Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19695; 12 Jul 92 14:17 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24290 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Jul 1992 01:04:05 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27302 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Jul 1992 01:03:57 -0500 Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 01:03:57 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207120603.AA27302@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #551 TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 Jul 92 01:04:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 551 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: "Legal" Phreaking? (Jon Baker) Re: "Legal" Phreaking? (Charlie Mingo) Re: "Legal" Phreaking? (John Higdon) Re: "Legal" Phreaking? (Bill Nickless) Re: "Legal" Phreaking? (Brad Hicks) Re: Phone Phraud Publicity (Phil Howard) Re: 1-800 DISA Hacking - A Waste of Time and Money (Peter da Silva) Re: 1-800 DISA Hacking - A Waste of Time and Money (Bill Garfield) Teleslime (A Tip) (John Higdon) Re: The Depths of Sliminess (Art Hunter) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gtephx!bakerj@enuucp.eas.asu.edu (Jon Baker) Subject: Re: "Legal" Phreaking? Date: Fri, 10 Jul 92 9:11:53 MST > [Moderator's Note: Let me ask those of you who persist in the belief > that it is the system operator's fault if there is a break-in to a > system with weak security, do you feel the same way about physical > assaults on other people? That is, if you are attacked by a person > much larger and stronger than yourself, can't we conclude that if he > robs you it is really your fault? In part, yes. But that has nothing to do with telecom, so ... > After all, you could have taken a > course in judo, karate or some other self-defense procedure if you > were that interested in your safety and your possessions, etc. Should > the court find you guilty, or the person who attacked you? The answer > is rather obvious ... No issue of morality or right vs. wrong is 'obvious'. > why then is a computer different? Why should a > new or inexperienced sysadmin take the rap for a hacker intrusion > merely because the hacker is more sophisticated at it? It seems to me > the law is intended to protect the *weakest* members of society. PAT] Because, there are many computer systems out there that are for free public access by anyone who wants to dial the number and poke around. When I get onto a system, how do I know whether or not I'm 'supposed' to be there? How do I know whether this system is some private company's mainframe, or some guy's PC in his garage? If the system tells me, right up front, 'for authorized personnel only', then if I don't KNOW that I'm authorized, I'm not supposed to be there. If it says 'Welcome! Glad you're here! Good Day!', I get the idea that I'm welcome. If some Dutch hacker stumbles into a private computer system and it welcomes him gleefully, I don't think it's unreasonable for him to believe that he's welcome. Now, if he does malicious harm to that system, that's another matter ... J.Baker enuucp!gtephx!bakerj [Moderator's Note: How do you know if you are welcome or not? Well, was the number advertised as a public service? That might say something about it. "Good Day" does not imply you are welcome to enter somewhere, nor does 'hello', nor does 'please sign on'. Those comments could be addressed to authorized users only. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 04:42:06 -0500 Subject: Re: "Legal" Phreaking? jjm@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (james.j.menth) writes: > I think if you said 'civil liability' instead of 'legal blame' you > would be correct. This is called 'contributory negligence' ( like > proposals for limiting recoveries for being injured while not wearing > seat belts ) and may reduce your chances, or degree of recovery, for > your damages. Contributory negligence is only a defense in a suit alleging negligence. It is no defense to intertional torts, such as trespass, assault or battery. Quite simply, when one person intentionally commits a wrongful act, it matters not the victim was "negligent" enough to let him do it. You have an absolute right not to be assaulted, and not to have your computer assaulted. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jul 92 02:33 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: "Legal" Phreaking? On Jul 10 at 1:06, TELECOM Moderator writes: > Others will say that by punishing the naughty children our > government is engaged in some sort of vendetta against computer users > in general. These guys need to know that it is not nice to fool around with other people's computers. But I wonder if the prosecutors really think some of these things through. Specifically, the matter of punishment should be examined. Throw these guys in prison and you will turn the place of their incarceration into "Hacker U". Everything they know will be passed on to some REALLY bad guys who will use this new knowledge to best (worst?) advantage. Fines are not a bad idea, and community service would also be appropriate. But I am not too sure that I am very keen about having real crooks find out how to "get into the system" the easy way. Of course, if security is beefed up in the mean time, fine. But then, that would be a "burden" upon innocent parties, right? Hope they enjoy it when the graduates of "Hacker U" start in on their weenie security. It is not about who is right or wrong (I concede the hackers were "wrong", but so what?), but about what it takes to keep people out. Punishing hackers does not keep the real baddies out of insecure systems. Put hackers away if it makes you feel better. I am certainly not here to justify their actions. But if you want to keep people out of sensitive data, lock the goddamn door! John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: The fact that one prisoner may learn some criminal techniques from another prisoner does not invalidate the idea of prison as a good thing for some people. It merely says the