litle town near Iowa City -- which has a genuine Western Electric pay telephone booth, with a wooden door, and a modern US West payphone inside. The booth is inside the motel. For those too young to remember, or who have never seen one, payphone booths being extremely rare these days, a payphone booth was about two or three feet wide, and the same distance deep. They were about 6.5 feet high. They were made of wood, with a hinged wooden door on the front and glass panels to see inside the booth (is it occupied?) or out. Some older styles had doors on the front without windows, but a person going inside could latch the door and this caused a little sign on the door knob to change from 'vacant' to 'occupied', much like a door on a bathroom stall ... but payphone booths were not that large. All the 'newer' (i.e. from about 1920 onward?) had doors that folded open like an accordion. Inside the booth, a small seat made it possible to sit while using the phone. An incadescent overheadc light bulb came on when the door was closed, as did a small overhead fan. A sign mounted on the wall gave instructions for using the phone. Outside the booth. usually mounted on one of the side walls was a stand, complete with small reading lamp and a supply of telephone directories. And of course, the metal sign which said it was an American Telephone and Telegraph Company Public Pay Station ... One in the Walgreen's Drug Store had been there a long time. How long? Soooo long, the phone inside the booth identified it as a product of the "Gray Paystation Company". It had a separate piece which you held up to your ear to listen while you leaned forward and spoke into a mouthpiece built into the main unit. Payphone booths began appearing without seats or fans in them about 1960 or so; then the wooden booths were discontinued and booths made from all glass started showing up. By around 1970 those were discontinued and the little 'privacy panels' (sometimes with the logo 'Hear Here' on them) were mounted on the wall with the phone inside them. Within a few years, we just had phones hanging on the wall, period. My assumption is the booth in the Motel-6 in Coralville must be at leawt 40 years old, and probably older. Thank you very much, Mr. Bean, for your nice letter and the photo. If any of our readers pass through Minden, Nebraska or Coralville, Iowa they will no doubt stop to see these old artifacts from the olden and golden days of telephony. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 18:40:36 PDT From: "John R. Covert 05-Jul-1991 2142" Subject: LATA and Leesburg [Moderator's Note: This was forwarded by John Covert to the Digest. PAT] From: Greg Monti, National Public Radio, Washington, DC, 202 822-2633 Date: 5 July 1991 Re: Intersate/Intrastate, InterLATA/IntraLATA Changes made to the Modified Final Judgment made since divestiture in 1984 have resulted in some ambiguities in how calls are handled. Some can now be handled by both LECs and by competitive LD carriers at varying rates! Example: the LATA boundary that divides New York City from northern New Jersey. In some cases, like the NY/NJ one, a special exception to the LATA boundary, called a "special privilege corridor service exception (or something similar)" was allowed. The "corridor" only works when calling between New York City and six specific New Jersey counties. This allowed the local phone companies at both ends to handle interstate toll calls across the LATA boundary. Local or in-LATA calls are routed to the LEC as a default. I believe that, at least now, however, ANY call which crosses a state line can be dialed (unless blocked by a sleazy COCOT) through one or more competitive long distance carriers. Yes, even local calls. Yes, even intra-LATA calls. This is why Washingtonians could make local, intersate calls during the Bell Atlantic outage by prefixing them with 10222 or other LD company codes. They could not make local calls within their own state by this method because, by and large, state regulators don't allow competitive LD companies to handle in-state local or toll calls which they feel are the protected market of the LECs they regulate. Local, in-state calls which cross a LATA boundary also default to the LEC. I've discovered, however, that these can also be dialed around by using 10XXX. Leesburg, Virginia, is a town of maybe 20,000 located 40 miles west of Washington. It's in the Culpeper LATA, not the Washington LATA, so toll calls to and from it from the Washington area were carried on competitive LD companies. Since divestiture, and probably before, Leesburg has been a local call from some rate areas in the extreme west edge of the Washington LATA (places like Dulles Airport, Herndon, Reston, Sterling Park, Chantilly and Arcola). As the Washington area has boomed, Leesburg is starting to be considered a suburb. In other words, the Washington "community of interest" is getting larger. Should the Washington LATA grow with it? It might seem logical to make Leesburg a local or message unit call from some or all of the northern Virginia suburbs. Rather than moving the LATA boundary to accomplish this, Leesburg was simply made an extended-area (message unit) call from northern Virginia. The change occurred on 29 June 1991. Since it's still in a different LATA, it can still be legally dialed on a competitive LD carrier. The LEC, however, is the new (and cheaper) default. Leesburg numbers are 703-729, 771 and 777. From a genuine C&P pay phone in the northern Virginia Metro area, dialing ... 771-XXXX gets you C&P's "this call requires a 25-cent deposit before dialing" intercept recording, indicating that it's now a local call (message units from home or business, an untimed 25 cents from pay phones). 703-771-XXXX gets exactly the same C&P recording. 1-703-771-XXXX gets exactly the same C&P recording. 10288-771-XXXX gets you an AT&T coin recording, stating, "two dollars and twenty cents for the first minute." 10288-703-771-XXXX gets you the same AT&T recording. 10288-1-703-771-XXXX gets you the same AT&T recording. (There is no 1 + 7 digit dialing in 703, so I couldn't try that.) I'm sure other 10XXX's would work from home or business phones or with 0+. The only 1+ carrier available from pay phones other than C&P is AT&T. I'm sure this meets with the approval of the 'canonical dialing' crowd. Not only can you use more than one company, you can dial it three different ways per company! While C&P was at it, they allowed 10 digit dialing for extended area calls to Prince William County. Previously only 7 digits or 1+10 digits were allowed. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Jul 91 21:58:31 CDT From: Craig Neidorf Subject: Phrack Magazine I have very little to do with Phrack at the current time and the foreseeable future. The last issue of Phrack that I produced was issue 30 in late December of 1989. Since that time, there has been a Phrack 31 released in the Summer of 1990 and what is known as Phrack Classic 32 released in November 1990. Both of these releases were performed by third parties. I have been told that an issue 33 is to be expected very shortly, but I have not seen it. I believe that back issues of Phrack are available through most of the CuD archives and hardcopies are available (for a price) from a company called The Onion Press (6818 W. State Street, Suite 116, Milwaukee, WI 53213). I receive absolutely no compensation or royalties from OP's business ventures (in case you were wondering). Any questions? Craig Neidorf (C483307 @ UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU) ------------------------------ Date: Fri Jul 5 20:05:35 GMT 1991 From: gtoal@tardis.computer-science.edinburgh.ac.uk Subject: How do we Find Out About ISDN For Our Philadelphia Office? Reply-To: gtoal@tardis.cs.ed.ac.uk (Graham Toal) Organization: 'UNIX Anarchy, Edinburgh University' Hello folks; we are a small publishing house based in London with an office in Philadelphia. We've decided to go to ISDN instead of 9600bd modem to ship many of our typesetting files each day. Finding out about ISDN and suitable equipment in Britain for our end was difficult but not impossible. However our Philidelphia office is having *real* problems finding out how to get an ISDN line in. Most of the folks they've managed to talk to so far don't really understand the questions, and refer them to PSS services etc. Does anyone reading this in Philadelphia *already* have an ISDN line? We'd love to hear how you did it. Also, recommendations for hardware/software would be welcome too: we both run Novell networks on Ethernet (brain-dead packet style, but hoping to upgrade). We have oodles of PC's which can be used as bridges etc. Our main requirement is simple file-transfer, but a network bridge would be kinda nice too, especially if it were one of those smart systems which only dialled the other site when there are packets to send. This is a pretty wide request. Just about *any* info on ISDN/ networking/PCs/ftp/internet connection/etc would be welcome. Our options are still wide open. We haven't bought any kit yet! (We're looking at UK's forthcoming Internet connection too. Information on how to connect to the Internet from Philadelphia might be useful.) Many thanks to anyone who can spare time to answer. Much appreciated. (Replies by mail if you could, please. Our news service is flakey.) Graham Toal ------------------------------ From: payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) Subject: Caller ID Tech Details in Radio Electronics Organization: Cornell Theory Center Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1991 23:50:50 GMT Next time you are in the supermarket, grab this month's (August, 1991) {Radio Electronics}. It has got a couple pages in the "Hardware Hacker" column on how the Caller ID information is delivered to your house. The information includes telco references and where to get them, format of the caller ID data frames, and some details on a Caller ID chip: SC11211N. If you are interested in Caller ID, this information alone is worth the issue price. Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI UUCP: ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne INTERNET: payne@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: Dave Marthouse Subject: Communicating Between the Internet and Other Networks Date: 6 Jul 91 00:38:03 GMT Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc. Fords, NJ I would like to know how one can send messages from the internet to other networks; ie, Compuserve, MCI Mail, fFdonet, and others. I would in addition like to know how users on the other networks can send mail to users on the internet. Any other information would be appreciated. Dave Marthouse Internet: n2aam@kb2ear.ampr.org n2aam@overlf.uucp Fidonet: dave marthouse 1:107/323 Amateur Packet Radio ax25: n2aam @ w2emu-4.#cnj.nj.usa.na [Moderator's Note: Several months ago we printed an article which discussed this in great deal. Perhaps it is time to run it again if someone wants to review it, update it and send it in. In the examples you give, the solutions are easy: 7xxxx.xxxx@compuserve.com; mailbox number@mcimail.com (eg. 0002224978@mcimail.com); and username@attmail.com. For Fido, we say username@zone.net.node.fidonet.org'. Getting back is a little more difficult. We will save that for the article which I'm sure someone will send in. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 18:54:49 -0800 From: Joe Stong Subject: Re: Do You Know of any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? Simple "call a pager, present number" script. Put a hayes compatible modem with command mode enabled on a serial port on your machine. Change the permissions appropriately so you can get to it, read/write. Make sure the port is NOT enabled for login. Any hayes compatible modem, 300 baud or better should work, as long as it honors the ';' command in the dial string. (I've seen some that don't). Acquire the port's filename, like /dev/tty99. Replace /dev/tty99 below with the real filename. Bourne Shell script, for a BSD (presumably SUNOS) system. Pretty dumb, doesn't look for modem responses. If "echo -n" doesn't work at a bourne shell prompt to present a message without a trailing newline, then try removing the ' -n' and putting a \c inside the quotes. Note that the ^M's should be replaced with a literal carriage return char. Control-V carriage return, in vi. Note also the semicolon at the end of the number, prevents the modem from attempting a connection, but leaves the line off hook. -----cut here------------------------------------ : # page pager_phone_number callback_number PAGER=$1; export PAGER CALLBACK=$2; export CALLBACK ( stty 300 raw -echo echo -n 'AT^M' # get the modem in sync echo -n "ATDT$PAGER;^M" # dial the pager number sleep 7 # choose a reasonable interval for the pager company to always answer echo -n "ATD$CALLBACK;^M" # the pager company may want a trailing # on the no. sleep 5 # wait long enough for it to believe that you want it done. echo -n 'ATH^M' # hang up YOUR phone line. ) &0 --------cut here------------------------------------ Not tested, no guarantees, but, it's cheap. I've done other things like this before that work fine. I think I'm glad I don't own a pager. :-) Joe Stong jst@cca.ucsf.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #521 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04088; 7 Jul 91 5:56 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11036; 6 Jul 91 23:01 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03235; 6 Jul 91 21:53 CDT Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 21:21:12 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #522 BCC: Message-ID: <9107062121.ab22156@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 6 Jul 91 21:20:54 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 522 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson DSC Identifies Problems in Software [Sean Williams] Telphone Outages, Rsally Out(R)ages [Dave Niebuhr] Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or What Were These Guys Thinking?) [R K Oberman] Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Mike Riddle] Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Marshall Barry] FidoCon '91 - International BBS Sysop's Conference [Marshall Barry] Re: Communicating Between the Internet and Other Networks [Jeff Wasilko] Thanks For Info on Answering Machines [Dave Niebuhr] More Use of Maryland Help Line [Carl Moore] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 06:23 GMT From: Sean Williams <0004715238@mcimail.com> Subject: DSC Identifies Problems in Software DALLAS (AP) -- A small telephone equipment maker said Friday that a recent spate of phone system breakdowns around the country was caused by glitches in its computer software. Three telephone companies helped diagnose the problem that cut connections to ten million customers in the past two weeks, DSC Communications Corp. of Plano, Texas, said in a statement. The problem shut down phone switching systems in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington and Pittsburgh. The last outage hit Pittsburgh on Tuesday. DSC likened the problem to a power line surge that caused network congestion, with calls backing up until the entire system shuts down. The companies recreated the problem in a laboratory experiment and designed changes for the software that controls sophisticated telephone switching equipment. Repairs were under way, the company said. Technicians from DSC, Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic and the Bellcore research lab worked together to diagnose the problem, the company said. DSC designed and installed switching networks for Bell Atlantic and Pacific Bell. Pacific Bell called the repairs a stopgap measure, and said it could be weeks before DSC pinpoints the source of the problem. "They haven't found the reason or the root cause of the problem," said Craig Watts, a Pacific Bell spokesman. "What they've discovered is a way to help the network handle the problem until they've found the cause." Ed Stanley, a spokesman for the Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. in Washington, said the company was satisfied with DSC's efforts. "We are very encouraged by the interim software solution by DSC," said John Seazholtz, a Bell Atlantic vice president in Arlington, Va. "We recognize, however, that there is still a lot of work ahead to identify and cure the root cause or causes of these service disruptions," Seazholtz said in a statement. A software change was being installed in the Bell Atlantic and Pacific Bell systems to eliminate the problem, according to the statement. "This provides protection much like a fuse on a power line," the company said. A company spokesman could not immediately be reached for further comment. DSC's headquarters was closed for the holiday Friday. The company released its statement about the change after the stock market closed Friday. The company's stock closed unchanged at $6.25 in over-the-counter trading, but well off its 52-week high of $13.75. Some experts who follow the company had speculated the problems with DSC's equipment resulted from rushing it to market without adequate testing. The DSC product, called a signal transfer point, is at the heart of a phone company's ability to route calls and monitor the quality and conditions of its network. DSC started as a six-person company in 1981. It now employs about 4,000 people, including 3,000 in the Dallas area. The company earned $20.1 million on revenue of $519.3 million last year. Sean E. Williams | seanwilliams@mcimail.com Spectrum Telecommunications | Have a good day! PO Box 227 | <> Duncanon, PA 17020-0227 | voicemail +1 717 957 8127 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1991 14:23:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Telphone Outages, Really Out(R)ages There have been at least 17 messages recently devoted to telephone outages in various places, mostly on the east coast. Why not really call them what they are for the multitude of businesses and individuals: OutRages. Based on the limited information concerning the cause of the failures that I have, it seems that equipment supplied by DSC of Plano, Texas was involved in most, if not all, of them and the equipment is used (I think) in CLASS service. I'm not a businessman, but if I put myself in their shoes and depended on telecommunications for a major portion of my business, I'd be outraged at what happened. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov ------------------------------ From: oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov Subject: Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?) Date: 6 Jul 91 19:55:08 GMT In article , umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu!brian@ uunet.uu.net (Brian Cuthie) writes: > This is just plain *not true*. There are many papers that rigorously > analyze the various routing pardigms. In fact, link state is one of > the first routing algorithms that *does* have significant theoretical > study behind it. There is a wide gap between "significant theoretical study" and "well understood". Sit in for a discussion between those favoring IS-IS, OSPF, and IGRP, and you will hear lots of disputes over how "real" networks will respond to various types of failures, how reliably and quickly they will converge, and whether a given technique is truly free from pathological conditions. And I am not talking about little "water cooler" meetings, but IETF and other meetings with actual protocol designers and implementors who wrote those papers. I will agree that, over all, the Internet is very robust. There have been very few major failures. And, in general, high degrees of interconnectivity can help. But for a case study of when it did not help (and often made things far worse), check out the effects on several networks, especially SPAN and HEPnet, of the big telephone fire of a couple of years ago near Chicago. R. Kevin Oberman Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Internet: oberman@icdc.llnl.gov (415) 422-6955 Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything. ------------------------------ From: Mike Riddle Subject: Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1991 12:16:31 GMT In payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) writes: > I think the issue boils down to this: what makes one immume to > liability for messages carried on one's telephone/e-mail/message > system? AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc clearly seem to be immume (or else the > phone company would get sued everytime there was a robbery plotted > over the phone). BBS operators seem to be liable: several recent > cases demonstrate this. What about the middle ground: MCI Mai and > CompuServe? What's their status? Does it have something to do with > the fact that the phone companies operate under tariff? I think it's still unclear about BBSes. Most of the recent cases never got to court. They were settled or charges were dropped. Perhaps as a result of the Steve Jackson Games civil action we may get a ruling on some of this, but even there the issue is a little different. The traditional telephone and telegraph companies are regulated common carriers, with filed tariffs, and have an obligation generally to accept and transport anything submitted that complies with the tariffs. They also generally have an associated immunity. As you note, ham radio involves a slew of restrictions (some of them antediluviation and probably inappropriate today as well) that makes ham a poor comparison. The middle ground, which would seem to include BBSes, Compuserve, MCI Mail, etc., are "enhanced service providers," which are essentially unregulated. This is a murky area of the law with no real precedents. Rather than go astray from the telecom topic, I suggest you subscribe to alt.society.cu-digest or send email to tk0jut2@niw.bitnet. The Computer Underground Digest was spawned off of TELECOM Digest to handle this type of discussion, and in fact has had some interesting articles in the last few months. <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>> riddle@hoss.unl.edu | Nebraska Inns of Court ivgate!inns!postmaster@uunet.uu.net | +1 402 593 1192 Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet | 3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis ------------------------------ From: Marshall Barry Subject: Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions Reply-To: Marshall Barry Organization: Supplied on a "Need to Know" Basis Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 19:08:59 GMT In article bei@dogface.austin.tx.us (Bob Izenberg) writes: > I can't speak for the FidoNet sysop (and he wouldn't have to be a > Fidonet sysop to have this on his mind) but I am reminded of Tom > Tcimpidis' trouble with the telco that served his community in Florida > (Southern Bell?). His BBS had a fraudulently-obtained credit card > number left in a message. The message and card number expired, and > then he was held liable for having the card number (at one time) on > his machine. Seized hardware, possible illegal entry by telco > officials, but no charges. He sued his phone company, won in court, > and got his equipment back in bad shape. First, Being a friend of Tom's I feel I should make a couple of corrections. Tom lived (and continues to do so) in Los Angeles, CA. I was moderately involved in the case, and the details are a bit more complex than Bob has implied. However, one of the more interesting aspects of the case was that the NAME of his BBS (MOG-URs) was used as a "reason" for picking on him. Since the Mog-Ur is a mythical "underground" beastie, OBVIOUSLY, Tom's system had to be a phreaker haven ... right? Well, not quite. Also, the Calling Card number which was found on Tom's system was also available on any number of other systems in the LA area -- including the UCLA public access system. Of this, PA Bell (as opposed to MA Bell) was quite aware. Tom became a cause -- and, in the long run, the case was dropped -- with prejudice (i.e. it could not be refiled) -- but, this was NOT a win for him, or for anyone else! ------------------------------ From: Marshall Barry Subject: FidoCon '91 - International BBS Sysop's Conference Reply-To: Marshall Barry Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 19:08:59 GMT The 1991 International BBSing and Electronic Communications Conference (FidoCon '91) Don't miss the biggest SYSOP gathering in history! At this historic gathering (August 16-18, 1991) you will hear: - Fred Clark and David Terry describe the future of PCBoard! - Andrew Milner describe the future of Remote Access! - Jim Harrer and Rick Hemming describe Wildcat! Release 3.0! - Phil Becker demonstrate TBBS Release 2.2! - Tom Jennings tell how he started the largest BBS net in the world! - Adam Hudson tell why he wrote QuickBBS! - Bob Hartman and Vince Perriello explain why you can't buy BinkleyTerm! - Tim Pozar tell you how to link your BBS to Internet! If listening to the author of your favorite BBS software isn't enough, you can also hear: - Mitch Kapor (founder of Lotus Development) and John Perry Barlow explain why they founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation. - Steve Jackson (of Steve Jackson Games) tell you why he is glad they did! - Helen and Mort Sternheim define K12NET and its benefits to education. - Dave Hughes - presents NAPLPS and NREN - Jack Rickard and Phil Becker tell you how to make your BBS pay for itself! - John McAffe explain how to detect and cure computer viruses. - Sysops of the largest commercial BBS systems in the world explain how they made it happen and keep it working! This is only a portion of what will happen at FidoCon '91 -- a three day blowout in Colorado -- with more BBS SysOps of more types of BBS software all gathered in one place than ever before. The key people in every aspect of BBS development, application, and legal implications will be there to share their knowledge with you! Plus SysOps and Users like you gathered to celebrate their sport! Call [Voice] (303) 426-1847 9AM to 9PM MDT or [Data] (303) 426-1942 24Hrs, 3/12/2400 baud for information or to register to attend. Participating Vendors (as of 6/25/91) Boardwatch Magazine XRS {Offline reader} Clarke Development Company, Inc. {PC Board} CDB Systems {Hardware} Mustang Software {Wildcat! BBS} Exactus Corporation {TDBS programs} Online Communications {FrontDoor} U.S. Robotics The Forbin Project {QModem} Searchlight Software {Searchlight BBS} CompuCom Modems Galacticomm {The Major BBS} Hospitality Suites FidoCon '91 Convention Hospitality Suite (23.5 hrs a day) eSoft Hospitality Suite Bit Bucket Software Notables The list is growing so fast we cannot keep up with it... PLEASE Call for Current Information. is also "If you're going to (mis)quote me, at least SPELL my NAME correctly!" Data: (303) 657-0126 +&+ (303) 426-1942 3/12/2400 baud Snail Mail: P.O. Box 486, Louisville, CO 80027-0486 ------------------------------ From: Jeff Wasilko Subject: Re: Communicating Between the Internet and Other Networks Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 11:38:42 EDT Dave Marthouse asked: > I would like to know how one can send messages from the internet to > other networks; ie, Compuserve, MCI Mail, fFdonet, and others. I would > in addition like to know how users on the other networks can send mail > to users on the internet. The authoritative answer can be found in the Usenet newsgroup news.newusers.questions and also in comp.mail.misc. It lists To/From directions for nearly every system. Look for an article with the Subject Inter-Network Mail Guide. For more info, you could contact john@utcs.utoronto.ca (John Chew). Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1991 11:27:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Thanks for Info on Answering Machines Thanks to all who responded to my request for information concerning a combination telephone/answering machine the placed the date/day/time on incoming messages. There were many makes and models mentioned, both with pros and cons. Now, I have to make the decision as to which one I'll buy keeping in mind the excellent presentations. Thanks again; Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov [Moderator's Note: You are welcome. Never underestimate the willingness of Usenetters to share their knowledge and ideas with others. This is a very powerful network. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 12:02:47 EDT From: Carl Moore Subject: More Use of Maryland Help Line 800-477-4704, when given the prefix 817, claims it is an invalid menu input! Same helpline also provided these extra N0X/N1X prefixes going into the 410 area: 404,806,813 (with 813 to have some local service into shrunken 301) in addition to the following N0X/N1X (going into 410) found by me on a standup poster yesterday (July 5) listing all the prefixes going into 410: 208,213,307,313,316,319,515,516,602,605,612,613,712,719,906 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #522 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04530; 7 Jul 91 6:04 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09742; 7 Jul 91 0:07 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11036; 6 Jul 91 23:01 CDT Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 22:44:11 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #523 BCC: Message-ID: <9107062244.ab10621@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 6 Jul 91 22:43:48 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 523 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Boston DMX? PLUS: Philly Too?! [Douglas Scott Reuben] Re: Cellular Tracking (was New Boston/Conn. DMX) [Macy Hallock] Re: Emergency Calls [Sharon Crichton] Re: Modem Line Problems [John Higdon] Administrivia: A Few Days Off Line [TELECOM Moderator] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6-JUL-1991 06:18:53.84 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: Re: Boston DMX? PLUS: Philly Too?! And now, Chapter II of the continuing saga of the "psuedo-DMX" to Boston, with a twist at the end! (It's long - sorry ... I needed SOMETHING to keep your attention! :) ) A few days ago I posted about how Metro Mobile/CT customers were able to use call-fowarding, and have their callers get busy signals if they are on the phone, etc., while in the Cell One Boston system. However, if someone called me (directly, in Connecticut, NOT via the Boston roam port), the phone would be "audited" (it would click a bit, as it always does before it rings), but would NOT ring. The call would just "die" in the Boston system, and my callers would hear a short ring followed by a re-order. Anyhow, I called Metro Mobile/CT, and spoke with Mike "The Roam Coordinator". Mike said that the Rhode Island system (part of Metro Mobile's Northeast system, which is DMXed to the CT system) just got a new switch. The new switch, unlike the old one, was passing paging and forwarding info along to the Boston system. Boston had already been DMXed to Rhode Island, so when the new switch came in, it acted as a "gateway" between the CT system and the Boston system, allowing pages and forwarding info to go back and forth. However, although this is more or less the "framework" for a DMX, there are no physical trunks for the voice channels between Boston and CT. The new RI switch provided *only* a data channel for the paging and forwarding info, but not a voice channel. So, what happens is that if you are from CT, and roam into Boston, you get "audited" (or queried) in Boston, Boston says "Yup, he's in our system, send up the call", but Metro Mobile/CT CAN'T send up the call, since there are no trunks to do this on! Thus, the call "dies". It can't get all the way to Boston, since there are no voice trunks, but the DMX/data channel/control system thinks that I am in Boston, and thus does not pay attention to my "no answer transfer" (*71) instructions since according the the data channel, there has been no final disposition to the call while in Boston. IE, I can either answer the call, in which case *71/no-answer-transfer is not necessary, or if I fail to answer after "x" rings, then *71 kicks in. In this case, since Boston doesn't send back info as to the final disposition of the call, Metro Mobile/CT can't know what to do next, and thus the call just terminates in Boston. This also explains why when I turn my phone OFF in Boston, everything else works fine. Since the phone can't be "audited"/queried while it is off, the Boston system says "Hmm..he's not here...", and the call is never sent up to Boston, so it can't get stuck there. Thus, if you turn your phone off in Boston, callers will get the standard "Mobile you have called in unavailable" message, or your *71/no-answer-transfer will work just fine. In order to avoid this, use *72, ie, unconditional call forwarding. Since call-forwarding (*71, *72, and *73, but NOT *74) works in Boston now, when you are sure you are in the Boston system, just issue a *72 to whatever number you desire (your voicemail for example), and the call won't even attempt to go to Boston. In my opinion this is a pretty clumsy way to deal with the situation, but it will work. If you don't want to pay Metro the $2 for *72 call-forwarding, the only other alternative is to turn off your phone while in Boston. Metro Mobile/CT said that they realize that this is a problem, and that they are planning a DMX to Boston. Mike stated "We just haven't sat down and talked to them about it..." Well, it would seem that with part of the system already in place (the data channel), and the problems that this causes some customers (ie, ME!), they may want to start talking pretty soon! Note that Boston customers should have the same problems when they roam into the Connecticut or Western Mass systems, and can use exactly the same solutions. As I noted earlier, I'd be very interested to hear from any Cell One/Boston people about their experiences with this. Cell One/ Boston customers can now also get calls via the CT roam ports while in their home (Boston) system by forwarding no-answer- transfer to themselves. Since Cell One / Boston also has a "free off-peak airtime" plan, Cell One/Boston customers may even be able to forward their car calls to some local number, and have callers in CT and Western Mass call toll-free! (There is a bit more to it than just that, but that will have to wait for another post, if there is any interest. I am quite curious as to the legalities involved here ... would this not be a de-facto LD connection? I don't see any legal problems, since cross-LATA paging and call-forwarding is allowed presently, but am I missing something? It's not MTS or anything..) If all this sounds familiar to you, well, you are an attentive reader! About a year ago I posted something VERY similar to this, dealing with GTE/San Francisco and calls which seemed to "die" or terminate in a re-order when I roamed outside of the GTE area, mainly to Sacramento. This was in August, 1990, and the pattern was essentially the same. If I roamed into Sacramento, callers would get a re-order, and not get my GTE Voicemail, or get forwarded to any *71 number. If I turned my phone off, everything would work fine. If I called my GTE/SF number, I would see the phone dim and hear it click, indicating that a call was about to come through, but it would never ring. Etc, etc, etc. Well, GTE finally told me in September that what caused this was their new "Interactive Roaming" system, which is now activated by dialing *28. Although the signalling system was in place, the voice channels (ie: trunks) were not, and the call could't be passed along to the Pac*Tel/Sac system. I asked "Oh, so is this a DMX set-up that you are implementing state-wide?", and GTE said "A DMX, what's that?". So I figured it was something else, and left it at that. Howeover, with this almost IDENTICAL experience with Metro Mobile and Cell One/Boston, I began to wonder if in actuality the "Interactive Roaming" system in CA is simply a DMX between all the "B" systems there. Applying "my" DMX test, I called my 415-710-xxxx number in San Francisco. At the same time I called the Sacramento roam port (916-539-7626). While my 415-710 number was trying to locate me (during the "clicks" -- you must do this during the clicks), I entered my 415-710 number into the Sacramento port, wouldn't you know it, it was busy! I then tried this with all the other CA "B" systems, same thing! And, of course, when I called a roam port and my 415-710 number was not "busy" (ie, being called by me), all the other roam ports just rang and eventually said "Your mobile is not available". And get this: When I activated FMR (Follow Me Roaming) outside of the CA/Nevada system, calls to the roam ports all resulted in a re-order. Apparently, the CA roam ports will not "process" call-forwarding like the "A" ports back East. (FMR is basically call-forwarding as far as your home switch is concerned). Finally, the only port that did not return a busy or re-order was the Las Vegas 702-370 port. Although I have never been in that system (only Reno, which "works" like the rest of the CA ports), I hear it also works with the CA-Interactive/*28 system. Is this so? If the answer is "yes", I wonder why it responds differently when compared to the Reno and other CA ports...? Ok, so that's all straightened out, right? The new switch in Rhode Island is passing "data" back and forth between Boston and CT, which causes problems similar to what CA-based systems had before THEY added some voice channels. Simple, eh? :) That's what I thought! However, you may recall that friend of mine, Scott, who called me through the Boston port and started all this? Well, his brother called me through the Philadelphia roam port (215-350-7626), and wouldn't you know it, it is doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT BOSTON IS DOING!!! That's right, Metro Mobile CT and RI customers who roam into Philly will be able to use call-forwarding and all, but people calling them directly (NOT through the Philly roam port) will not get anything but a re-order! (unless the phone is turned "off"). But Philly has no "intermediate" switch which can cause this! Why is this happening in Philly as well, when there are TWO systems between Philly and Connecticut: the New York system and the Cell One/South Jersey system. (NY is DMXed to CT, Cell One/South Jersey is DMXed to Philly and NY. But this has been the case for a while, yet this stuff with the Philly "DMX" is very recent.) Moreover, this "pre-DMX" doesn't work is South Jersey, ie, Cell One/South Jersey totally ignores any call-forwarding requests, etc, and this system is BETWEEN CT and Philly! Moreover, Philly, like the Boston, will "pay attention" to any call forwarding you have previously set. Thus, Philly callers can reach a land phone (via cellphone call-forwarding) free of charge to them, just by using the Philly roam port. Thus one last question: If all this is a result of a lack of "voice" trunks, how does call-forwarding work? I mean, I dial 215-350-7626, enter a Metro Mobile number, and get some land number. How does this work? If Metrophone/Phil actually dialing out the "forward to" number, thus not needing any special "voice" trunks to connect with Mertro Mobile/CT? In any event, all this means is that "Mike the Roam Coordinator" will have some more questions on Monday! :) I dunno why all these systems are suddenly acting, well, "connected" ... perhaps Nationlink is finally coming to the East coast? I *think* it works like FMR, but maybe it is more ... errr ... "interactive", thus requiring greater connectivity? For those of you not asleep by now, I'll post any further information should Metro Mobile provide it. "Enjoy" the new features in Philly! Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 23:58 EDT From: Macy Hallock Subject: Re: Cellular Tracking (was New Boston/Conn. DMX) Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales Medina, Ohio USA +1 216 722 3053 [ most of long and interesting cellular discussion deleted ] >> I took the phone indoors, and saw what was happening. When someone >> called me directly (no roam ports), the call would seem to come to >> Boston, my phone would "click" as it always does before it starts >> ringing, (letting the system know it is active?), yet not ring. > This is fascinating: your phone "clicks" but doesn't ring? There is > an "audit" order in the data stream sent from the land to the mobile > station. Several phones cause the audio amp for the speaker in the handset base to click softly when the phone transmits. I suspect its a spike from the power supply picked up by the audio amp IC when the power supply load increases suddenly during transmit. The phone may be receiving a poll, but local switch software may be inhibiting the ring ... My sources at Mobilnet tell me that roamer problems in multi-switch networks have been a problem on incoming calls. The Motorola EMX's they use will search all the machines in a local net, but often management does not want this to happen ... even though incoming calls for local mobiles do function this way. Seems as though setting up the software to restrict the polling for incoming roamer calls to operate on the local switch only is not very straightforward and has caused confusion. I have seen several phones that have a diagnostic mode that gives very interesting info during operation. Info like channel number, mode, transmit power, etc. as I recall. I have a Novatel and Panasonic that will do this. The nicest I ever say was a high end Motorola unit, now discontinued, that was in use by some Mobilnet personnel (6000XL?) ... the mode in that set was made for cellco use and was actually quite useful. 