way prisons are operated need to be changed. PAT] ------------------------------ From: nickless@antares.mcs.anl.gov (Bill Nickless) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 92 07:03:50 -0500 Subject: Re: "Legal" Phreaking? I usually agree with Pat, but this time he writes: > ....Let's listen to the shrill chatter from the EFF and its Socially > Responsible membership as they defend the darlings against the evil > government, credit bureaus, telcos, etc. By the way, has the EFF announced > who the attorney will be to represent these young 'victims' yet? PAT] I really, really doubt that the EFF will be providing a defense for these alleged criminals. Mike Godwin and others at the EFF have stated over and over that they don't support computer crime or criminals. Their purpose is different. Remember your story about the Chicago police that used to use a crank-telephone to interrogate suspects? Electrocuting suspects isn't the right way to fight crime. A reasonable person can be against zapping alleged criminals, and at the same time deplore the criminals' purse snatching. I detest the arrogance of juvenile (and not-so-juvenile) delinquent network crackers. Here at work for the last week we've been running a password checking program on all our accounts because we heard it was being run "for us" in Australia and Sweden. I have better things to spend my time on, like making the user environment better for our users. Instead I burn cycles on a hundred processors for a week. On the other hand, Mitch Kapor's advocacy of universal ISDN access and open national network access is, IMHO, a good thing. If they want to push for clearly defined legal protections for computer communications, that's good too. Even providing amicus curiae briefs to ongoing trial to avoid bad precedent is good. But I sure don't think they're a hacker's defense fund! Bill Nickless System Support Group +1 708 252 7390 [Moderator's Note: The EFF and Mike Godwin have responded to my comments and unfortunatly due to an overload of messages I cannot include it in this issue. But the next issue early Sunday morning will have more on this topic, with comments from the EFF. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com Date: Fri Jul 10 10:54:38 -0400 1992 Subject: Re: "Legal" Phreaking? > Let's listen to the shrill chatter from the EFF and its Socially > Responsible membership as they defend the darlings against the evil > government, credit bureaus, telcos, etc. Ummm ... Pat ... I'm tired of going around and around on the main argument here; I'd be being silly if I thought I could win an argument with the list moderator. But ... well ... which of these are you saying ISN'T evil? The government? Are we talking about the same government that's used an inverse neutron bomb on the Bill of Rights; leaving the people behind but burning down the entire structure? The same government that helped defense contractor Kerr-McGee hide behind official secrecy while poisoning its workers (and possibly murdering Karen Silkwood), and then turned around and did the same thing when GE's defense nuclear projects were dumping radioactive material into groundwater? Not to mention MK-ULTRA, the LaPenca bombing, the CIA drug connection, the unlawful imprisonment of Leonard Peltier, the harrassment of CISPES, and looking the other way after (and possibly having been involved in) the attempted assasination of Judy Barry. Or the attempted assassinations of foreign leaders Fidel Castro and Mohamar Khaddafy? And have you already forgotten the murder/coverup of Daniel Castolaro? The credit bureaus? The same people who've been using dubious means to accumulate dossiers on everybody in North America, and fighting hard to keep from having to admit that AT LEAST one third of those dossiers are so error-prone as to be worthless? And who, according to former insiders, collect an awful lot of non-credit-related information? And who fight you tooth and nail when you try to get a correction? And after the endless messages over the past month about GTE, PacBell, and so on, I should think it looked like we were all in agreement that the telcos are no blushing virgins, what with "slamming," arrogant billing practices, deliberate misdirection of state PUCs, abuse of monopoly priviliges, and cooperation in the 800-to-900 scams. So even if I thought that all hacking were wrong, I admit, the part of me that likes to see David slay Goliath, and that hates Big Brother and anybody who tries to set themselves up as a predator on the people, would inwardly cheer to hear about anarcho-hackers taking on the evils in government, credit bureaus, and telcos. And nobody would be happier than me if some hacker got into and out of a system with more proof of these crimes. I guess that makes me "socially responsible." But it has nothing to do with why I joined the EFF. On the other hand, to paraphrase another group's bumper stickers: "I'm a member of the EFF, and I VOTE." Or as one phreak put it, "fear the government that fears your modem." J. Brad Hicks Internet: mhs!mc!Brad_Hicks@attmail.com X.400: c=US admd=ATTmail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad I am not an official MasterCard spokesperson, and the message above does not contain official MasterCard statements or policies. ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Phone Phraud Publicity Date: Sat, 11 Jul 92 03:55:46 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) wixer!johnw@cs.utexas.edu (john winthrop) writes: > Last night I saw a little segment on CNBC's Steals-N-Deals about phone > fraud. > It seems like most of the press is still behind the time in reporting > about fraud such as this ... maybe someone should send them a copy of > the Digest showing how 800 numbers can be forwarded to 900's and such ... Maybe ALL the newsmedia should be sent regular printed copies of this and many other digests and newsgroups. They'd sure get an education out of it. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: 1-800 DISA Hacking - A Waste of Time and Money Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 05:04:58 GMT In article TELECOM Moderator notes: > if they are allowed to see the caller's number' -- in short, all the > silly comments you read on Usenet from one day to the next -- just > look the person squarely in the eye and ask them point blank, "Are you > a hackerphreak, or just trying to be Socially Responsible?" :) PAT] While I agree with the overall sentiment, I'd like to note that this smacks too much of "are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party". BTW, I like the term "phracker". Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032 ------------------------------ Subject: 1-800 DISA Hacking - A Waste of Time and Money From: bill.garfield@yob.sccsi.com (Bill Garfield) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 92 10:23:00 -0600 Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569 Reply-To: bill.garfield@yob.sccsi.com (Bill Garfield) > If you know his number, can't you just call him back and tell him > personally? That isn't as easy as it might sound. First of all, I speak only enough Spanish to get my face slapped. Secondly, though we have the ANI -- and even the apartment number and street address on West 133rd Street -- and even the subscriber's name. That is not sufficient proof that the subscriber or any resident of apartment 36 is the culprit. It only means that _someone_ is using "Pedro's" telephone line. As the telephone circuits in apartment complexes in major cities "appear" in various distribution boxes (cans) anyone with a bare working knowledge of telephones can "tap into" Pedro's line at any one of several locations and practice their deeds with complete anonymity. It's like a game between the fox and the hound. Beyond this, I am not at liberty to go into any more detail at this time. As I said in my original post, the hackling is calling a _great deal_ of attention to himself by his continuing actions. [Moderator's Note: Although you have no proof that Pedro is making the calls, I don't think it would be out of place for you to call the number and give them a little pep-rally. Several years ago when my wallet was picked out of my pocket riding the subway (I caught one and almost did a "Goetz" on him; the one with my wallet got away) I lost an IBT calling card in the process. I stopped it the same day, but when the bill came the next month and I saw a residence number on there as the origin of one fraud call I rang them up gave them a piece of my mind, telling him I ought to pollute the number so badly they could never use it again, fraud calls or otherwise. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 9 Jul 92 12:16 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Teleslime (A Tip) If you happen to know who the telemarketer is and it is within your LATA, here is a method you might try for retaliation. Most readers of this forum are well aware of my year-long bout with the {San Jose Mercury News}. The many lines of my home would be assaulted regularly by callers wanting to know if I was "receiving the paper OK". This, of course, was the foot-in-the-door line that would determine if you were a subscriber (they did not have subscription lists in front of them). After getting these calls on private lines several times a week I started taking action. I talked to the head of telemarketing at the SJMN. I talked to the president of the telemarketing contractor. I was assured that the calls would stop after they entered all of my numbers in their reject database. The calls continued. The SJMN blamed the contractor. The contractor blamed the dialer software company. The calls continued. I had my attorney write threatening letters to both the SJMN and the telemarketing company. The calls continued. Finally, in desperation, I called Pacific Bell and reported the problem as "harassment calls". I explained that I had repeatedly asked the SJMN to stop calling me and that my requests were ignored. The usage of my telephone was, in my opinion, being compromised by such continued disturbance. Bingo! The next day, the telemarketing president called and sounded very crestfallen. "I guess you called the telephone company?" "Uh-huh" "I really wish you hadn't done that." "And just what would you have done in my position?" The long and the short of it is that I have not had one single call since that time. Through other sources I learned that the telemarketer immediately removed the entire prefix from the machine to ENSURE that I would not be called again. (Why could that not have been done in the first place???) I can only guess, but it appears that the telco wields a very big stick (like maybe disconnection of service?) when it comes to telemarketers. If I find any of these types offensive and find that they are local, you can bet another call will be made to Pac*Bell. This may work in other areas as well. Footnote: In the past month, I have changed every single phone number in the house to another prefix. So far, no calls from the SJMN. We shall see. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: The Depths of Sliminess From: art@aficom.ocunix.on.ca (Art Hunter) Reply-To: art@aficom.ocunix.on.ca (Art Hunter) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 06:22:40 -0400 Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada > How do I know it's a telemarketer until I answer the phone? > It costs me the annoyance of stopping whatever I am doing and having > to go answer the phone. It's invasive. I use a Caller-ID product that permits me to add a name to the phone number sent by the Telco. Further, this permits me to automatically terminate the calls I preselect as telemarketers or whoever I don't wish to communicate. I can have this change as a function of day of week and time of day. Further, I can group callers into ten groups and have them managed according to day/time as well. There is the ability to have a screen of notes, automatic or manual switch to an answering machine, records of all inbound and outbound calls and a host of other features. I have been using it for over a year now and find it very useful. It is a DOS machine