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] ------------------------------ From: Sharon Crichton Subject: Re: Emergency Calls Date: 6 Jul 91 17:15:56 GMT Reply-To: sharonc%meaddata@uunet.uu.net Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH Since the Moderator is trying to close out some threads, I thought I'd post this little tidbit on the subject of emergency calls and operator break-ins. I just received my Ohio Bell bill this week and guess what I found on one of the many sheets inside: An offer to help you break-in to a call for only $1.60! AND no mention of it having to be an emergency situation. Here's the text straight from my bill (except that it's in ALL CAPS on the bill): (miscellaneous information begins the page) ****** Information About Local Calling From Ohio Bell ****** Do you need to talk to someone, and the line is busy? For $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 the option to hang up, freeing the line for you to make your call to them. (more information on the page) Well, at least they say it's an "option" to decide whether to give up the line. But no mention of emergency situations or of consequences to be paid if the person you're calling thinks it's an emergency and gives up the line and you're just some sleazy telemarketer who wants to sell time share condos. Sharon Crichton CE-SAS sharonc%meaddata@uunet.uu.net Mead Data Central sharonc@meaddata.com P.O. Box 933 uunet!meaddata!sharonc Dayton, OH 45401 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 21:12 PDT From: John Higdon Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Modem Line Problems Eric Dittman writes: > I had earlier checked and both lines are on the same switch (a 1AESS). > The local company is SWB. Has anyone else seen this happen? I'm > assuming that the switch dropped the line since the call was too long, > but if this is the case, this is a new modification as I've had eight and > ten hour calls before. There is no reason to suspect that "the call was too long". In all of my telephonery experience, I have only encountered one situation where the CO timed a call for the purpose of overtime disconnection. In 1966, there was the Lee Telephone Company in Martinsville, Virginia. The outfit was your typical small-town, under-facilitied, excuse for telephone service. Just outside of town, eight-plus party lines were the norm. I have no idea what horrors were to be found in the COs, but the instruments (remember when telco supplied those and you were to use no others?) were all AE. On two party lines, spotter springs told the CO who to bill. But I digress. The nearby town of Collinsville (also "served" by Lee) was a local call. In the telephone directory was a notice that declared, in essence, "Due to limited telephone company facilities, calls between Martinsville and Collinsville must be limited to five minutes. At the end of three minutes you will hear a warning tone. At the end of five minutes, you will be cut off." And you certainly were. Teenagers had very sore dialing fingers. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 22:33:21 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: A Few Days Off Line The next *regularly scheduled* issue of the Digest will be over the weekend of July 13-14. If some last minute stuff arrives, I will put out an issue July 7. Any urgent news items for the net will go out in an interim issue during the week ahead if necessary. Let's begin with all new topics next week, okay? PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #523 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21684; 10 Jul 91 1:22 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21994; 9 Jul 91 23:43 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13331; 9 Jul 91 22:33 CDT Date: Tue, 9 Jul 91 22:01:15 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #524 BCC: Message-ID: <9107092201.ab06579@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Jul 91 22:00:45 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 524 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson DSC and Phone Outages [Wall Street Journal via Charlie Mingo] Keith Spicer Returns as CRTC Chairman [Nigel Allen] My Own Phone Booth!! [Larry Rachman] Operational Definitions [Dr. M.Q. Dracks] CLID Chipset Information Needed [Doctor Math] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Charlie Mingo Date: 09 Jul 91 00:37:12 Subject: DSC and Phone Outages Excerpted: July 8, 1991 {Wall Street Journal}, at B2 DSC FACES CHALLENGE DUE TO PHONE GLITCH DSC COMMUNICATIONS Corp. is known for making telephone equipment that lets people communicate better. Now the company's future may hinge on how well it communicates with its customers and investors. The Plano, Texas, maker of telephone switching and signalling equipment last week became the focus of an intense investigation into a series of interruptions of local phone service in areas served by BELL ATLANTIC Corp. and PACIFIC TELESIS Group. In each case the problems involved signalling eqiopment and software made by DSC. On Friday, DSC, Bell Atlantic and Pacific Telesis Group said in a joint statement they had duplicated the crisis in a laboratory and DSC had developed a software change, which has been installed, to prevent the problem from recurring. "What we found was the cause of the avalanche," said John W. Seaholtz, Bell Atlantic's vice-president for technology and information services. Mr. Seaholz said a variety of relatively minor events, including a malfunctioning circuit board and a computer clock that was out of sync, resulted in a malfunction of a DSC Signal Transfer Point or STP, a computer that routes calls swiftly through the complex telehone network. -- Avalanche of Messages Instead of sending a few messages indicating trouble, the computer sent an avalanche of messages that jammed the telephone network, disrupting phone service. Since the software fix was installed, Mr. Seaholz said, the DSC computers still overreacted to "maintenance events" but they didn't shut down and the problem didn't spread. The companies today will begin a national test on the signalling system to determine the root cause of the service disruptions. "These things are very complex," Mr. Seaholz said, "You have multiple processors and multiple offices." The tests will try to determine what happens when the signalling system must cope with both heavy telephone traffic and a maintenance problem such as a faulty circuit board. DSC's new software as well as older versions will be tested. Still, DSC isn't taking any responsibility for the troubles that have the telecommunications industry in an uproar. The joint ststement Friday avoided any mention of who is to blame for the system malfunction. Questions to Bell Atlantic about DSC's part in the outages or the investigation were referred to DSC. DSC officials didn't return phone calls. Whether or not the failures are eventually laid at DSC's door, the company has much to lost if it hasn't handled the crisis deftly. Even if the problem tur ns out to be with industry standards, as DSC has hinted, rather than with its equipment or software, analysts say customers might be reluctant to buy the signalling system, which accounted for about 12% of its 1990 sales. The publicity alone "could plague them for a long time," said Eric Zimits, analyst with Rauscher Pierce Refsnes Inc. in Dallas. And if the failure is blamed on DSC's equipment, it could also affect sales of the company's other products. Wednesday, DSC told analysts in a conference call that it had dispatched 200 technicians to investigate the problem and had created seven internal task forces to root out possible problems. The move was widely seen as an attempt to temper investor fears that a glitch in its equipment or software may have caused the Baltimore/Washington area, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh to lose local phone service for several hours in recent days. San Fransisco twice lost service, but just for a few minutes, because it was closely monitoring its eqipment and rerouted traffic around the faulty computer. But until the cause of the outages was proven, the company made it clear that it was unwilling to take the rap. DSC, angered that Bell Atlantic officials indicated that DSC was at fault, insisted on issuing a joint news release that telephone companies and all their suppliers were working together to resolve the problem. In Washington, losing its service for most of June 26 came as a shock to the system. The Federal Communications Commission scheduled an unusual closed-door meeting for tomorrow to consider "possible investigatory or enforcement action." And on Capitol Hill, the House Government Operations Committee scheduled a hearing Wednesday to investigate the network breakdowns. When phone service is "disrupted on such a large scale and in so many different places, it raises some pretty serious questions," said Rep. Bob Wise (D., W.Va.), whose district was affected by the June 26 phone outage. "We just want to get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible and see what can be done to prevent these situations from reoccurring." At the heart of the probe, clearly, are DSC's computers and software which make telephone equipment more intelligent. By one estimate, these products were expected to ring up sales gains of 35% a year for the next few years; DSC recorded about $60 million in 1990 sales of signalling systems and recently installed its 100th system, making it one of the nations' largest makers of such equipment. Five of the seven Baby Bells have purchased DSC's equipment and software to use Signalling System 7, the generic name for the latest signalling system, which is also made by AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH Co. and others. The system speeds dialling by beginning to route calls through the network even as the caller dials the phone number, instead of waiting until the caller is finished dialling. The systems also allow telephone companies to offer service that identify the caller and trace calls. Analysts said they can't estimate what kind of impact the current troubles may have on DSC's results, but the stock market apparantly is concerned. While DSC's stock was unchanged Friday in over-the-counter trading, it fell $.50 from Tuesday and $1 from Monday. -- The Digital Switch Saga The switching mystery marks another setback for the 15-year-old company, a onetime high-flyer that has had more than its share of troubles. Founded in 1976 as Digital Switch Corp. to develop new technology for long distance companies, the company took six years to roll out its first product. In those early years, the company relied on a couple of customers and earnings were erratic. In 1985, DSC was forced to restate a year and a half of financial results because it booked sales that customers said they didn't have to honor. The company signed a consent agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1989 that required it to restate 1984-85 results. Last year, it settled a related class-action lawsuit for $30 million. [Discussion of past financial results omitted.] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 91 02:31:49 EDT From: Nigel Allen Subject: Keith Spicer Returns as CRTC Chairman Keith Spicer, former chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, has been reappointed to that position. He replaces David Colville, a former Nova Scotia government telecommunications policy official, who remains a member of the Commission. {Playback} magazine, a trade newspaper for the broadcasting and production industries, reported that broadcasters are unhappy with Spicer's return. It quoted the president of the Canadian Assoication of Broadcasters, Michael McCabe, as calling Spicer's approach to CRTC matters "totally unpredictable". McCabe said broadcasters were happy with David Colville. "David brought an orderly and knowledgeable approach to the work of the commission." Spicer had been serving as chairman of the Citizen's Forum, a committee which asked ordinary Canadians about their thoughts on Canada's constitution and future. While his reappointment took place July 1st, {Playback} said he is not expected to return to work at the CRTC before Labour Day. I am not sure what the telecommunications industry thinks of Spicer and Colville, nor what the various consumer and user groups that regularly intervene in telecommunications matters before the CRTC think of either individual. However, participants in telecommunications proceedings are less likely to want to offend the CRTC or individual commissioners by using terms like "totally unpredictable". In other Canadian telecommunications regulatory news, the CRTC hearings into long distance competition ended Friday, July 5. Lawyers for the various parties will be submitting final written argument over the next month or two, and then the CRTC will spent months and months thinking about its decision. Don't expect a decision before 1992. There may well be a split decision, which is relatively uncommon with the CRTC. Nigel Allen UUCP: utzoo!pnet91!ndallen INET: ndallen@pnet91.cts.com ------------------------------ Date: 07 Jul 91 17:25:14 EDT From: Larry Rachman <74066.2004@compuserve.com> Subject: My Own Phone Booth!! Recent comments by our esteemed Moderator describing phone booths have prompted me to tell my story, and post a question. A month or two ago, my wife found an ad in the local Pennysaver for a 'Phone booth and directory stand'. I investigated and, indeed, found one of the classic wood and glass booths for sale at the Northport Sweet Shoppe. Northport (NY) is one of those towns that wants to keep that 1950's image and, through a combination of community support and zoning restrictions, has more or less managed to do so. The Sweet Shoppe looks essentially like it must have 50 years ago, but the owner had decided to get rid of the booth because '...the kids hang out by it all night, and anyway, I need room for some more tables'. Anyway, the booth is more or less as our Moderator described. It must weigh close to 200 lbs (three of us had a hard time lifting it). It bears a label proclaiming 'Manufactured for Western Electric by the Drexel Furniture Company', and shows a manufacturing date of 6-62 (probably one of the last). Sadly, the phone was missing, but the old 'Subscriber Set' (ringer and network) was still installed under the shelf. The termination for the incoming phone line is located above the fan grill in the ceiling, accessable by removing two screws (Ahhh.. for the days when we could all be that trusting.) The fan works, but just barely (also as I rember such things). Also included was an art deco-ish TELEPHONE sign, made of space-age flourescent plexiglas. What puzzles me about this find is that the owner alluded to the fact that the booth was owned by him, but the phone was installed/ maintained by the phone company. Can anyone out there confirm or refute this? The phone now resides on one of those wall shelf units, and the booth was in storage when I found it. What I'd really like to get ahold of is one of those booths with the curved glass sliding door. I rember seeing one at a rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike, probably in the mid '60s. Larry Rachman, WA2BUX 74066.2004@compuserve.com FAX: 516-427-8705 ------------------------------ From: "Dr. M.Q. Dracks" Date: Tue, 09 Jul 91 16:57:08 EDT Organization: Enigma Research Global Subject: Operational Definitions Since recently, and no doubt again in the future, there has been much talk about "hackers", or what actually constitutes one, I present a "standard definition list" of terms; operational definitions, that is. I suggest them and other jargon words for better understanding of the concepts in play here and increased accuracy. HACKER- This word embodies a concept that exists in almost every field, be it of the sciences or not. The word itself is the jargon-word of computerists. Essentially, this term applies to someone, who by way of computers, is innovative, creative, dedicated, and experimentive. Someone who is interested in WHY a system works, and perhaps how to go beyond it, or modify/use it for newer ideas. This does *not* mean someone who wishes to use their talent or ability for questionable purposes. Some Hackers do use their skills that way, many do not. Like in any field ... HARDCORE HACKER- A very dedicated, specific Hacker. Not necessarily someone who is obsessed, but definitely an individual who goes beyond "enjoying their work". It is their center in Life. BREAKER- These are the people who use computer knowledge or skills for questionable purposes. Those who would break into your computer system. *Not all Breakers are Hackers!* A novice computist could be following a list of instructions, just as a regular computist could be using their experience questionably. However, a Hacker who goes too far in curiosity and doesn't heed common sense or caution also falls into this catagory. (CRACKER)- This term is being used by some to differentiate from Hacker and Breaker. I would recommend against its use, since it is similar to the word "Crackist" [listed below], which has been in use for awhile ... really a matter of preference, but ... CRACKIST- Essentially, the pre-cursor of "Hacker", but more specific. This term refered to Hackers of not computer SYSTEMS, but software copy-protections schemes: only. CRACKISTS have been around since at least 1980, and the issue of software protection peaked around the same time as the "Computer Age", the peak years of 1985. Again, not all Crackists are Breakers. Now, those Crackists who were also Distributors [of copies of copy-protected programs], or non-Crackist Distributors, could perhaps be questioned. Crackists are Hackers. They would want to understand how disk formats worked, protection schemes as well, and would crack/break/unprotect/ deprotect their own personal copies of programs [allowed by law, e.g. to back up one's copy]. PIRATE- Those who "pirate" wares [computer SOFTware. Distributors. Takers. These are the folks, along with Breakers, who for whatever their reasons, are what create issues of computer software/ system security]. PHREAKERS- The word comes from the concept of "free call". A 'freaker' was someone [a Hacker] who would discover something neat [like a backdoor] in the phone system. Most of the original Phreakers were mostly interested in how to manipulate the phone system, such as to make free phone [fone] calls ... Breakers. Lots of "boxes" in a rainbow series [i.e. the infamous Blue box] were created. "Freaker" is not used at all. The word is Phreaker. FonePhreak is out of use. Today, Phreaker refers to anyone who is interested in the workings of telephone systems and communication. It is a specific term, like Crackist. If you USE that knowledge you are phreakING. Not all Phreakers are Hackers, and some of course are Breakers. Hence, some terms. Again, I suggest them as to "standardize" at least the reference to certain concepts, as relating to the computer field. It is a rough [rushed] draft, of course, but I do think it gets some good terms. Dr. M. Dracks ------------------------------ From: Doctor Math Date: Sat, 06 Jul 91 15:32:33 EST Organization: Department of Redundancy Department Subject: CLID Chipset Information Needed Someone posted the manufacturer and chip numbers for a chipset that would decode CLID information. I wrote it down at the time, but the information has been filed in a "messy desk" type of filing system, and now appears to have wandered off on its own. If someone could drop me a pointer to the aforementioned company, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #524 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25620; 10 Jul 91 2:29 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22567; 10 Jul 91 0:51 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21994; 9 Jul 91 23:43 CDT Date: Tue, 9 Jul 91 22:38:35 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #525 BCC: Message-ID: <9107092238.ab20133@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Jul 91 22:38:30 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 525 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Do Passive Repeater Antennas Work For Handheld Phones? [Stephen Fleming] Cost of Providing Services vs. Actual Charge [Arun Kandappan] Telemarketing: Fight Back! [Dave Barrett] AIN Product Information Needed [John Adams] How To Start Up Your Personal 900 Number [Patton M. Turner] Ethernet/T1 Gear Wanted [Joe Van Andel] What is an OPX? [Tad Cook] We Need Your Voice! [Yeshwant K. Muthusamy via Tad Cook] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: portal!cup.portal.com!fleming@uunet.uu.net Subject: Do Passive Repeater Antennas Work For Handheld Phones? Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 05:58:21 PDT I own one. Cost me $45. As far as I can tell, the main benefits are the neat aesthetics of having a cellular antenna on my car :-) Dead spots are still dead spots, stretches with static are still stretches with static, and the received signal strength indicated by my handheld is unchanged. On the other hand, I know people who swear by these things and say they are absolutely wonderful. (That's why I bought one.) So -- try it, but get a money-back guarantee. [I didn't. :-( ] Stephen Fleming fleming@cup.portal.com CI$: 76354,3176 BIX: srfleming ------------------------------ From: arun@tinton.ccur.com (Arun Kandappan) Subject: Cost of Providing Services vs. Actual Charge Organization: Concurrent Computer Corporation, Tinton Falls, NJ Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1991 16:09:16 GMT NJ Bell still charges $.99 for a month of Touch-Tone. Interestingly enough, one of their leaflets says that one can use Touch-Tone for other purposes (eg. accessing the bank accounts), but you will have to dial pulse. Does it really cost them $.99 to provide this service? Why not bundle it as part of the basic service? The next item is the Call Waiting charge. It is $4.50/month. My basic charge is $18.xx. Is it really that expensive to provide Call Waiting or is it just because of a monopoly ? Are these charges similar around the nation ? arun ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 91 19:32:07 mdt From: Dave Barrett Subject: Telemarketing: Fight Back! Are you tired of receiving unsolicited "junk" telephone calls? Bob Bulmash was. He has become the telemarketer's worst nightmare by forming an organization to fight back. His group, Private Citizen Inc., instructs its members how to get as much information as possible out of junk callers. Then the organization sends out an "offer" to each of the telemarketing companies: "I am unwilling to allow your free use of my time and telephone ... I will accept junk calls for a $100 fee, due within 30 days of such use ... Your junk call will constitute your agreement to the reasonableness of my fee." Members report that junk calls drop by up to 80%. For the remaining few calls, many have had pay up the $100. When they don't, frequently they lose in small claims court. One judge ruled against Plan-O-Soft Water Conditioning Company saying "I was called twice during yesterday's football game by people like you." Although Mr. Bulmash's organization is run out of his home in his spare time, it has created a well-known presence in the telemarketing industry. "Everyone in the industry knows Bob Bulmash," sighs Kenneth Griffen, past head of the American Telemarketing Association. The backlash from the 70% of people who consider junk calls an "invasion of privacy" has attracted attention of lawmakers as well. The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, chaired by Edward Markey, is already considering a bill, HR 1304. This bill would establish a national "NO JUNK CALL LIST" and require telephone companies to inform their customers ways to get their names off of telemarketing lists, but would exempt non-profit, or "survey" junk calls though. The bill also includes provisions for rapid disconnect of auto-dial recorded message players (ADRMPs) or prevent them from dialing randomly or sequentially. As for FAX calls, HR 1304 would require FAX advertisements to specify the date and time, identify the firm calling, and include a telephone number. Automatic dialers would be banned from calling pagers and cellular phones. HR 1304 unanimously passed the House Subcommittee on May 9, 1991, but the bill still has a long way to go. A similar bill, HR 1304, was passed by the house but was defeated last year in the Senate. Clearly there is a lot at stake. Eugene Kordahl, president of National Telemarketing Inc. says the bill could "do serious harm to the telemarketing companies" because he claims the database would cost at least $2.5 million. In the last decade, the industry has grown from one billion dollars to an estimated $60 billion. A large coalition is being put together by The Direct Marketing Association which has already proudly announced that it raised over $250,000 in less than three months to fight restrictive telemarketing legislation. To find out more contact: Private Citizen, Inc. Box 233 Naperville, Illinois 60566 (708) 393-1555 Forms for joining Private Citizen are available by sending e-mail to me. I will post them if demand warrants. Dave Barrett (barrett@boulder.Colorado.EDU) ------------------------------ From: john adams Date: 9 Jul 1991 7:59 EDT Subject: AIN Product Information Needed Dear Pat: As a new netter, I feel the telecom followers may be able to help me with information I am seeking with reference to various vendors network products (STP's, SCP's, SSP's, etc) that support the Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN). Concurrent with the current flap about DSC and the errant STP's around the country, we are attempting to compile as much publicly available technical (pseudo-marketing) information about AIN and IN network elements as possible. Upon collecting this information, I will post the inventory (annotated where appropriate) to this newsgroup. I realize that there are many consultants willing and able to do this for us for a fee, but I'd rather deal directly with knowledgeable representatives of the equipment vendors. The purpose of all of this, as you may have guessed, is to supply condensations of this information to our clients, the Local Exchange Carriers (LEC's) and their operating entities to assist them in their business. If this info is currently in some other Bellcore person's hands, please pass their name along to me (There are more than 8,000 people here, most of whom I don't know :-). Thanks in advance for your help. Jack (John) Adams | Bellcore New Jersey / RRC 4A-253 (908) 699-3447 {Voice} | (908) 699-0231 {Facsimile} jadams@nvuxl.bellcore.com | kahuna@attmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Jul 91 15:26:08 CDT From: "Patton M. Turner" Subject: How to Start Up Your Personal 900 Number I found the following notice on a bulletin board in the Electrical Engineering building: [Begin Quoted Text] PHONE AMERICA (TM) Todays Fastest Growing HI-TECH Income Opportunity THE MONEY MAKING MACHINE of the Exploding "1-900 Phone Industry" A GROUND FLOOR OPPORTUNITY TO EARN $5000 AND MORE PER MONTH By going into Partnership with the world's largest public utility; the phone company: Now you can be part of the NATION"S MOST PROFITABLE AND FREQUENTALY CALLED 900 PHONE PROGRAM. Phone America's (TM) FCC Approved "800/900 Business Opportunity Showcase" (1-900-446-7499 Ext.________) [The ext #, 1056, is rubber stamped in the block - Pat] You can begin _CA$HING_IN_IMMEDIATELY_-NO INVESTMENT to get started (see other side for getting your 900 number) =Phone America (TM) is part of a Million Dollar MCI 800/900 Audiotext = =Facilities Managment Center and has been featured on CNN. Phone America (TM)= =strictly complies with all FCC rules, regulations, and requirements. This = =national program is _unlike_ any other 900 PROGRAM or INCOME OPPORTUNITY = =you've ever seen! When calls are placed to your specially issued 900 # = = YOU RECIEVE $12.69 FOR EVERY CALL RECEIVED!! = = THIS NATIONAL 900 LINE OFFERS YOU_UNLIMITED_EARNING_POTENTIAL!!! = = = = 13 CALLS A DAY EARNS YOU AN INCREDIBLE $5,000 PER MONTH! = = JUST 8 CALLS PER DAY EARNS YOU $3000.00 PER MONTH = = YOU RECIEVE A MONTHLY 900 REVENUE CHECK = = 72 HOURS FROM THE TIME MCI REMITS YOUR 900 PROCEDES TO PHONE AMERICA (TM) = BEST OF ALL * NO SELLING INVOLVED * NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY * NO INVESTIMENT REQUIRED * NO EQUIPIMENT NEEDED * NO INVENTORY TO PURCHASE * NO BILLING OR COLLECTION HASSLES * WORK 3-5 HOURS PER WEEK * NO LICENSE NEEDED Phone America's (TM) MCI Audiotext Facilities Center, a state ot the art 800/900 Voice Fiber Optics Network, automaticaly processes and computes all calls made to your 900 program. PHONE AMERICA (TM) provides you witha weekly "call detail report" so you can keep track of your 900 profits. * HOW CALLERS BENEFIT WHEN THEY CALL YOUR * * PHONE AMERICA (TM) "800/900 BUSSINESS OPORTUNITY SHOWCASE" 900 LINE * * People who dial your Phone America (TM) 900 number benefit in many ways * * They too can take advantage of the same opportunity to make money promoting* * and advertising the PHONE AMERICA (TM) "800/900 Business Opportunity * * Showcase" 900 line. When they call they'll be issued a Phone America (TM) * * 900 number. IN ADDITION, they'll Discover how they can Capitalize from a * * variety of "direct response marketing opportunities" such as T.V. Marketing* * (selling products on T.V. like the Abdominizer, EZ Glider, MASE 2000, Books* * & Videos $ The Contour Chair using toll free 800 operators and VISA/MC * * order processing) ... profit from 800 and 900 Phone Programs of their own * * (sports, financial, entertainment, and news applications) ... access to * * Cable T.V. Advertising produced and aired for $24 per spot in major markets* * (ESPN, CNN, TBS, Discovery Channel, HBO, USA Network)... * [end quoted text] The flyer goes on to say they will sell you mailing lists, and flyers such as this one. The 900 number with extension number is printed twice on the back, a long with a small notice that $24.95 will appear on your next phone bill. The back has FAQ's one of which is: [begin quoted text] Q. How do I get paid? A. As a Phone America (TM) 900 proprietor you earn $12.69 for EVERY CALL placed to your 900 number. MCI 900 guarantees all BILLING, COLLECTIONS, AND PAYMENTS. You receive a monthly 900 revenue check 72 hours from the time MCI remits 900 proceedes to Phone America (TM). There are no limits on the number of calls your 900 system can receive. You are responsable for filling your own taxes. [end quoted text] They also will send you an "Application for FREE MCI 800 Business Line". Comments? Patton Turner KB4GRZ pturner@eng.auburn.edu [Moderator's Note: Yes, I have a comment. This is one of the rottenest scams yet! You've all heard of chain letters, I assume ... send a dollar to each name on the list, add your name at the bottom, etc... well this is almost the same thing on the phone. Pay for a 900 call to learn how to convince other people to make 900 calls who in turn will try to convince others to call, etc. It makes great sense for the folks at the head of the list. :) Bad news! Don't waste money! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Joe Van Andel Subject: Ethernet/T1 Gear Wanted Date: 7 Jul 91 20:24:17 GMT Reply-To: Joe Van Andel Organization: Atmospheric Technology Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO Help! We are in desperate need of 3Com IB/3 or IB/3000 Ethernet bridges for a short term (6 weeks ) scientific project. Anyone who has gear that we could rent, please contact me. If anyone knows of a rental company that specializes in comm gear, please let me know. We are also interested in Verilink Connect T1 DSUs Anyone who has sucessfully attached CSU/DSUs from different manufacturers, please contact me as well. Please contact Joe VanAndel or Mike Siedelberg (call collect). 407 255 1702 or 407 255 1866. Thanks very much. Joseph VanAndel Internet:vanandel@ncar.ucar.edu NCAR Mail Stop MAR P.O Box 3000 Fax: 303-497-2044 Boulder, CO 80307-3000 Voice: 303-497-2071 ------------------------------ Subject: What is an OPX? Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 14:11:47 PDT From: Tad.Cook@ssc.uucp Irving_Wolfe@happym.wa.com asks: > What exactly IS an "off-premises extension" anyway? I have a phone > system that claims to support them (with an add-in card) but the > manuals fail to give any idea what one is. An OPX (Off Premises Extension) from a key system or PBX is simply a case where you have one of your telephones located some distance away from the PBX. It could be in the next building, down the block, or around the world. The way this is usually done is to do a conversion to a standard two wire connection with an adaptor from the key system or PBX manufacturer, (if it is not already two wire) and then hook that to a device that boosts the ringing and the DC signalling to drive the off premise loop, which is just a dry cable pair. Proctor (206-881-7000 in Redmond, WA) makes the 46222 OPX/Long Loop Adaptor which can do this, and it is registered on the output side for connection to a telco provided OL13C circuit, if you cannot provide your own cable to the OPX location. (An OL13 is just a dry cable pair, or telco arranged facilities over a longer distance that LOOKS electrically like a short cable pair). Tad Cook Seattle, WA Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA Phone: 206/527-4089 MCI Mail: 3288544 Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad or, tad@ssc.UUCP or, kt7h@polari.uucp or, 3288544@mcimail.com ------------------------------ From: yeshwant@ogicse.cse.ogi.edu (Yeshwant K Muthusamy) Subject: We Need Your Voice! Date: 28 Jun 91 03:20:37 GMT Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR [Moderator's Note: This was forwarded to the Digest by Tad Cook. PAT] WE NEED YOUR VOICE!! at The Center for Spoken Language Oregon Graduate Institute If you are a NATIVE speaker of one of the following languages: (American or British) English Korean Farsi Mandarin Chinese French Spanish German Tamil Japanese Vietnamese We need your help in building a multi-language database of speech recorded over the TELEPHONE. This database is to be used for my PhD thesis research on automatic language identification. Within the Portland metropolitan area: PLEASE CALL 690-1012 For non-Portlanders, we have set up a TOLL-FREE line that is open round-the-clock: PLEASE CALL 1-800-441-1077 You will need a touch-tone phone for this call. A pre-recorded message in your native language will guide you through a recording session. Please respond to the prompts in your native language only. The entire call will take about five minutes. The speech that you provide will be used for research purposes only. If you have any questions or comments, or would like more information about this project, call Yeshwant Muthusamy at (503) 690-1431. Please pass on this message to others at your site who do not have net access. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP! Yeshwant Muthusamy Internet: yeshwant@cse.ogi.edu Center for Spoken Language UUCP: ...!ogicse!yeshwant Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology 19600 NW Von Neumann Drive Beaverton, OR 97006-1999 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #525 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29276; 10 Jul 91 3:44 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26120; 10 Jul 91 1:57 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22567; 10 Jul 91 0:43 CDT Date: Tue, 9 Jul 91 23:39:24 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #526 BCC: Message-ID: <9107092339.ab12784@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Tue, 9 Jul 91 23:39:05 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 526 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Where're the Fancy Phones? [J. Brad Hicks] Why Hotels Use AOS's [Jim Allard] "Intercept" Anti-Theft System (was Cellular Phone Jamming) [Gary Segal] NY Switch Change, and More DMX [Douglas Scott Reuben] Wanted - Telephone Conversation Recording Equipment [Mark Nakamura) Phone Directory Wanted For Paris, France [Stephen Ward] Where is the PC Dialog Company? [Brian Crawford] ISDN Boards With OS/2 Drivers Wanted [Christopher Boaro] Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia [Peter da Silva] Re: Telephone Outages, Really Out(R)ages [David E. Bernholdt] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 91 03:00 GMT From: "J. Brad Hicks" <0004073044@mcimail.com> Subject: Where're the Fancy Phones? I put a little time the other day into thinking about some of the spinoffs that are possible given Caller ID. So far as I know, none of the features that I thought of are available in current phones. Why not? OK, one of them probably is, partially. I would certainly hope that by now somebody's created an answering machine that not only audibly date/time stamps the message, but also includes the caller's phone number. But can we go one step further? (A) I want a combination phone/answering machine that instead of having a "messages waiting" light, spits out a standard adding machine tape. For each recorded call, print out the CLID, the date, the time, and ... a two-digit number, reused when it hits 99. Then I don't want a stupid "Play" and "Fast Forward" interface, I want two buttons: "Play Msg #" and "Erase Msgs." When I get home, I'll rip off the tape, skim it for any messages I care about, play those back, and then clear the memory. (It doesn't have to store one hundred messages; 20 sounds about right to me.) (B) Can I get an answering machine that lets me program in separate messages based on the caller's phone number? I needed this one the other night; I was stuck waiting for someone to get home and call me so I could tell them where we were going dancing. Needless to say, I don't want to tell the whole world that I'm out of the apartment. Why couldn't I program in one message for the world, and one message for phone number 314-###-####? (C) Can I get a phone that can be programmed to take special action based on the caller's phone number? Say, up to 50 numbers that it simply will not answer, and up to 50 numbers that get routed straight to the answering machine? (The very first thing I'd do: program it so that blocked CLID isn't even answered.) (D) If I can have option "C", can I save my programs and load different ones for different occasions? Add a 2" diskette drive, or, Eris forbid, even an old-fashioned tape drive writing to microcassette tapes. (E) Now let's try something really fancy. How about a phone with a SCSI port for an external CD-ROM drive ... and a CD-ROM with the major phone directories sorted by number, updates available on request for standard CD-ROM prices. Even with existing technology, then my phone ought to be able to display name and address right up there with the phone number for any listed number in any major city by no later than the second ring. Why not? According the courts, the data is free to anybody with an OCR scanner! How much would you pay for this phone? Well, for a phone from a reputable U.S. or Japanese manufacturer, with options A & B, I'd cheerfully pay $150 street price (1991 US dollars plus sales tax); above that, I'd really have to think about it. Add option C and I'll add another $40. Give me options A through D and I'll pay as much as $225 to *maybe* $250 street price. That's a lot of money for a home phone, but I really like the idea of getting to decide for whom the bell tolls, and who just gets recorded ... and the latter, with what prompts from me. With existing technology, cost of programming, and so forth, I do not forsee that even a year from now I'll be willing to pay what it would cost for all of the above, options A through E. Add in option E and you're probably looking at a street price of AT LEAST $800, and I will not pay that for a home phone. But CD-ROM drives are coming down, aren't they? And somebody's going to want to generate that database for other things, aren't they? Well? Where can I buy these things? ------------------------------ Date: 8 Jul 91 11:25:42 EDT (Mon) From: Jim.Allard@equi.com Subject: Why Hotels Use AOS's Some recent postings regarding hotels who dare to use an AOS company, "bottom feeders", made me think it time to explain their reasoning. In my life before telecommunications I was associated with a large, privately owned "economy" hotel chain (who shall remain nameless). In fact this AOS is a spin-off of that chain. We began our life serving only their hotels. The biggest reason for this was because the sleaze factor of the then existing AOS's was horrendous. I won't go into how we operate, since I did so at some length in a previous posting (All Aos's Aren't Scum). Hotels are in general small profit percentage operations whose focus (in addition to guest satisfaction) to maintain existence is tightly directed at the bottom line on a daily basis. Anything that can be done to add directly to that bottom line is carefully evaluated. Guest satisfaction must be the number one priority. Historically, hotels have taken it in the shorts to provide their guests with phone service. Pre-divestiture, big momma was not paying commissions, local service was extremely expensive, and it was impossible to recoup the cost of PBX equipment. Those of you who suggest the room rates should be increased to absorb the costs of phones are not part of the mainstream. The vast majority of guests are opposed to "hidden" charges and prefer to see exactly what they are paying for itemized on their bill. Charging for local calls (our chain doesn't) has indeed become "industry standard", and is a simple attempt at making one of the elements in the hotel self-supporting. I also can't figure out why the more expensive hotels charge for local service when the "budgets" generally don't. Probably supply and demand ... if you can get it, take it. Finally, I wonder how many of you would not do the same if you were the owner of the hotel in question. Profit is profit, and if you can improve it without adversely affecting guest satisfaction, I have no doubt you'd be at the front of the line. Remember, 95% of our guests have no problem with our AOS, and generally the loudest complainers tend to be AT&T employees, and/or people who just can't seem to stand change (some of whom are TELECOM Digest readers). The Bottom Feeder (Jim Allard--jim@equi.com). My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer. They are my own, for whatever they're worth. [Moderator's Note: Why do some hotel chains seem to feel that *everything* in the place has to be a profit center? Why don't they also charge to ride the elevator and put those little twenty-five cent coin locks on the stall doors of their public toilets? There was a time (and there are still a few around) when hotel managers admitted very frankly, "the switchboard does not make money, but we have to have it as a courtesy to our guests". And I am talking about a time when the boards were usually manual cordboard operations with a large payroll to staff them. Yet they managed to get by passing along exactly what telco charged them for calls -- no more, no less. And you are wrong about commissions: AT&T paid commissions, and reported 'time and charges' back to the hotel switchboard promptly after each call for billing purposes. Frequently several such reports were sent at once every few minutes by teletype from Bell to the hotel. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Gary Segal Subject: "Intercept" Anti-Theft System (was Cellular Phone Jamming) Date: 25 Jun 91 18:15:14 GMT Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division Dave Rubin writes: > The reason I ask is that a new automobile anti-theft system, called > "Intercept" has recently been introduced. This system uses a cellular > phone to alert a central station as to the whereabouts of the stolen > automobile, and the station can also send a signal to the car to turn > off its engine. johnp@gr.hp.com (John Parsons) writes: >> turn off its engine. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > And suppose this results in an accident? I'll bet the lawyers are > drooling over this one! The "Intercept" anti-theft system combines a Loran-C reciever with a cellular telephone and an auto alarm. When the alarm is triggered, the phone dials a central monitoring station and transmists its location as reported by the Loran-C reciever. From this information, the central station operator calls the police department in the area. The operator stays on the line with the police until the search has ended, during which time vehicle postion reports are given to the police. If the car is in a safe location to stop the engine, the engine; thus the lawyers can stop drooling. I think the system has one central station for the entire country. If you use the service, you have to pay a monthly service charge which is about $20. From the pictures I saw of the system, it appears that they have a farely sophisticated database of street maps, so they can tell the police which street the stolen car is on. Also, they may also call you first to ask if your car has really been stolen. I read about this system in one of the many magazines dedicated to auto sound and alarms (I don't remember which one). If more detail is needed, I can dig up the article and post sections. Gary Segal Motorola Inc. The opinios Computer Engineer Cellular Infrastructure Division expressed above segal@oscar.rtsg.mot.com 1501 W. Shure Drive are mine, not ..uunet!motcid!segal Arlington Heights, IL 60004 Motorola's. ------------------------------ Date: 7-JUL-1991 04:52:57.05 From: Douglas Scott Reuben Subject: NY Switch Change, and More DMX A couple of quick(er) notes: (1) The New York/NJ (Metro One) switch cutover is now scheduled for July 12th, at 11:59PM. (Friday) Metro Mobile/CT, Metro One/NY-NJ and Cell One/South Jersey customers may be affected, typically by slower response times from the switch, as well as by somewhat different signalling tones, all of which are supposed to be temporay. Metro One stated that they are going to have Customer Service open 24-hours a day during the changeover period, and they can be reached for free at either 611 from your mobile or at 800-242-7327 landline. (2) Re: My "Chapter II" post on the Metro Mobile "DMX": The Cell One/ Wilmington system (302-740-7626) will RING my phone (not just audit it) if one calls my mobile number directly. Call-forwarding, etc, will NOT work. No idea what is going on here...There are *3* systems between Connecticut and Wilmington where it WON'T ring, so what is so special about Wilmington? I'm making a chart of all of this to send to Metro Mobile (they like charts!:)) I'll send it to the Digest if it is short enough. Happy roaming (?), Doug dreuben@eagle.wesleyan.edu // dreuben@wesleyan.bitnet ------------------------------ From: nakamura@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Mark Nakamura) Subject: Wanted - Telephone Conversation Recording Equipment Organization: School of Education, U.C. Berkeley Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1991 01:19:20 GMT I'm looking for an elegant, over-the-counter piece of equipment to record my phone conversations. (I deal with a number of clients placing securities orders, and it's a necessary means of protection in the industry.) I know that there are inexpensive microphones that attach directly to the back of the telephone handset up at the receiver speaker end. How well do these work (for picking up both parties)?? They seem cumbersome and indirect. Are there any standard configurations for splitting the phone line - having one fork go to the phone as usual and having the other fork go to a tape recorder?? That is, are there any standard -- I think this is right -- RJ-11 to microphone jack converters?? I'm looking for a total setup cost (excluding the tape recorder itself) of no more than $50 -- and preferably much less. Any other useful comments?? Thanks in advance, Mark Nakamura nakamura@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu 415-601-8355 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jul 91 20:33:14 CDT From: Stephen Ward Organization: pro-party BBS, Corpus Christi, TCX (+[+1 512 882-1899] Subject: Phone Directory Wanted For Paris, France Does anyone out there happen to know how I might get a phonebook for the city of Paris, France from the French telephone company? I have no idea. Would they mail it to me? Is it free? Any help appreciated. Thanks. ProLine: sward@pro-party Internet: sward@pro-party.cts.com UUCP: crash!pro-party!sward ARPA: crash!pro-party!sward@nosc.mil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Jul 91 17:13:18 -0700 From: Brian Crawford Subject: Where is the PC Dialog Company? Could some please, direct by email, send the address for the PC Dialog company? Thanks. Brian Crawford INTERNET: (current): crawford@enuxha.eas.asu.edu PO Box 804 (permanent): crawford@stjhmc.fidonet.org Tempe, Arizona 85280 FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 USA Amateur: KL7JDQ ------------------------------ From: Christopher Boaro Subject: ISDN Boards With OS/2 Drivers Wanted Organization: SCS/Compute, Inc. Date: Mon, 08 Jul 91 17:39:42 GMT Does anyone know of any ISDN boards that include OS/2 drivers? ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1991 00:12:01 GMT forrette@cory.berkeley.edu (Steve Forrette) writes: > do you wanna bet that this will not be in the new directories now that > TouchTone is free? Touchtone was never an extra charge in OZ. It just didn't exist at that exchange before. Telecom Australia has its problems (like they're massively behind the times) but apparently charging for "Touch Tone" never occurred to them. Peter da Silva. `-_-' Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1 Taronga Park. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf, today?" ------------------------------ From: "David E. Bernholdt" Subject: Re: Telephone Outages, Really Out(R)ages Date: 8 Jul 91 00:46:43 GMT Organization: Quantum Theory Project, Univ. of Florida In article NIEBUHR@bnlcl6.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes: > I'm not a businessman, but if I put myself in their shoes and depended > on telecommunications for a major portion of my business, I'd be > outraged at what happened. I've been wondering about this too. Not only the recent problems with switching systems, but also fiber cuts, etc. Is there any sort of "insurance" (or assurance) provided by the service providers against outages of this sort? In other words, is there some mechanism (in the tarriffs or elsewhere) for individuals/ businesses effected by the outage to recoup their losses? Alternatively, are the service providers protected from such claims? This is my personal guess -- it would mean the telco can't lose. If so, how is this justified? One can certainly argue that its really someone else's fault in most cases. But (for example) if I send a parcel with an overnight delivery service and it doesn't arrive in the appropriate time, I get a refund -- even if the delay was due to someone else's car running into the delivery truck. Can we expect to see any legal action in the aftermath? Can we expect to start seeing insurance policies covering businesses against loss of telecom facilities? (1/2 :-) David Bernholdt bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu Quantum Theory Project bernhold@ufpine.bitnet University of Florida Gainesville, FL 32611 904/392 6365 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #526 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00257; 10 Jul 91 4:05 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26120; 10 Jul 91 2:03 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac22567; 10 Jul 91 0:51 CDT Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 0:29:14 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #527 BCC: Message-ID: <9107100029.ab05214@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Jul 91 00:29:04 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 527 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Future of the UK Phone System [John Pettitt] Re: Ring Busy Problem [Bud Couch] Re: I Cannot Access MCI ... Any Help? [Michael Ho] Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Bill Huttig] Re: Real ISDN [Oliver Jones] Re: Information Wanted About 800 Information [Steve Forrette] Re: Bell Labs: Shakeout Follows Breakup [James Cummings] Re: California Videotex [Peter da Silva] Re: 900 Start-up Information Please [Joe Stein] Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) [Jon Sreekanth] Re: How to Phix an AT&T Phone [Bob Hale] What and Where is NICNET? [Connie Bobroff] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: The Future of the UK Phone System Date: Mon, 8 Jul 91 8:22:25 BST From: john.pettitt@bugs.specialix.co.uk > After having talked with a Mercury bloke for a few hours last week I > find myself wondering about the future of the UK phone system, or if > there is one. > He says that most of the lines are ISDN-able, and that they have lots > of digital exchanges in London. Here in Exeter they are still using > what seems like manual operators (joke). No doutbt they are using > physical switches. > What I would like to know is if anyone out there knows anything about > the UK phone system, I've written to BT asking but only got a nice > little prospectus about how wonderful they are and what the are doing > in very broad language. The future of the UK telephone system is largly in the hands of OFTEL (UK equivilent of FCC). They get to award the licences for new long distance and local carriers now that it has been decided to break the BT / Mercury duoploly. BT (who seems to be in charge of the numbering plan) are putting in digital switches at a high rate. As part of this they are changing the numbering plan to a more rational format. For those who have not met the UK phone system it used to be (and still is in some places) that area codes could be up to six digits and local numbers as few as three. This is changing, the new standard seems to be a ten digit number in one of two formats. 0X1 YYYYYYY for big cities (london gets 071 and 081) 0XXX YYYYYY for the rest. BT tells me that all digital switches are ISDN capable and 80% of the people will be on a digital switch by 1995. (Digital in BT's case means `System X' or an Ericsson switch which I can't remember the name of right now). Mercury, I am told, have some DMS 100's. Outside the areas where 80% of the people live: well your guess is a good as mine as to when you will get a digital switch. When you do get one quality of service gets better fast. For example, BT delivered our 64K internet connection to the University of Kent (84Kms by air) in eight working days! More importantly we have not had a line fault on any of our 30 plus lines since the new switch was installed. (I'm tempting fate here :-). BT seems to be using a high speed signalling system (SS7 ?) as calls now ring before you can get your finger off the tone button for the last digit. Mercury is a lot slower in connecting calls (15 seconds to a digital switch and as much as 30 to some of the older clockwork ones), however Mercury gives (free) a bill broken down by call (where to, how long, what time and how much) and by extension (our PBX passes an extension number to Mercury). > In case you didn't already know, phone prices here are > ASTRONOMICAL compared to anywhere in the the States or Canada. > There is no such thing as a free local call; all calls are timed, > and the rates change three times a day. This too is getting better -- BT has had their prices pegged below the rate of inflation and the European Community has just announced an investigation of international phone changes. The up side is that we don't have AOS (yet) and the COCOT has yet to put in a major appearance (I have seen some but not many). John Pettitt, Specialix International, London (well close anyway). Email: jpp@specialix.co.uk Tel +44 (0) 932 354254 Fax +44 (0) 932 352781 Disclaimer: Me, say that ? Never, it's a forged posting ! ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Subject: Re: Ring Busy Problem Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 04:26:18 GMT In article gil@limbic.ssdl.com writes: > Here's my problem: I originally had this problem once with a bad > phone. Now I'm having the same problems with a device I built to > decode the different ring patterns for my personalized ring numbers. > The device is essentially a resistor (15K) in series with a .22uF > capacitor and the AC input to a bridge rectifier. The output of the > bridge rectifier feeds a 12V zener and RC filter to smooth out the > signal, and ultimately an opto-isolator. > Can anyone think of a reason why this circuit should produce the > results I describe? Does anyone have specs on what kind of current > drain a typical residential subscriber line can tolerate during ring > before an "answer" is detected? Can a proliferation of these > .22uF/15K resistor combos produce some kind of capacitive "kick" which > the CO thinks is line trouble and/or something using the phone line > (and what are the specs for this)? The system runs a pre-ringing continuity test to be assured that there is really a ringing load on the line. I don't know why, maybe they want to save power :-). This test checks for an impedence of 40 kohms or less at 20 Hz. With the values you quoted, your nominal impedence is 39.16 kohms. With the usual Radio Shack component tolerances, it's quite feasible that you are above the 40 k limit, and the CO says, "nobody there" and quits. Go up to a .33 uF cap ( and make sure that the voltage rating is above 200 V) -a mylar film type would be fine, and that should at least eliminate that as a potential problem source. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew.. standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: "Tiny Bubbles..." Subject: Re: I Cannot Access MCI ... Any Help? Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1991 21:02:56 GMT pjd@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Peter J Dotzauer) writes: > Is there anything else I can do? Does Ohio State University or U.S. > Sprint violate any rights that I have? I don't think so. I've pursued this at UNL and the problem is, equal access is not guaranteed unless you're under a Baby Bell. Even if "Ohio Bell" (I don't know who the carrier is) is under US West (/Ameritech/NYNEX), the rule is that Ohio Bell isn't supplying your dial tone -- Ohio State U. is. Ohio State isn't a Baby Bell. The only difference between your situation and that at the majority of campuses across the nation is that Ohio State has contracted with Sprint, while most others have done so with AT&T. Michael Ho, University of Nebraska Internet: Disclaimer: Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be applied to any university agency. ------------------------------ From: Bill Huttig Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? Date: 6 Jun 91 20:48:59 GMT Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL In article foz@ihlpf.att.com (William F Thompson) writes: > The AT&T formats, as discussed by someone else, are as follows: > CCITT Full Format 21 digit: > 891288 XXXXXX XXXX L PINN where L is a Luhn check digit > 891253 XXXXXX XXXX L PINN " " " " " " " If this is the international number on my card it is only 19 digits 891253 83y xxx xxxx x xx. > Abbreviated 17 digit dialing: > 288 XXXXXX XXXX PINN > 253 XXXXXX XXXX PINN > Hyperdialed 14 digit dialing: > XXXXXX XXXX PINN Why both the 253 and the 288? The 10253 code belongs to Litel. I tried some experiments with my new card to non-working numbers: the 891253 838 0xx xxx xxxx xxxx 891288 838 0xx xxx xxxx xxxx 253 838 0xx xxx xxxx xxxx 288 838 0xx xxx xxxx xxxx 838 0xx xxx xxxx xxxx All work ... but the internationl number does not work as expected. Why couldn't they use the PIN from the US version instead of the x xx at the end of the international version? The 89253, 89288, 253, 288 prefixed to the old calling card numbers will not work. cbmvax!.UUCP!robert@uunet.uu.net (Robert L. Oliver) writes: > wah@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) writes: >> ... the old non-subscriber cards are issued in area >> code 507 and 508 with a exchange that is inposible (starting with a 0 >> or 1) and are handled through various BOC's, I had one that was billed >> by Cincinatti Bell a few years ago.... > My Universal Card uses a number like this also. Universal Card Services does the actual billing for universal calling card numbers. The number is still varified with the Bell Companies. Bell sends a tape to Universal Card Services. The customer's bill is created from this tape along with the tape they get from Universal Bank. Bill ------------------------------ From: "Oliver Jones [x396]" Subject: Re: Real ISDN Organization: PictureTel Corporation Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1991 13:02:25 GMT > Now that ISDN is supposedly being tariffed in some places, I'm > interested in hearing about experience with residential service > including rates. Are there any such users following this discussion > group? I've heard a rumor that New England Telephone is planning to offer ISDN soon in areas served by 5ESS equipment. (They held tariff hearings in June, and some of you may have read Mitch Kapor's summary of his testimony here.) I also hear a rumor that they're planning a $150 installation charge and a $40 monthly service charge. This may change, especially if they listen to Mitch. Ollie Jones PictureTel Corporation email: uunet!pictel!oj 1 Corporation Way tel: +1(508)977-9500x396 Peabody, MA 01960 video: +1(700)561-9938&9939 fax: +1(508)977-9481 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Jul 91 19:02:17 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: Re: Information Wanted About 800 Information Organization: University of California, Berkeley > [Moderator's Note: When I first subscribed to 800 service from > Telecom* USA, they asked if I wanted to be listed in the database. > The price quoted was $12 *per month*, which they said was the same > amount they were charged by Southwestern Bell (the telco which > operates 800-555-1212). They simply passed along what they were > charged, anbd said they did not activity promote listings. PAT] I got the same story from Cable & Wireless when I signed up for my 800 service: $12/month for the listing. They indicated that I could have the listing any way I wanted it. I don't know if you get a discount if you want to be listed in more than one way. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: james@dlss2.UUCP (James Cummings) Subject: Re: Bell Labs: Shakeout Follows Breakup Date: 4 Jul 91 03:07:44 GMT Organization: RedRock Development Similar funding is now done via Bellcore. The BOC's version of Bell Labs. The type of research done at Bellcore is different than in he hey-days of Bell Labs, but there is still the hope that eventually the attitudes will become adjusted. ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: Re: California Videotex Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1991 00:08:59 GMT jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) writes: > Making people buy a totally incompatable Minitel terminal and > then expecting them to pay $9.95 a month for Prodidy style graphics > doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Two companies have tried this in Houston. US Videotel and Southwestern Bell (under the name SourceLine). Southwestern Hell dropped out ... they couldn't make a go of it, and while USV is still running stalls in the malls they have (according to one of the information providers for them) serious problems. Peter da Silva Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1 Taronga Park. ------------------------------ From: Joe Stein Subject: Re: 900 Start-up Information Please Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix Date: Mon, 8 Jul 91 01:05:05 GMT > [Moderator's Note: I doubt there is any one single directory of all > the 900 numbers available. PAT] Actually, if you call 1-900-555-1212 (a toll free call -- Yes, Georgia, they do exist for 1-900 numbers!) you can get 95% of them (or less, probably! :-) joe [Moderator's Note: Well that recording (900-555-1212) is ridiculous! Have you listened to it lately? It lasts several minutes, and you have to listen to it all. There is no menu selection; no way to skip to the part you want, etc. God help the last dozen or so people listed! Maybe some callers have the patience to wait that long listening. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jon Sreekanth Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) Organization: The World Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1991 21:08:16 GMT In article cmkrnl!jeh@decwrl.dec.com writes: > 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 > 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.) > 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.) {PC Magazine}, July 91, page 512, has a little ad from a company called Compex Intl for a Fax/scanner/printer/copier. It looks like a small, low end fax machine, and presumably has an RS232. It's going for $495, from 1-800-626-8112. I suspect someone mentioned this unit before, either in this or some other newsgroup. The ad copy says "Includes ET PC link software, send, receive, scan, print, schedule files to/from PC. Works under Windows, also works as standalone fax". I have no commercial interest in the product/company. IMO, it seems that since the big companies are stubbornly refusing to provide RS232 on their low end machines, various clones such as this will emerge. Jon Sreekanth Assabet Valley Microsystems Fax and PC products 346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 508-562-0722 jon_sree@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: Bob Hale Subject: Re: How to Phix an AT&T Phone Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego Date: Mon, 08 Jul 91 16:41:49 GMT In article gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) writes: > I'm sure that the following information will be of use to some pholks > out there ... > I've seen three AT&T phones damaged by lightning with an interesting > problem: it sometimes will ring/sometimes won't ring, and when it > doesn't ring, it causes a problem which makes the calling party hear a > ring, then busy when they try to call you. [ description of bridge rectifier being the problem deleted ] > It's a shame that the MOVs that are > supposed to prevent this condition don't seem to do their job ... The rise time of the voltage spike from a lightning discharge is very rapid, usually faster than a MOV can respond to. One trick that may help is to tie a loose knot in the phone cord; this adds enough inductance in the common mode path to slow the rise time to where protective devices may function. BTW, this same technique of tying a loose knot in the cord can be used on power cords and may help protect other electronics such as cordless phone base units. Bob Hale ...!ucsd!btree!hale 619-535-3234 ...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu ------------------------------ From: Connie Bobroff Subject: What and Where is NICNET? Organization: University of Washington Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1991 02:06:01 GMT I am looking for info on NICNET (what/where is it?) interconnections to other networks like the Internet, etc.). Can anyone out there steer me in the right direction? ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #527 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02694; 10 Jul 91 4:56 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18820; 10 Jul 91 3:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac26120; 10 Jul 91 2:03 CDT Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 1:21:00 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #528 BCC: Message-ID: <9107100121.ab30095@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Wed, 10 Jul 91 01:20:53 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 528 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Administrivia: This Latest Series of Digests [TELECOM Moderator] STP's vs the Internet (was C&P Telephone Outage [Ralph W. Hyre] Sysop Liability (was CompuServe Responds) [Brad Hicks] Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Bud Couch] Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [Brett G. Person] What's an 'Emergency'? [Charlie Mingo] Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [David Svoboda] Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Tom Gray] Re: Power-Surge Myth [Wayne D. Correia] Re: COCOTS: Is There Any Improvement? [Roger B.A. Klorese] Re: Wanted - Telephone Conversation Recording Equipment [Gabe M. Wiener] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 0:36:04 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Administrivia: This Latest Series of Digests The several issues of the Digest sent out to you Tuesday overnight and Wednesday morning was intended to clear the queue of stuff which had built up during my hiatus this week. More issues will be coming out over the next weekend, following a couple more days rest for me. May I again request that you hold your articles until the weekend! PAT ------------------------------ From: "Ralph W. Hyre" Subject: STP's vs the Internet (was C&P Telephone Outage) Date: 8 Jul 91 13:49:48 GMT Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati Disclaimer: I know nothing about the architecture of the RBOC SS7 networks. My impression of the news reports is that they were using another STP vendor. As a longtime/former ARPAnet/Internet denizen (now stuck in a UUCP Mail-only backwater), I can attest to the apparent reliability of that network. There were early failures, however -- like the time a malfunctioning Xerox PUP node trashed the pre-TCP ARPAnet. (I believe the node in question was a Dover laserprinter that configured itself to either capture or respond to all packets.) Another time, a cable cut isolated New England from the rest of the network, even though 'diverse' links were specified. (They were routed through the same cable at one point.) STPs and SS7 are claimed to be the first applications of packet- switching technology in the telephone network, but they don't even remotely resemble the Internet. So general comparisons are difficult to make. The applications (including ISDN) all seem to be firmly entrenched in circuit-switching concepts. (This is natural, since the folks who designed the rest of the telephone network think in terms of circuit-switching.) I have the impression that the C&P outage could have been prevented by using two different vendors (and vendor software releases). This is another way to ensure 'diversity' (multiple, redundant facilities), so that failure of a single vendor to adequately test will (hopefully) be covered by the 'backup' vendor's equipment. As for oversight of the RBOC's, the state public utilities comissions SHOULD have the technical acumen to understand what diversity requirements should be for a 'reasonable' telephone network. If they don't, then it is your RESPONSIBILITY as a telecom citizen reader to either help inform them, or get them de-elected/de-appointed if they don't care. I think John Higdon will have plenty to keep him busy, even after his CO is upgraded to an electronic, SS7-capable one. Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. (N3FGW) E-mail: att!cinoss1!rhyre Phone: +1 513 629 7288 ------------------------------ Date: 08 Jul 91 11:22:04 EDT From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <76012.300@compuserve.com> Subject: Sysop Liability (was CompuServe Responds to Policy) In TELECOM Digest vol 11 #519, payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) writes: > I think the issue boils down to this: what makes one immume to > liability for messages carried on one's telephone/e-mail/message > system? That's an easy question. The magic words are "common carrier" status. But the list of qualifications for and restrictions on that status are so long and complicated that there is no meaningful way for an individual BBS sysop or a small Internet node to qualify. While Compu$erve and B/i/g/B/r/o/t/h/e/r/ Prodigy could qualify, they don't want to ... among other things, it would impair their ability to restrict traffic that they want out for "commercial" reasons. Nor, really, is the common carrier law well-designed for one-to-many messaging, which is why Pat's new favorite scapegoat, the EFF, is trying so hard to get UseNet newsgroups, FidoNet echomail conferences, BBS public message areas, and Internet mail-lists (like this one) treated legally as =published materials=. But even that wouldn't solve the question of whether or not unattended distribution was legally safe, would it? Unless somehow the same law or ruling made it clear that only the AUTHOR of a publication was liable for its content. After all, when a celebrity sues the National Inquisitor for libel, they don't also sue every grocery store in America for selling the issue. (Are you listing, Mike Godwin?) MCI Mail, SprintMail, and AT&T Mail are protected by a seperate set of rules, the ECPA, which I mentioned in my last post on this topic. But note that those services are only providing one-to-one mail. (More or less.) But we are wandering REALLY far afield from telecom-related topics. Maybe it's about time to start winding this thread down, Pat? [Moderator's Note: Yes, we really should end this thread, along with the 'emergency calls' thread. I went away for a couple days and came back to find tons of stuff on that thread in the queue despite my earlier plea. I'll be gone a couple more days and will toss out any I find in the queue when I return. Fair warning! PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bud Couch Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc. Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1991 18:44:08 GMT Subject: Re: Compuserve Responds to Policy and Operations Questions In article payne@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Andrew Payne) writes: > I don't think you can really compare. Ham radio has a whole > slew of restrictions peculiar to ham radio: non-commercial, > iternational third- party traffic restrictions, etc. > I think the issue boils down to this: what makes one immume to > liability for messages carried on one's telephone/e-mail/message > system? AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc clearly seem to be immume (or else the > phone company would get sued everytime there was a robbery plotted > over the phone). BBS operators seem to be liable: several recent > cases demonstrate this. What about the middle ground: MCI Mai and > CompuServe? What's their status? Does it have something to do with > the fact that the phone companies operate under tariff? My cynical mind operates a bit more directly. It looks to me more like _size_ of the operation controls the amount of hassle directed toward that operation. Large companies can afford the lawyers and lobbyists. Small fry cannot, so they are easy pickings for some government investigator looking for a few more notches on his gun, come review time. MCI Mail and Compuserve are safe, but hams and individual hobby BBS operators have reason to worry. Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox If my employer only knew. standard BS applies ------------------------------ From: Brett G Person Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 Date: 7 Jul 91 21:42:41 GMT Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND In article jgd@convex.csd.uwm.edu writes: > Perhaps the point to be made here is that Ohio Bell is apparently > pushing the "operator interrupt" situation for what are clearly not > *emergency* situations! It's merely an extended form of "call > waiting", and apparently one that can not be disabled. This makes absolutely *NO* sense to me. If my line is busy, then it's busy,and whoever it is can wait till I'm done before they talk to me. Now, if it's my brother-in-law, or father telling me that my sister is about to have her baby, then I want to talk to them, and I suppose that that really is an emergency. I would think that people would get pretty sick of being interrupted for non-emergency reasons, and I'm supriseed at Ohio Bell's decision to implement this policy. I would also think that the operators would get sick of the kind of problems this policy is going to cause. The one time I got a non-emergency 'emergency' phone call I let the guy who did it to me know that I was prepared to file a complaint. It was a business call for my father, who wasn't home at the time. Important ... maybe. An emergency, NO! I'm glad I don't live in Ohio. Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!plains!person | person@plains.bitnet | person@plains.nodak.edu ------------------------------ From: Charlie Mingo Date: 03 Jul 91 13:56:23 Subject: What's an 'Emergency'? In the TELECOM Digest, bruce@zuhause.mn.org (Bruce Albrecht) writes: > Perhaps this is stretching the problems of our legal system and > medical malpractice too far, but as next of kin, you may need to be > notified of an automobile accident and give permission to perform the > necessary medical treatment, for example, on minors. Doctors usually do not require permission to provide 'necessary' medical treatment in an 'emergency.' They don't need parents' consent before operating on minors, nor do they need adults' consent when the patient is physically unable to give it. Sometimes it seems that non-lawyers are prepared to believe the most irrational stories they may have heard about the legal system. ------------------------------ From: David Svoboda Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 Date: 25 Jun 91 16:23:42 GMT Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL From article , by admiral!doug@uunet.uu. net (Doug Fields): > If someone wants to interrupt, they'd better be ready to answer any > question I might ask. > [Moderator's Note: ... And if someone plays games and abuses you in > this way, you are perfectly within your rights to tear them apart > when you answer their call. It has happened to me, and that is > exactly what I do. PAT] Well, it seems to me that it is not always possible to "tear them apart" properly over a phone line. How does one press charges in this case? Does the operator have a record of who originated the emergency call? And for that matter, would this be a way to circumvent Caller*ID? What would a CLID box show in this case? Dave Svoboda, with many questions, ...uunet!motcid!svoboda [Moderator's Note: I think an interesting question might be what does a Caller-ID box show when a call arrives via call-waiting? I've heard Caller ID does not function in that case, and I wonder if you were to *NOT* flash over, but instead disconnect the first call and let the second call then 'ring through' if the Caller ID data would then get sent between the first and second ring **of the rings you heard** -- or is it too late at that point? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tom Gray Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) Date: 3 Jul 91 13:22:22 GMT Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada. In article John Higdon writes: > Greg Andrews writes: >> I'm not saying that I would be called upon to respond to a >> fire or automobile accident, but that the need to contact me regarding >> the imminence of death to my immediate family DOES constitute an >> emergency. > Maybe to YOU. I have no spouse. I have no children. No one needs to > reach me on an emergency basis EXCEPT for my clients. But I have made > provisions for this with many lines, pagers, cellular phones, etc., ad It is possible to have a class of service set up to bar busy access by the operator. It is possible to have access codes to bar busy access on a per call basis. Thus data calls need never be interrupted by an operator. If the operating company serving you does not provide these services, then that is the problem not the essential and useful service of emergency notification. Incidentally, loop testers will check the line for use in a manner similar to emergency access. Should we now ban loop testing because of data calls? Tom Gray ------------------------------ From: "wayne d. correia" Subject: Re: Power-Surge Myth Date: 8 Jul 91 22:11:15 GMT Organization: apple computer, inc. - mac system software engineering > [Moderator's Note: A janitor I once knew whose duties included > changing burned out 15/25 watt light bulbs in emergency exit signs > said he found a way to make them last for *years*: The electic lines > were 110 volts, but he used 40 watt *220 volt* bulbs. He got about the > same amount of illumination as he would from a 25 watt bulb at 110 > volts; the bulb emitted a softer glow, never got hot and never burned > out. PAT] It is common in big business and industry to install 130 volt bulbs for use in 110-120 volt systems. The 130 volt bulbs end up only operating at ~90-95% of their rating. It isn't widely known that there _are_ 130 volt bulbs for consumer use, though. You won't find them in the local grocery store but you will find them at industrial/wholesale lighting outlets. I picked up this little tidbit from {Teleconnect Magazine} a few years ago. ------------------------------ From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" Subject: Re: COCOTS: Is There Any Improvement? Date: 9 Jul 91 19:39:47 GMT Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, California In article frankston!Bob_Frankston@ world.std.com writes: > The other was assigned to an outfit called IMR. I tried calling their > number (800-227-1010) for more info but only got a recording. What > makes this one interesting is that it was competing as being cheaper > that NET for LD calls. The deal was .25/minute for anywhere in the US > vs $2.04 for NET. This is a bit suspicious since NET doesn't place > the LD calls and the rates look rather inflated (even for operator > assisted). (They have the phones in the Natick eastbound rest stop/Burger King on the Mass Pike now too.) Check their rates again; it's $.25/minute *after* the first one. ROGER B.A. KLORESE MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. MS 6-05 930 DeGuigne Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94088 +1 408 524-7421 rogerk@mips.COM {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!rogerk ------------------------------ From: Gabe M Wiener Subject: Re: Wanted - Telephone Conversation Recording Equipment Reply-To: Gabe M Wiener Organization: Columbia University Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1991 05:25:25 GMT In article nakamura@dewey.soe.berkeley. edu (Mark Nakamura) writes: > I'm looking for an elegant, over-the-counter piece of equipment to > record my phone conversations. (I deal with a number of clients > placing securities orders, and it's a necessary means of protection in > the industry.) You can get a little gizmo that connects between the wall and your phone for about $20 from Radio Shack, maybe even less. A cheap cassette recorder with a remote pause jack will do you well. Then, whenever you pick up the phone, the unit will go into record. It'll pause when you hang up. Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ. "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu to be seriously considered as a means of gabe@ctr.columbia.edu communication. The device is inherently of 72355.1226@compuserve.com no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877 [Moderator's Note: Gabe Wiener's .signature is one of the few I usually allow to remain. When you read it, you'll understand why. Poor old Western Union ... they just keep hanging on for dear life, don't they? I wonder how often they've cursed the writer of that memo? PLEASE! no more 'emergency call' or 'compuserve policy' messages. Digest publication will resume sometime over the weekend when I get time. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #528 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26195; 11 Jul 91 19:06 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05704; 11 Jul 91 2:28 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17049; 11 Jul 91 1:20 CDT Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 0:25:16 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #529 BCC: Message-ID: <9107110025.ab16853@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Jul 91 00:25:03 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 529 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Ameritech Mobile Automates 'Follow Me Roaming' [TELECOM Moderator] Caller ID and Call Waiting [Jamie Mason] No Caller ID Given For Calls Waiting [Steve Forrette] Re: Power-Surge Myth [Dean Carpenter] Re: What/Where is NIC Network [Ramesh Gondi] Re: ISDN Boards With OS/2 Drivers Wanted [Marvin Sirbu] Re: Telesat's Anik E-2 Satellite Salvaged [Gord Deinstadt] Re: Cost of Providing Services vs. Actual Charge [Dave Niebuhr] Re: Phone Book for Paris, France [Charlie Mingo] Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' [Doug Fields] Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back! [Brian Matthews] "Give Me a Line" Scam [Barton F. Bruce] Introduction Wanted to Telecom Researchers [Prof. Gary K. Poock] Another Outage? [Justin Leavens] Northern Telecom SM-1 Switch Parts Needed [Richard C. Pitt] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 23:36:03 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator Subject: Ameritech Mobile Automates Follow Me Roaming Ameritech Mobile, the "B" cellular carrier here in the Chicago area has announced that effective July 12, 1991, 'Follow Me Roaming' will be completely automatic in the Chicago, Milwaukee and Madison, WI service areas. Chicago cell phone users roaming north into either Madison or Milwaukee, WI will no longer need to use *18/*19 to turn on/off the 'follow me' feature, and likewise, cellular users from those cities north of us will no longer need to specifically activate 'follow me' when traveling in the Chicago service area. The Chicago CSA extends from the Wisconsin state line on the north; Fox Lake and Antioch, IL in the northwest; Aurora in the west; Morris, and Joliet, IL to the southwest; Beecher, IL in the south; and almost to Michigan City, IN in the east. The addition of the Milwaukee and Madison CSA's will give us another 100 miles to the north of automatic coverage. According to Ameritech's announcement, within this new expanded area (in either direction of travel) calls will automatically be forwarded by the long distance carrier of your choice, just as outgoing long distance calls from our cell phones are now handled. That is, Ameritech in Chicago will (on discovering you are in Milwaukee) hand the call off to AT&T, Sprint or MCI (your choice). The long distance carrier will give the call back to Ameritech in Milwaukee for handling. We will have to pay the long distance charge while roaming just as we do now, but the *18 /*19 part will be automatic. Ameritech said they hope to expand 'automatic follow me' to all the cities they serve over the next several months, which would incude many places in Ohio and Indiana. Under 'automatic follow me', call forwarding on busy/no answer to voice mail will still operate correctly. If you are located in Milwaukee, for example and your line is busy or does not answer after three rings, the call will be transferred to voice mail as before. 