board that takes up one slot and can be run as a TSR or as a dedicated machine. Terminating a telemarketer's call, once you know the number they are calling from, is easy./s ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #551 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19719; 12 Jul 92 14:18 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10781 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Jul 1992 01:43:12 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17259 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Jul 1992 01:43:01 -0500 Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 01:43:01 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207120643.AA17259@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #552 TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 Jul 92 01:43:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 552 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson EFF Response to Recent Indictments (Gerard Van der Leun) Pat Townson Owes EFF an Apology (Mike Godwin) Re: Alleged Phreakers Indicted in New York (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Surprise Calling Card Fraud (Steve Forrette) Re: Surprise Calling Card Fraud (Ed Greenberg) Re: Surprise Calling Card Fraud (Phil Howard) Re: Surprise Calling Card Fraud (Bill Berbenich) Re: Roommates and Long Distance Doesn't Mix (Jueychong Ong) Re: Roommates and Long Distance Doesn't Mix (Art Hunter) Re: See Figure 1 (Roger Roles) Re: Factoid From _Playboy_ (Alan Boritz) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 12:08:27 -0400 From: Gerard Van der Leun Subject: EFF Response to Recent Indictment FEDERAL HACKING INDICTMENTS ISSUED AGAINST FIVE IN NEW YORK CITY Yesterday, Federal officials indicted five people in New York City for computer crime. The indictments name Mark Abene (Phiber Optick), Julio Fernandez (Outlaw), John Lee (Corrupt), Elias Ladopoulos (Acid Phreak), and Paul Stria (Scorpion). The indictments charge that the accused used their computers to access credit bureaus, other computer systems, and make free long-distance calls. Prosecutors revealed they relied on court-approved wiretaps to obtain much of the evidence for their multiple-count indictment for wire fraud, illegal wiretapping and conspiracy. Each count is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. The defendants are scheduled to be arraigned in Manhattan Federal Court on July 16. If found guilty on all counts the defendants could face a maximum term of 50 years in prison and fines of $2.5 million. Otto Obermaier, U.S. Attorney, discounted suggestions that the acts alleged in the indictment were only "pranks" and asserted that they represented "the crime of the future." He also stated that one purpose of the indictment was to send a message that "this kind of conduct will not be tolerated." Mark Abene, known to the computer community as Phiber Optick, denied any wrongdoing. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's staff counsel in Cambridge, Mike Godwin is carefully reviewing the indictments. Mitchell Kapor, EFF President, stated today that: "EFF's position on unauthorized access to computer systems is, and has always been, that it is wrong." "Nevertheless," Kapor continued, "we have on previous occasions discovered that allegations contained in Federal indictments can also be wrong, and that civil liberties can be easily infringed in the information age. Because of this, we will be examining this case closely to establish the facts." EFF | 155 Second Street, Cambridge MA 02141 (617)864-0665 | eff@eff.org ------------------------------ From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) Subject: Pat Townson Owes EFF an Apology Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 19:17:01 GMT Pat Townson, with his usual respect for fact, writes: > Still other fools will observe how the government's > actions will stifle and chill the intellectual curiosity of hacklings > everywhere, and where would we be today without Apple Computer, et al > ad nauseum. Let's listen to the shrill chatter from the EFF and its > Socially Responsible membership as they defend the darlings against > the evil government, credit bureaus, telcos, etc. By the way, has the > EFF announced who the attorney will be to represent these young > 'victims' yet? PAT] For some reason, Pat's respect for the rights of others stops short of our right not to be libelled or deliberately misrepresented. Specifically, Pat believes that it is appropriate to invent and disseminate vicious misrepresentations about EFF. The public record, however, puts the lie to Townson's assertions For example, Mitch Kapor wrote in the September 1991 issue of EFFector: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has never condoned the unauthorized entry into computer systems for any reason. There is absolutely no question that uninvited computer intrusions represent a major problem on the electronic frontier; and one which we, and thousands of others, struggle with on a daily basis." But perhaps Townson missed that issue. Did he also miss the very first issue of EFFector, in which Kapor wrote the following comment? "I regard unauthorized entry into computer systems as wrong and deserving of punishment." This was published in March 1991 on paper; it appeared online in late 1990. Is Townson so interested in promoting a view of himself as anti-hacker that he does not care who he defames in the process? EFF has worked on occasion to prevent innocent people from being punished, and to see that government prosecution of the guilty is done in a way that does not compromise the rights of all of us to due process. We are proud of this work. But only someone whose disregard for the truth borders on the pathological could suppose that we *ever* seek to excuse unauthorized access, or that we routinely defend those who engage in such acts. I think there is immense irony in Townson's claim that we're expected to utter "shrill chatter" as we "defend the darlings" (whoever they are). I doubt anyone at EFF is capable of being as shrill as Townson. And I am certain that we have higher regard for the truth than he does. Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-0665 EFF, Cambridge ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Alleged Phreakers Indicted in New York Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 05:58:17 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC In article Nigel.Allen@lambada.oit. unc.edu writes: > A computer hacker is someone who uses a computer or a telephone to > obtain unauthorized access to other computers. It would be nice if once in a while somebody could be bothered to get this right in a press release ... >a/k/a "Phiber Optik," Elias Ladopoulos, a/k/a "Acid Phreak," and Paul Weren't these two mentioned in that {Whole Earth Quarterly} article a long time back that also heralded the coming of the EFF to the scene? Wish I remembered more about it, but I do recall those two names. Seemed like fairly nice guys, for crackers. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Surprise Calling Card Fraud Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 09:48:45 GMT In article schuldy@progress.COM (Mark Schuldenfrei) writes: > I received a surprising call from AT&T's Calling Card Fraud unit this > past weekend, and thought I would solicit some advice, and warn the > unsuspecting. [story about calling card number stolen off of hotel's SMDR deleted] > More specifically, does anyone have suggestions for what I can or > should do about this situation? I'd like to think that some action > can be taken: this is a special case of a calling card that has never > been used for another purpose or time that I can recall. Can anyone > suggest an officer, or person that I should contact, or either AT&T or > Federal or State authorities? Or, as I suspect, should I treat this > as an untreatable symptom of a racing crime rate? I would suggest trying to escalate this within AT&T's fraud department. I'm sure that they already do this, but you may want to verify that they generate reports based on commonality of all locations that fraudulent cards were recently used from. After all, for every valid call, they have a record of the ANI of the calling number. It should not be too hard for their computer to figure out that a large number of calling cards that were used at that specific hotel had fraudulent charges occur shortly thereafter. I would think that AT&T could then persue the matter further, armed with this information. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: edg@netcom.com (Ed Greenberg) Subject: Re: Surprise Calling Card Fraud Date: Fri, 10 Jul 92 16:27:45 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) I imagine that the most secure way to use a calling card is to swipe it through the reader of an AT&T calling card phone. Ed Greenberg | Home: +1 408 283 0511 | edg@netcom.com P. O. Box 28618 | Work: +1 408 764 5305 | DoD#: 0357 San Jose, CA 95159 | Fax: +1 408 764 5003 | KM6CG (ex WB2GOH) ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: Surprise Calling Card Fraud Date: Sat, 11 Jul 92 03:47:11 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) schuldy@progress.COM (Mark Schuldenfrei) writes: > The implications of for individuals and industry are rather > frightening. If public places are not safe for the use of calling > cards, if neither speaking the number nor touch-tone entry are secure, > if private hotels and motels are not secure, how does one make phone > calls when on the road? Call Me cards are too limited, and Custom > Calling cards are not much better. This sounds like a thread for sci.crypt. The solution is an intelligent call access device that can hear a series of coded tones coming from a verification point, and respond with the appropriate reply tones. The tones first sent would simply be a random sequence. The verification computer AND the intelligent access device would both perform a one-way encryption of that random value. The device would send it and the verification computer would validated it against what it figured out. The key to the encryption would be one assigned only to you so the verification computer would have to already know who you are (at least claiming to be). > More specifically, does anyone have suggestions for what I can or > should do about this situation? I'd like to think that some action > can be taken: this is a special case of a calling card that has never > been used for another purpose or time that I can recall. Can anyone > suggest an officer, or person that I should contact, or either AT&T or > Federal or State authorities? Or, as I suspect, should I treat this > as an untreatable symptom of a racing crime rate? I've had this happen to me, and the "cracked" card was in fact never used anywhere. There is the distinct possibility that the hotel did not play any part in this theft. It really should be AT&T's concern at this point. What I suggest you might do is buy some stock in AT&T and proceed to complain through the channels as a stockholder that AT&T needs to take stronger action against this "profit lossage". There will be the argument that the cost to enforce is higher than the loss (and it might be true, at least today). But the problem won't go away unless something is done about it. [steps up on soapbox] Otherwise just write it up as yet another symptom of a crime-happy society that does not enforce the laws it has, and wastes tax money just trying to make more and more laws that aren't going to be enforced anyway. [steps down from soapbox] Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Surprise Calling Card Fraud Date: Fri, 10 Jul 92 9:55:21 BST From: Bill Berbenich Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu Two methods that I use for preventing calling card fraud: Bear in mind that for both of these methods I use a LEC/RBOC or a carrier's own 'pay phone' only. No COCOTs. I have learned to spot these before they can see the whites of my eyes. (1) Use the card-reader phones, where you "swipe" (no pun intended) the card or insert it momentarily into a slot, and; (2) Press the numbers in on a touch-tone phone, but cover my dialing finger with my other hand so that only I can see it. I am REAL aware of the people around me and will notice if someone tries to look in, in spite of my covering up the touch tone pad. I have been aware of the potential for SMDR-based calling card fraud at hotels and motels ever since 1985 when I made an AT&T calling card call from a motel room. When I checked out, I was offered a copy of the SMDR printout, detailing ALL of my calls. I was somewhat surprised to see that my calling card number and pin were captured on paper (and possibly elsewhere), along with the rest of the information on the calls. I was less telecom-savvy then, but I still realized the implications if a hotel employee (or dumpster diver, for that matter) were to get that information and exploit it for fraudulent purposes. If there is any way possible to conveniently do so, I use one of the two methods above to make calling card calls. The first method is preferable to me. I make it a point to cover the numbers on the card with my hand when I'm swiping or inserting it. I also try to use a phone where there isn't someone nearby who can even observe what I am doing, be it dialing in a number or swiping a card through. Sign me, Another telecom paranoid, Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill Internet: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: ong@cs.columbia.edu (Jueychong Ong) Subject: Re: Roommates and Long Distance Doesn't Mix Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 21:20:54 GMT In article sherman@unx.sas.com (Chris Sherman) writes: > But, Southern Bell says that they can't do this. They can block LD > calls completely, for $22 setup, and $2 a month, but this means no > long distance calls PERIOD. But, they say, if AT&T (or whoever) > offers something called a 950 service (I hope I got the numbers > right), I could get a special number that only I could use to dial LD > numbers. But I can only get one of these special numbers, and if I > gave it to the others, then I would be right back where I started. It isn't that complicated. The 950 number gives the caller access to the LD "company", but the caller still has to enter his/her calling card number. e.g. MCI's 950 number is 950-1022, and is a local telephone number in most areas. If it's not available, there's always 800-950-1022. jc ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Roommates and Long Distance Doesn't Mix From: art@aficom.ocunix.on.ca (Art Hunter) Reply-To: art@aficom.ocunix.on.ca (Art Hunter) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 07:10:01 -0400 Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada > One possibility is to get a toll restriction device. Hello direct > 800-HI-HELLO (aka 800-444-3556) sells several models of what they call > "Call Controllers" which can block various types of outgoing calls > (976, 900, 011, etc). The middle model (Call Control Plus @ $99.95) > should do the job for you. It can be bypassed by you with a password, > and at Bell's $2/mo, a year pays for it. The cheaper model at $49.95 The CallerID product that I use has the ability to dial out and to block calls to 900, 976 and any other numbers you wish. This is free (once you buy the unit). I had one fellow send me mail telling me to stop posting in here as such a product is not in existance. Incredible. Just incredible. ------------------------------ From: rdr@alliant.com (Roger Roles) Subject: Re: See Figure 1 Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 20:56:37 GMT I gave Herb Jacobs a call to refresh my memory when this thread started. He said that he wrote the version for VMS version 3 after seeing a version written for TOPS-10, and that he credited the author of the TOPS-10 version in his. His copy is buried in his files somewhere, but he said that if he ran across it he would send me a copy. If that happens in the near future, I will think about typing it in. rdr@alliant.com, alliant!rdr Roger D. Roles ------------------------------ Date: 06 Jul 92 14:48:20 EDT From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Factoid From _Playboy_ stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > In article friedl@mtndew.Tustin.CA. > US (Stephen Friedl) writes: >> _Playboy_, August, 1992 >> "Reach out and put the touch on someone: >> 18,000,000 unsolicited sales calls are >> made to private homes in the US each day" > Gee, I wonder how this compares with the number of battered-wife- > calls-home-from-shelter-and-is-worried-that-husband-will-beat-her- > if-he-knows-what-number-she's-calling-from calls that happen each day? Probably not at many as the number of psychiatrists-worried-that-a- psychotic-killer-patient-will-use-a-"call back"-switch-feature-to- call-the-doctor-stupid-enough-to-call-his-patient-from-a-private-un- listed-phone-in-his-house! It really happened in New York, and was given as an "example" why the NYS-PUC shouldn't let New York Telephone offer the service. Alan Boritz 72446.461@compuserve.com [Moderator's Note: Don't forget about the lawyers who want to be able to call people at home while not having to risk anyone calling *them* at home. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #552 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19668; 12 Jul 92 14:16 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22157 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Jul 1992 03:52:03 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20677 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Jul 1992 03:51:52 -0500 Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 03:51:52 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207120851.AA20677@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #553 TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 Jul 92 03:51:55 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 553 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach (Jeff Carpenter) Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach (H. Peter Anvin) Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach (Roger