'Regular' follow me service overrides transfer to voice mail, and users will still have the option of using *18/*19 if desired in order to force calls away from voice mail (and be given a busy signal or no answer) if that is desired. Ameritech answered objections from people who do NOT want to pay long distance charges incurred under 'automatic follow me' by setting things up so customer service can 'toggle a bit on your account' and not provide the automatic service. Of course, you have to pay the $4.95 per month they charge for follow me service to begin with, or you won't get this new feature, and when traveling outside the Ameritech service area, you'll still have to use *18/*19 as always. Patrick Townson ------------------------------ From: Jamie Mason Subject: Caller ID and Call Waiting Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1991 08:34:54 -0400 In article the Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: I think an interesting question might be what does > a Caller-ID box show when a call arrives via call-waiting? I've heard > Caller ID does not function in that case, and I wonder if you were to With call waiting, the number will not show on the screen because the CO never had the opportunity to send your device the packet with the CID information. The switch *does have* the information, however. In Bell Canada territiory, anywyas, the 'Call Return' feature includes the ability to remember *and recite* the last number which called you. So if you want to find out after the fact the number which called you, you can dial your good 'ol *69 after you hang up. Or if you would rather not answer until you know who it is, then *don't answer* the call waiting. Finish your conversation with the first caller, then use *69 to find out who tried to call you, then call them back if you wish. > *NOT* flash over, but instead disconnect the first call and let the > second call then 'ring through' if the Caller ID data would then get > sent between the first and second ring **of the rings you heard** -- > or is it too late at that point? PAT] Interesting question. I would think it is too late at that point. But that's just a guess. Anyone tried this? Jamie ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 17:41:25 -0700 From: Steve Forrette Subject: No Caller ID Given For Calls Waiting Organization: University of California, Berkeley > [Moderator's Note: I think an interesting question might be what does > a Caller-ID box show when a call arrives via call-waiting? I've heard > Caller ID does not function in that case, and I wonder if you were to > *NOT* flash over, but instead disconnect the first call and let the > second call then 'ring through' if the Caller ID data would then get > sent between the first and second ring **of the rings you heard** -- > or is it too late at that point? PAT] This case is specifically mentioned in the specs, and the number is NOT delivered in this case. No technical reason was given that I'm aware of. A revised spec has been issued that would allow delivery of the (second) calling number at the time of the call waiting beep, but it has not been implemented for public use to the best of my knowledge. I'm unsure as to whether the new spec requires different subscriber equipment or not. Steve Forrette, forrette@cory.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: Dean Carpenter Subject: Re: Power-Surge Myth Organization: Areyes, Inc. Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1991 21:53:44 GMT In article oberman@ptavv.llnl.gov writes: > In article , bruce@pixar.com writes: >> Perhaps what they are talking about is the cost of the bulb: the shock >> of the rapid temperature change when it is turned on shortens its >> life. > Nope. It's pure myth! The lifetime of a light bulb is primarily > influenced by the migration of tungsten atoms from the filament to the > glass envelope (bulb). That's what causes the gray discoloration of I seem to remember seeing some small bulbs that were a *solid* alloy or compound or whatever of glass surrounding the filament. It was an alloy/compound in that it had to be special to resist fracturing, but it could handle enough power to actually melt the filament, which still conducted because the molten metal was trapped in its' channel in the glass. I don't recall if this was for a torch/flashlight or what, but the bulbs were smallish. I would venture a guess that these would have a pretty good lifetime ? Dean Carpenter uunet!areyes!deano (203) 531-5007 Areyes, Inc. deano@areyes.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 16:31:18 CDT From: Ramesh Gondi Subject: Re: What/Where is NIC Network NIC is a network in India (surprised!!). It is a nationwide satellite based information network for decision support systems for government departments. Supports a few private newtorks. If I am right NIC stands for National Informatics Center. Ramesh exurgo@exurchn1.ericsson.se ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 23:59:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Marvin Sirbu Subject: Re: ISDN Boards With OS/2 Drivers Wanted The boards from both NCR and IBM have OS/2 drivers. Marvin Sirbu CMU ------------------------------ From: Gord Deinstadt Subject: Re: Telesat's Anik E-2 Satellite Salvaged Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1991 16:05:05 -0400 Reply-To: cognos!geovision.gvc.com!gdeinstadt@dciem.uucp Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario Nigel.Allen@f438.n250.z1.fidonet.org (Nigel Allen) quotes from a news report re: Telesat Canada: > Losing the Anik E-2 would also have been a blow to the prestige of > Telesat, which put the world's first commercial communications > satellite into orbit 20 years ago. Fascinating. And here I thought Intelsat put the first commercial communications satellite into orbit - what - 26 years ago? There was even a song by a popular group commemorating it - "Telstar". I believe Telesat Canada put up the first _domestic_ commercial comsat. Gord Deinstadt gdeinstadt@geovision.gvc.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1991 16:53:58 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" Subject: Re: Cost of Providing Services vs. Actual Charge New York Telephone charges either $2.21 or $2.11 (I haven't looked lately). I think Southwestern Bell (at least in Nebraska) charges nothing. The latter was posted some time ago and I don't remember the exact details. Dave Niebuhr Brookhaven National Laboratory Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov ------------------------------ From: Charlie Mingo Date: 10 Jul 91 14:21:54 Subject: Re: Phone Book for Paris, France In the TELECOM Digest, Stephen Ward wrote: > Does anyone out there happen to know how I might get a phonebook for > the city of Paris, France from the French telephone company? I have no > idea. Would they mail it to me? Is it free? Any help appreciated. Aside from trying a big city library, the fastest way to find a French phone number would be to use Minitel. (There are free Minitel terminal emulators you can get for the Mac and MS_DOS computers.) After dialling a local phone number, you'll pay about 17-25 cents/minute to search a database of phone numbers maintained by the French phone company (who also run Minitel). In fact, Minitel was originally designed as an on-line telephone directory. Contact me for more details if you're interested in pursuing this. (I have no connection to Minitel, and I don't even use it that often, having no need to look up French phone numbers.) ------------------------------ From: Doug Fields Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1991 22:36:27 GMT In article Ranjan Bagchi writes: >> even after you explain to them to use passwords like "x98cY2h*" and > Ah, but you can. This site, for instance, seems to have > pushed a COPS-like program within 'passwd', so that passwords are > checked versus a list of stupid passwords, and anything from this list > is thrown out. SCO's "passwd" does that too ... But say your login is "johndoe" then you can fool it and make your password "doejohn" or "john-doe" or something. What is really needed is a person to assign passwords once and for all. Unfortunately that means that person has extereme access, and that is unacceptable. Random passwords? Fine with me! 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: 6sigma2@polari.UUCP (Brian Matthews) Subject: Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back! Date: 10 Jul 91 16:25:03 GMT Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix (206) 328-4944 In article asgard!barrett@boulder. colorado.edu (Dave Barrett) writes: > Clearly there is a lot at stake. Eugene Kordahl, president of National > Telemarketing Inc. says the bill could "do serious harm to the > telemarketing companies" because he claims the database would cost at > least $2.5 million. In the last decade, the industry has grown from > one billion dollars to an estimated $60 billion. $2.5 million is .0042 percent (yes, a little over four thousandths of one percent) of $60 billion. Forgive me if I don't shed a tear at this huge financial burden. Brian L. Matthews blm@6sceng.UUCP ------------------------------ From: "Barton F. Bruce" Subject: "Give Me a Line" Scam Date: 10 Jul 91 04:33:00 EST Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc. A customer of mine (a hotel that is a member of a big chain), just got a very suspicious call from a 'Larry Harrington' perporting to be an AT&T test man tracking some silly problem. He kept badgering the desk clerk trying to get her to connect his incoming call though to an 'outside line' for 'testing'. Gee! I just wonder what he wanted to try! :-) Anyway, she was certainly not going to give him the connection, and the matter is going to be explored further ... but I just wonder how often such a scam is sucessfully pulled off? He would not leave a call back number, obviously, but I wonder if anyone has any really 'cute' ideas of what could have been done at the hotel end to trap this guy. She strung him along for a while rather than simply bruskly saying sorry and hanging up in hopes he might volunteer something useful for identifying him, but no such luck. Any ideas? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 13:26:16 PDT From: "Prof. Gary K. Poock" <8062P@navpgs.bitnet> Subject: Introduction Wanted to Telecom Researchers Can any one offer advice? Who would be some top people on the cutting edge front line doing research on telecommunications for people with disabilities, especially for non-speaking or speaking impaired individuals. Any top two or three names that come to mind would be helpful. Phone numbers on e-mail addresses wil be fine. Thanks. Gary ------------------------------ From: Justin Leavens Subject: Another Outage? Date: 11 Jul 91 00:16:28 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA I was trying to call Chicago this afternoon from here in LA and I couldn't get through. Apparently an outage affecting the East coast, Europe, Mexico, and other international calls. Who's got the scoop on this one? Another STP failure? ------------------------------ Date: Wed Jul 10 17:52:58 1991 From: centavx!richard@wimsey.bc.ca Subject: Northern Telecom SM-1 Switch Parts Needed Reply-To: centavx!richard@wimsey.bc.can Organization: CEN-TA (David Ingram & Associates) We have one of the above mentioned switches here, and need some phones to go with it. The phones look like Logic-10's, but have different guts. We have about two dozen here, and they are slowly dying for lack of service and just plain over-use. The boss claims (and I have no reason to doubt him) that this was the first switch installed as an interconnect in B.C., and that shortly after, the cables were cut by the local phone people as the war to break the monopoly heated up. It has served us well in the intervening years, and we loath to replace it since it has some interesting features and is easy to use. Anyone with anything that could be used with it can mail me at the above or reach me at the numbers in the signature. Thanks in advance for any assistance. The CEN-TA Group - David Ingram & Associates - Real Estate - Tax - Computers Richard C. Pitt System Administrator Voice 604-980-0321 Fax 604-987-9388 or 604-987-9364 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #529 ******************************   Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28870; 12 Jul 91 20:19 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09062; 12 Jul 91 1:40 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13709; 12 Jul 91 0:33 CDT Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 23:54:58 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #530 BCC: Message-ID: <9107112354.ac21178@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Thu, 11 Jul 91 23:54:36 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 530 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: 5ESS Switch Feature Handbook [Wes Morgan] Calls to 703-374-xxxx Fail From 415 via MCI [Max Rochlin] MCI Overcharges Tax [David Gast] Bulletin Boards Go Corporate [Donald E. Kimberlin] X.25 Protocol -- Help! [Richard Leon Kapusta] Ma Bell Didn't Have a Virus [Neil Shannon, VIRUS-L via Tom Coradeschi] Liability for Phone Outages [Justin Leavens] Calling Myself / Call Return [mission!randy@uunet.uu.net] Wanted: FAX / Voice Switch for West Germany [Joe Pruett] RJ11 <-> RJ45 [Chris Swanson] My New AT&T Call Me Card [Alan Toscano] Book Review: Cyberpunk -- Outlaws and Hackers [Jim Allard] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 15:47:50 GMT From: Wes Morgan Subject: Book Review: 5ESS Switch Feature Handbook I just received my copy of Issue 6 of the "5ESS Switch Feature Handbook" from AT&T. This 430-page text documents every available feature of the 5ESS, including some "coming soon" features. For example, here's a feature related to a recent TELECOM thread: Prevention of Service Requests by Induced Voltages (5E1) (20-13-0000) This feature prevents service request appearances caused by induced voltages on ground-start lines where induced voltages would cause the system to misinterpret saturation of a current sensitive device as a (off-hook) seizure. The Handbook also cross-indexes features by software release level. If you know the release used by your local CO, this makes a handy guide to features on your particular switch. It also cross-references 5ESS features to the equivalent 1AESS features. Issue 6, the current revision, was made available in March, 1991. Issue 7 is currently scheduled for release in the third quarter of 1991; you may want to wait, in order to get the most recent revision. This document is available from AT&T's CIC at 1-800-432-6600. Ask for document number "AT&T 235-390-500"; the cost is $US 3.50. In my opinion, it's well worth the price. I've appended the table of contents to this posting, for interested parties. Best, Wes Morgan 5ESS SWITCH FEATURE HANDBOOK Part 1 - Introduction.......................................... 1 Part 2 - Business and Residence Features....................... 5 Part 3 - Integrated Services Digital Network Features.......... 55 Part 4 - Public Service Features............................... 97 Part 5 - Coin and Charge-A-Call Features....................... 101 Part 6 - Defense Switched Network Features..................... 105 Part 7 - Tandem Features....................................... 111 Part 8 - Interoffice Signaling and Control Features............ 133 Part 9 - Automatic Call Distribution/Management Information System Teleservices Features.......................... 149 Part 10 - Operator Services Position System Features............ 169 Part 11 - Operation, Administration, and Maintenance Features... 223 Part 12 - Advanced Communications Package Features.............. 279 Part 13 - Planned 5E7 Software Release Program Features......... 299 Part 14 - Feature Packages...................................... 317 Part A - Abbreviations......................................... 383 Part I - Index................................................. 395 Table A - Base Right-to-Use Features Packages Through 5E6....... 319 Table B - Maintenance, Administration, and Network Management (NM) Packages Through 5E6............................. 327 Table C - Business and Residence Custom Services (BRCS) Features and Packages Through 5E6.............................. 337 Table D - Defense Switched Network/Autovon Packages Through 5E6. 349 Table E - Integrated Services Digital Network Features and Packages Through 5E6.................................. 351 Table F - Automatic Call Distribution/Management Information System Feature Packages Through 5E6................... 359 Table G - Operator Service Position System Feature Packages Through 5E6........................................... 361 Table H - Other 5ESS Switch Features and Packages Through 5E6... 367 Table I - Inter-LATA Carrier Packages Through 5E6............... 371 Table J - Planned 5E7 Software Release Features................. 373 Table K - 5ESS Switch/1AESS Switch Feature Cross-References..... 375 morgan@ms.uky.edu |Wes Morgan, not speaking for| ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan morgan@engr.uky.edu |the University of Kentucky's| morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC morgan@ie.pa.uky.edu |Engineering Computing Center| morgan@wuarchive.wustl.edu ------------------------------ From: Max Rochlin Subject: Calls to 703-374-xxxx Fail From 415 via MCI Organization: Gupta Technologies Inc Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 18:27:36 GMT I am attempting to call 703-374-xxxx via MCI. Does anyone know if there is a problem with MCI? The intercept tape number is 44 865. Calls to MCI customer service verify that they are having problems but they can't say more than that. Unfortunately, 10xxx prefixes are rejected by the office phone system. Is there a 950-xxxx for AT&T? Thanks, | max@gupta.com | Max J. Rochlin | max@queernet.org | [Moderator's Note: There is no 950 or 800 number for the AT&T network. The assumption is people should be able to route traffic over that network using the FCC-approved 10288 routing. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 22:29:45 -0700 From: David Gast Subject: MCI Overcharges Tax I checked over my MCI long distance bills the other day and I found that I am being charged more than 3% federal tax and the state/local tax has recently been over as well. MCI is looking in to this problem, but the woman did tell me that the tax should be 3% and she agreed that I am being charged more than that. John, do you know what the proper charges are for the state of CA? Lifeline, etc. Other readers may want to check their bills as well. Now if I only had a tariff I could check to make sure that I am not being overcharged on the calls as well. No wonder one of the other phone companies tells us we don't save as much as we think. :-) David Gast ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 02:58 GMT From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <0004133373@mcimail.com> Subject: Bulletin Boards Go Corporate Here's some news about computer BBS's showing how the general world is waking up to PC communications, from {Information Week}, a magazine for large mainframe computer managers, July 8, 1991: "BULLETIN BOARDS GO CORPORATE By Mary E. Thyfault "Bulletin boards - the computer hobbyist's on-line toy - are finding their way into corporate America. "`What used to be consirered a hacker's tool actually has a lot of useful business applications,' says Tom Hutchins, who manages communications for the sales force at Seiko Intruments, a workstation peripheral manufacturer in San Jose. `They're becoming embedded in corporate America,' adds Steve Caswell, an independent electronic-mail analyst in Woodland Hills, Calif. "Since December, Seiko has been using the Wildcat bulletin board system (BBS) software to interconnect its sales for and corporate office. `We're sending all the normal stuff that you send in a (physical) mailbox,' including product information, sales forecasts and intercompany memos to the bulletin board, says Hutchins. "Since 1987, Wildcat, licensed by Mustang Software, Inc. of Bakersfield, Calif., has seen sales to corporate users rise from 16% to 63% of total sales. Companies are using it as an economic form of E-mail -- primarily to broadcast announcemen:s -- rather than to send personal messages. The software costs $129 to $499, depending on the number of modems attached. "Wildcat is one of the few bulletin board systems commercially available. There's a lot of bulletin board software in the public domain, Hutchins says, but most isn't `trustworthy.' `When I made the proposal, the first thing that everybody asked was what about hackers?" he recalls. But Hutchins and users such as the Internal Revenue Service appear to trust the extensive safeguards in Wildcat. "Seiko currently runs four versionsof Wildcat on a dedicated IBM 386 clone in headquarters, with four modems to connect the 30-member sales force, who dial in from the PCs or laptops. The next step is to put Wildcat on Seiko's local area network. "`We're going to do more and more with the board,' Hutchins promises. It's going to become an automatic thing.'" ------------------------------ From: Richard Leon Kapusta Subject: X.25 Protocol -- Help! Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1991 20:12:30 GMT Does anyone know where I can get X.25 libraries for the PC? I'm writing a terminal package for the New York Stock Exchange and it uses the X.25 protocol. Any information at all will be greatly appreciated! Thanks a lot! Rich University of Illinois ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 17:00:04 EDT From: Tom Coradeschi Subject: Ma Bell Didn't Have a Virus Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Forwarded from VIRUS-L: Date: 10 Jul 91 22:40:45 +0000 From: neilshnn@mse.cse.ogi.edu (Neil Shannon) Subject: Ma Bell Didn't Have a Virus With all the news about possible virus infections affecting the telephone systems I thought it was interesting to find a small article tucked in the back of the {Oregonian} newspaper (Associated Press story): Quoted in part: "An official of the company that made the software, DSC Communications of Plano, Texas, told a congressional sub-committee that the outages were caused by a software modification it made in April ... the company modified the software at the request of Pacific Bell." "The changes were made without subjecting them to the normally exacting tests, which he (Frank Perpiglia, DSC senior vice president) called 'an absolute mistake.'" With all the loud voices that were screaming computer virus, this seams like a very soft voice that said, 'oops, we were wrong'. It's another case of check your hardware and software BEFORE looking for viruses. Neil Shannon neilshnn@mse.ogi.edu ------------------------------ From: Justin Leavens Subject: Liability For Phone Outages Date: 11 Jul 91 23:19:09 GMT Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA This is in response to a previous message that I seem to have lost now. Does anyone know of any situations where a business was able to get compensation for a phone outage affecting their business? Who would be responsible in a case like that, the carrier or the manufacturer of the faulty equipment? Did any businesses ever file for compensation when the fire burned out the switching office in the Chicago suburbs a couple of years ago? That left several suburbs without service for days, crippling many small businesses. [Moderator's Note: Telco tariffs do not provide for compensation in the event service is disrupted except for a pro-rated refund of fees paid in advance, or a billing adjustment the next month, etc. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mission!randy@uunet.uu.net Subject: Calling Myself / Call Return Date: Thu Jul 11 14:20:40 1991 I have GTE service in Orange County, CA, and when I call my own number, I hear quiet beeping. If I then hang up, the phone rings. At this point, someone else in the house can answer (I'll pick it up when the ringing stops) and we have an intercom (the quiet beeping continues, though). I find this very useful, certainly much more so than a busy signal. Is there another reason for this feature? Do any other operating companies provide it? Also, I have what they call the SmarterCall(tm) service package, which includes call return, but only to the two exchanges on my switch. Is this because SS7 isn't in place between my switch and others, or because I'm a GTE island surrounded by PacBell? ------------------------------ From: Joe Pruett Subject: Wanted: FAX / Voice Switch for West Germany Date: 11 Jul 91 17:01:09 GMT Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Beaverton, Oregon We would like to obtain one of those magic boxes that will switch between fax, modem, voice, etc. and use it in West Germany. We haven't been able to find one there, and so were wondering if we can use one from the U.S. successfully over there (aside from having the Bundespost out to get us). Any information you could e-mail me would be greatly appreciated. nosun.west.sun.com!tessi!joey ------------------------------ From: Chris Swanson Subject: RJ11 <-> RJ45 Organization: St. Olaf College / N.E.T. Ambulance Date: 11 Jul 91 20:05:07 Greetings, I need to know how to wire an RJ45 (4 wire data jack) to RJ11 (wall jack) adapter. Please e-mail any replies. Thanks in advance. Regards, Chris Swanson, C.U. CS/Pre-med Student, 1502 N. 59 st., Omaha, NE 68104-4830 DDN: [CDS6] INTERNET: swansonc@acc.stolaf.edu UUCP: uunet!stolaf!swansonc AT&T: Work: (402)-449-4894 Home: (402)-551-7393 or (402)-551-0766 ------------------------------ From: atoscano@attmail.com Date: Thu Jul 11 21:41:31 CDT 1991 Subject: My New AT&T Call Me Card I received my NEW generation AT&T Call Me Card in today's mail. (The Call Me Card, is AT&T's "restricted calling" card product.) Much as the old Call Me Card is to the old AT&T Card, the new Call Me Card, at first glance, has similar differences from the new AT&T Calling Card. Specifically, it has no international number, and says "Call Me" in the upper-right corner (in place of "Calling Card"). And like the new Calling Card, it has a CIID-type number (mine begins with 843-1) unrelated to your phone number. The instructions on the back have appropriate differences from regular Calling Cards. But, the new Call Me Card differs from its predecessor in these significant ways: In the near (?) future, it will no longer be restricted to a single number. You will be able to specify multiple specific numbers to which calls may be placed and billed to the Card. (Temporarily, the card is only available with a single-number restriction. I think this is most likely an order entry system limitation, rather than a network limitation.) The card is also honored for intra-LATA calls (to the specified destination numbers) by my local exchange carrier, Southwestern Bell, and presumably by other LECs, as well. On calls placed with the old Call Me Card, the '#' signal for sequence calling was ignored by AT&T equipment. With the new card, pressing '#' returns the customary "You may dial another AT&T-handled call now" message. If you then dial a permitted number, you get a "Thank You." Otherwise, you get Reorder Tone. A Alan Toscano Voice: +1 713 236 6616 AT&T Mail: atoscano Telex (UT): 156232556 CIS: 73300,217 ------------------------------ Subject: Book Review: Cyberpunk -- Outlaws and Hackers Date: 11 Jul 91 14:32:48 EDT (Thu) From: Jim.Allard@equi.com Patrick: I thought everyone might be interested in a book I recently read called "Cyberpunk -- Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier" by Katie Hafner and John Markoff. It's a great read for people uninitiated in the "network" world and has three basic stories: 1. Extensive description of Kevin Matlick, et al. 2. Pengo, the West German and friends who hacked and sold to the Soviets. 3. Robert Morris' worm. The background on each, their families and associations is excellent. It appears to objectively describe each case. I thought it would be interesting since undoubtedly many of your readers have intimate knowledge of these incidents. Published by Simon & Schuster $22.95. I got it from the Small Computer Book Club, but I assume it will be available in most book stores. I found it extremely educational. You may find otherwise. Jim Allard The Bottom Feeder ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V11 #530 ******************************  ISSUES 531 THROUGH 540, THEN AGAIN FROM 540 THROUGH 550 ARRIVED IN VERY MIXED UP OUT OF ORDER SEQUENCE. BUT ALL ARE FILED HERE IF YOU LOOK FOR THEM.  Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14390; 14 Jul 91 1:45 EDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23030; 13 Jul 91 21:12 CDT Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13653; 13 Jul 91 20:05 CDT Date: Sat, 13 Jul 91 19:59:19 CDT From: TELECOM Moderator [To]: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #533 BCC: Message-ID: <9107131959.ab13559@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> TELECOM Digest Sat, 13 Jul 91 19:59:14 CDT Volume 11 : Issue 533 Inside This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson OCC Code Update [Bill Huttig] Do-it-Yourself "Payphone" [Paul Schleck] TDD Modems [Peter da Silva] Serious RFI Problem [Jonathan Eunice] Miscellaneous Questions: COCOTS, Michigan Bell, LATAs [Jack Decker] Oregon State Telecom Policy [halcyon!peterm@sumax.seattleu.edu] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Bill Huttig Subject: OCC Code Update Date: 13 Jul 91 04:26:42 GMT Reply-To: Bill Huttig Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL Here is a update to the OCC Codes. I am working on the 800 and 900 list. 001 MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom) 002 [ATC] AmeriCall LDC 003 RCI Corporation 007 Tel America 011 [Metromedia<>ITT] Metromedia Long Distance 012 Charter Corporation (Tri-J) 013 Access Services 021 Mercury 022 MCI Telecommunications 023 Texnet 024 Petricca Communications Systems 028 Texnet 030 Valu-Line of Wichita Falls 031 [ATC] {Telus} Teltec Saving Communications 033 US Sprint 036 Long Distance Savers 039 Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech) 042 First Phone 044 Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel) 053 American Network (Starnet) 056 American Satellite 057 Long Distance Satellite 059 COMNET 060 Valu-Line of West Texas 063 COMNET 069 V/COM 070 National Telephone Exchange 080 AMTEL Systems 084 Long Distance Service (LDS) 085 WesTel 088 Satellite Business Systems (MCI) 089 Telephone Systems 090 WesTel 093 Rainbow Communications 095 Southwest Communications 096 Flex Communications 099 AmeriCall 122 RCA Global Communications 137 All America Cables and Radio (ITT) 142 First Phone 146 ARGO Communications 188 [MCI] Satellite Business Systems 201 PhoneNet 202 ExecuLines 203 Cypress Telecommunications (Cytel) 204 United Telephone Long Distance 206 United Telephone Long Distance 211 RCI 212 Call US 213 Long Distance Telephone Savers 214 Tyler Telecom 215 Star Tel of Abilene 217 Call US 219 Call USA 220 Western Union Telegraph 222 MCI Telecommunications (SBS) 223 Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX) 224 American Communications 227 ATH Communications (Call America) 229 Bay Communications 232 Superior Telecom 233 Delta Communications 234 [ACC Long Distence] AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication) 237 Inter-Comm Telephone 239 Woof Communications (ACT) 241 American Long Lines 242 Choice Information Systems 244 Automated Communications 245 Taconic Long Distance Service 250 Dial-Net 252 Long Distance/USA 253 Litel Telecommunications 255 All-State Communications 256 American Sharecom 260 Advanced Communications Systems 263 Com Systems (Sun Dial Communications) 268 Compute-A-Call 276 CP National (American Network, Starnet) 282 [Action Telecom] 284 American Telenet 286 Clark Telecommunications 287 ATS Communications 288 AT&T Communications 298 Thriftline 302 Austin Bestline 303 MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom) 311 SaveNet (American Network, Starnet) 318 Long Distance Savers 321 [MCI] {Telecom*USA} Southland Systems 322 American Sharecom 324 First Communication 331 Texustel 333 US Sprint 336 Florida Digital Network 338 Midco Communications 339 Communication Cable Laying 343 Communication Cable Laying 345 AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication) 350 Dial-Net 355 US Link 357 Manitowoc Long Distance Service 362 Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech) 363 Tel-Toll (Econ-O-Dial of Bishop) 369 American Satellite 373 Econo-Line Waco 375 Wertern Union Telegraph 385 The Switchboard 393 Pioneer Telephone/Execulines of Florida 400 American Sharecom 404 MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom) 412 Penn Telecom 428 Inter-Comm Telephone 432 Lightcall 435 Call-USA 436 Indiana Switch 440 Tex-Net 441 Escondido Telephone 442 First Phone 444 Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel) 455 Telecom Long Distance 456 ARGO Communications 462 American Network Services 464 Houston Network 465 Intelco 466 International Office Networks 469 GMW 472 Hal-Rad Communications 480 Chico Telecom (Call America) 488 [Metromedia<>ITT] United States Transmission Systems (ITT) 505 San Marcos Long Distance 515 Burlington Telephone 529 Southern Oregon Long Distance 532 Long Distance America 533 Long Distance Discount 536 Long Distance Management 550 Valu-Line of Alexandria 551 Pittsburg Communication Systems 552 First Phone 555 TeleSphere Networks 566 Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX) 567 Advanced Marketing Services (Dial Anywhere) 579 Lintel System (Lincoln Telephone LD) 590 Wisconsin Telecommunications Tech 599 Texas Long Distance Conroe 601 Discount Communications Services 606 Biz Tel Long Distance Telephone 622 Metro America Communications 634 Econo-Line Midland 646 Contact America 652 [NJB] 654 Cincinnati Bell Long Distance 655 Ken-Tel Service 660 Tex-Net 666 Southwest Communications 675 Network Services 680 Midwest Telephone Service 682 Ashland Call America 684 Nacogdoches Telecommunications 687 NTS Communications 700 Tel-America 704 Inter-Exchange Communications 707 Telvue 709 Tel-America 717 Pass Word 726 Procom 727 Conroe-Comtel 732 [AT&T - private net] 735 Marinette-Menominee Lds 737 National Telecommunications 741 [ATC] ClayDesta 742 Phone America of Carolina 743 Peninsula Long Distance Service 747 Standard Informations Services 751 Touch One 755 Sears Communication 757 Pace Long Distance Service 759 [USS] Telenet Communication (US Sprint) 760 American Satellite 766 Yavapai Telephone Exchange 771 [MCI] {Telecom*USA/SoutherNet/Southland} Telesystems 777 US Sprint 785 Olympia Telecom 786 Shared Use Network Service 787 Star Tel of Abilene 788 ASCI's Telepone Express Network 789 [ATC] Microtel 792 Southwest Communications 800 Satelco 801 MidAmerican LD (Republic) 824 [ATC] 827 TCS Network Services 833 Business Telecom 835 [MCI] {Telecom*USA/Teleconnect} 839 Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX) 847 VIP Connections 850 TK Communications 852 [MCI] {Telecom*USA/SouthernNet} Telecommunicatons Systems 859 Valu-Line of Longview 862 [ATC] {SouthTel} 866 Alascom 872 Telecommunications Services 874 Tri-Tel Communications 879 Thriftycall (Lintel Systems) 881 Coastal Telephone 882 Tuck Data Communications 883 TTI Midland-Odessa 884 TTI Midland-Odessa 885 The CommuniGroup 888 [MCI] Satellite Business Systems (MCI) 895 Texas on Line 897 Leslie Hammond (Phone America) 898 [MCI] Satellite Business Systems (MCI) 910 Montgomery Telamarketing Communication 915 Tele Tech 933 North American Communications 936 Rainbow Commuinications 937 Access Long Distance 938 Access Long Distance 951 Transamerica Telecommunications 955 United Communications 960 Access Plus 963 Tenex Communications 969 Dial-Net 985 America Calling 986 MCI Telecommunications (SBS) 987 ClayDesta Communications 988 Western Union Telegraph 991 Access Long Distance 999 [Metromedia<>ITT] ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 91 14:56:00 CDT From: Paul Schleck Subject: Do-it-Yourself "Payphone" That old standby of cheap consumer electronics, Service Merchandise, includes in their most recent catalogue a "Teleconcepts Payphone Jr. Model 890546," stock# 890546MTM for $39.90. While it probably isn't appropriate for use as an actualy public paystation due to its lack of security features and proper legal notices, it may prove servicable for those TELECOM Digest readers who have inquired in the past about obtaining some sort of payphone to keep their roommates and housemates honest when it comes to billing or provide some sort of controllable phone service in a semi-public area. Service Merchandise has stores in over a dozen metropolitan areas and will take mail-orders. For a catalogue and other information, their phone number is +1-800-251-1212. Disclaimer: I have no affilation with ServicMerchandise and even if I did, they probably wouldn't pay me enough to be their advertising lackey. Paul W. Schleck ACM005@zeus.unomaha.edu ------------------------------ From: Peter da Silva Subject: TDD Modems Organization: A corner of our bedroom Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1991 19:59:06 GMT Question: are there any 2400 baud modems that can be used for TDD as well? We're looking to buy a new modem soon, and are finding the TDD relay service less than convenient. Faster than 2400 would be OK, too, if it's not too expensive. Peter da Silva. `-_-' Taronga Park BBS +1 713 568 0480 2400/n/8/1 Taronga Park. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf, today?" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Jul 91 16:05:24 -0400 From: Jonathan Eunice Subject: Serious RFI Problem Reply-To: jonathan@cs.pitt.edu (Jonathan Eunice) Organization: University of Pittsburgh Computer Science I've just moved to a hill upon which a radio transmitter is located. And while I didn't anticipate it, I guess it should come as no surprise that I'm having a very serious problem of radio interference with my telephone service, affecting both voice and data. I'm hoping that some net.wisdom will help solve/limit the problem. I can often hear a particular radio station very strongly over the phone. Both our Panasonic two-line and AT&T one-line phones are affected. The silly "RFI filter" gizmos sold at Radio Shack, etc have >nil< effect. Our telephone company says, "Your lines are clean. It's your phones that are picking up the radio." They suggest buying some very old style telephones without much electronics in them; they say these will be less susceptible to interference. Buying obsolete equipment is, IMO, a poor solution. On the other hand, if there were decent RFI-immune phones available, I will buy new equipment. The problem also occurs on data (2400 bps) transmissions. It happens with different intensitites on my Dove FAX/data and PCPI data-only modems, but does happen on both. Sometimes 10cps of garbage characters will stream out, though it is often only .05-4 cps of garbage. Anything above .01 cps is very difficult to work with, IMO. So, what can I do? New equipment perhaps, but which? Shielding or filtering for the equipment? Blame the telco? Complain to/sue the radio station? Bomb the radio tower? Help! Jonathan Eunice jonathan@cs.pitt.edu 412-488-1368 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 Jul 91 00:16:00 EDT From: Jack Decker Subject: Miscellaneous Questions: COCOTS, Michigan Bell, LATAs I have some unrelated questions that I would like to get answers to. Please forgive me if some of these topics have been covered before, but I have only been receiving this newsgroup for a month or two and haven't seen any of these discussed. 1) COCOT question: A friend of mine frequently travels and has run across many COCOT's that do not allow access to other carriers using the 10XXX codes (or that have other quirks, such as you can dial 10288 + 0 but not 10288 +0 + area code + number, or that recognize 10288 but not other 10XXX codes, or that let you use the 10XXX codes but then disable the tone pad so you can't key in a calling card number). He asked me if there is any place you can get a copy of the actual law covering this aspect of COCOT's - in other words, what are they supposed to legally allow, and what can you do if they're not in compliance with the law? 2) Quirky ESS: I live in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (906 area code, 632 and 635 exchanges). Michigan Bell now offers custom ringing service in most areas of the state (the service where you can have multiple numbers on the same line with different ringing patterns), but not in this exchange. I know the switch is ESS but wonder why it's not capable of providing this service (according to Michigan Bell). This switch is known to have other quirks (biggest one I've noted is that calls to 950 (calling card access numbers) are allowed from residence, business, and "coinless" public phones, but disallowed from "real" Michigan Bell coin phones ... you reach a recording, but I can't recall the exact wording of the recording offhand). Mind you, this is in an exchange that was theoretically equal-access capable back in '84 or '85, but that for some reason didn't really make it fully available to other carriers until early 1990 (it's also an exchange in which Michigan Bell was directly sending calls to Bell Canada exchanges in the 705 Area Code until something like three years after divestiture took place ... I knew immediately when they finally started routing those calls via AT&T because my transmission quality on voice and modem calls went to pieces ... sounded like the calls (which had previously had local sound quality) were being routed via China ... that finally ended when fiber optic cables arrived here in '89). 3) LATA boundaries: The Michigan Public Service Commission has ordered Michigan Bell and GTE (the two providers of toll service in Michigan) to begin offering an optional Adjacent Exchange Toll Calling Plan (this i