Klorese) Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach (Phil Howard) Easy Reach, 0+, and Operator Assisted (John Butz) Re: Company Uses Caller-ID to Identify Customers (Paul Robinson) Re: Company Uses Caller-ID to Identify Customers (Jueychong Ong) Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor (Thor Lancelot Simon) Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor (Michael Masterson) Do ESS Switches Provide Detailed Call Records? (James M. Simpson) Re: SWBell Marketing Voice Mail (ghadsal@american.edu) Re: 911 in Australia (Jeremy Lawrence) Re: 911 Circuitry Can Detect 91 (Jeffrey J. Carpenter) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 12:20:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeffrey J. Carpenter Subject: Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach TELECOM Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: Well seriously, you should believe her, because > that is the way 700 is set up and it was Bellcore, not AT&T which made > it that way. Every carrier is entitled to use *all* of the 700 space. > Of necessity, one must specify which carrier's 700 space you wish to > use. You are certainly correct about this, but why couldn't they have requested a new special service code for this type of service, something like 500 or 600. They didn't have to use 700. I think that the dialing instructions for dialing a 700 can be confusing and may counteract any convenience that people trying to reach you might get by having one number to call. jeff ------------------------------ From: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP) Subject: Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach Reply-To: hpa@nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 21:46:28 GMT Seems like there is at least one solution here (although it will still only work within the USA): Let AT&T grab another 10XXX (like they already have several); then use whatever numbers ... maybe starting with 700 numbers, but not necessarily ... "What's your phone number? 10456-700-H-PETER-A" A dedicated country code would probably be the best, especially from an international standpoint. Otherwise, maybe we have found a use for the 600 area code. hpa INTERNET: hpa@nwu.edu TALK: hpa@casbah.acns.nwu.edu BITNET: HPA@NUACC HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN IRC: Scalar NeXTMAIL: hpa@lenny.acns.nwu.edu ------------------------------ From: rogerk@queernet.org (Roger B.A. Klorese) Subject: Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach Organization: QueerNet Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 05:54:58 GMT In article coleman@bi.twinsun.com (Mike Coleman) writes: > It's so *easy*! One man, one vote. One "entity", one phone number. You get 'one "entity", one phone number'... the number includes the carrier access code. ROGER B.A. KLORESE +1 415 ALL-ARFF rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 00:28:47 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) writes: > features, carriers, services, etc. Their latest suggestion is that > telephone numbers (as opposed to dialing plans) should only designate > the intended recipient, and prefix digits or other means should be > used to signal the other stuff. Followed literally, that means the > use of two numbers for "distinctive ring" service violates the CCITT > "rules". Of course, so do Remote Call Forwarding numbers (for FX). > For the future, CCITT is banking on "supplementary numbers" that can > be delivered to ISDN sets to select services or terminals. It would be nice if there was a way for the caller to select voice, fax, data, or whatever new gizmo I am attaching. Thus if someone is calling me from their "fax subchannel" it would ordinarily and automatically be directed into my "fax subchannel" even though they are using the same exact number to reach me as if they were using voice. It would also be nice if one could have multiple incoming and outgoing lines, that only take up ONE number slot as far as ordinary dialability goes (some specialized access dialing could address individual lines for diagnostic purposes). I await ISDN with the hope that at least it can deliver some of this capability. > 800 number "portability" will not change the number of 800 > numbers, so in general it only changes from using NXX to identify the > IXC to using NXX-XXXX to identify the IXC. (There are other > enhancements, such as using ANI, type-of-line, traffic rate and > time-of-day to select the IXC, but that's just frosting.) What it does is "defragment" the space. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ From: jbutz@homxa.att.com Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 00:36 EDT Subject: Easy Reach, 0+, and Operator Assisted In article , TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: It is important to point out also that all EasyReach > numbers must be dialed zero plus 700 -- not one plus. They are always > in effect 'operator assisted'. PAT] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yes, EasyReach calls can be placed {10288} 0 + 700, 1 + 800 followed by {0+}700 (using the 800 access method), 10288-0 or 00- ("real" operator assisted). I would hesitate to use the words "operator assisted" in reference to the 0 + 700 dialing however. No operator will ever come on the line when an ER700 call is dialed {10288} 0 + 700. "Operator Assisted" usually implies surcharges and these surcharges are not part of the ER700 tariff for 0 + 700 dialing (unless of course you bill to a calling card or call the operator). In effect, a 0 + 700 call is billed like a 1+ call and at similar rates. John Butz Easy Reach 700 System Engineering AT&T Bell Labs jbutz@homxa.att.com [Moderator's Note: It is not billed 'at similar rates' ... Easy Reach calls are much more expensive per minute. Also, 'operator assisted' has come to mean any call other than 1+, IMHO. Perhaps a better way to phrase it would have been 'special handling/billing'. PAT] ------------------------------ Reply-To: Tdarcos@mcimail.com From: Paul Robinson Date: Fri, 10 Jul 92 02:32:53 EDT Subject: Re: Company Uses Caller-ID to Identify Customers In TELECOM Digest V12 #546 <70465.203@compuserve.com (Leonard Erickson) says: > sami@scic.intel.com writes: >> 1). They were using Caller-ID to present account information to the >> operators as they answered the phone. Multiple phone numbers are >> mapped into a given account [Note: This could cause some problems if a >> number of people share a line in a small company, but that is probably >> a small percentage of the businesses.] > > This *isn't* Caller-ID, it's ANI. And it is pretty standard for > companies with 800 number order desks. It's just that the company you > dealt with is being *open* about it. I used to have an account with Mid Atlantic Telecom here in Washington, DC. Every month I got the bill for an 'overlay' 800 number that was attached to the ordinary local telephone number as the equivalent of a second phone number attached to it. I also had an 800 number for a voice mail account I was using at that time. At the end of each month I would get the bill of the flat-rate service charge and the bill for the amount of charges for calls received. On a separate page they sent me a list of the time, date, length of call and the telephone number calling from, for every call made to each of the 800 numbers. A while back, a company selling equipment to cable companies was selling a system to allow the called party to get the ANI of a caller, from MCI's 800 network, in real time, usually for ordering pay-per-view services. You called it and it does what the Atlanta number from the 732 network that I reported earlier does: it reads back to you the number you are calling from. They got so many calls they had to stop the demonstration. I think C&P Telephone company is trying also to cash in on this by using something similar. In the latest telephone directory, a local exchange is marked "Pay Per View." And the intent, I would assume, is to allow someone to call a PPV number and using caller-id, it could do the same thing as the 800 number; more importantly, since it's a local number, the cable company would not be metered at 16c a minute for calls coming into it; they could conceivably use the service for different orders, if the service was cheap enough. At least one local cable company in the area is using this exchange for this purpose, a user on a local BBS informed me. Paul Robinson -- These opinions are MINE (who else would admit it?) ------------------------------ From: ong@cs.columbia.edu (Jueychong Ong) Subject: Re: Company Uses Caller-ID to Identify Customers Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 21:50:08 GMT In article sami@scic.intel.com writes: > 1). They were using Caller-ID to present account information to the > operators as they answered the phone. Multiple phone numbers are > mapped into a given account [Note: This could cause some problems if a > number of people share a line in a small company, but that is probably > a small percentage of the businesses.] > 2). They have the ability to ignore Caller-ID for a given customer if > that customer tells them to disable it. She said that very few people > have asked for this option. The company announced the use of Caller-ID > on the order desk in its catalog. [Shows how well I read the fine > print!] That was no fine print. When they first introduced the system, they took two pages (pages 2 and 3) of their catalog to explain their policy for using Caller-ID. I can understand why few people ask them to disable it. They ask for your phone number anyway on credit card orders. The strange thing is that they don't seem to use it all the time. On my last call a few days ago, I had to give them my customer number. jc ------------------------------ From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1992 20:20:18 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC In article MCMANGPH@NUSVM.BITNET (Ang Peng Hwa) writes: > The "theory" of non-ionizing radiation was discovered accidentally by > a researcher who was looking for the cause of leukemia. He/she (can't > remember) found nothing until one day, looking around her, saw that > there were lots of power lines. Redrawing her subjects, she found that > virtually all lived within 100 yards of either a substation or a high > voltage line. Note that high-voltage power lines are frequently sprayed (well, the ground under them, I suppose, not the lines themselves, of course!) with defoliants. Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM ------------------------------ From: mmaster@parnasus.dell.com (Michael Masterson) Subject: Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor Organization: Dell Computer Co Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 16:38:09 GMT john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Ah, yes. I read RISKS occasionally. It is great comedy. But before you > go off totally immersed in terror, consider this: if you could focus > (such as with a magnifying glass) the superlative power of a handheld > cellular phone (0.6 watt) into a microscopic concentrated dot, you > MIGHT be able to cause (through heating effects) cell changes in an > organism. However, at the antenna itself the energy is thousands of > times more dispersed than that required to even be detected by an > organism's physical make up and every millimeter removed makes the > dispersal even greater. Do you have any idea how LITTLE power 0.6 watt > is? Well, it's about 100 times the power levels of a laser that says "AVOID EXPOSURE TO BEAM" on the warning label, and that's just talking about dead surface skin cells ... heck, .5 watts is about what the cutting lasers run that are used to cut master disks for CDs. Cheers, The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of any other person. Michael Masterson mmaster@parnasus.dell.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 92 20:44:10 EDT From: Matt Simpson Subject: Do ESS Systems Keep Detailed Call Records? Does anyone out there know if local exchanges keep any kind of call detail records? Specifically, I'm interested to know if a law-enforcement agency would be able to obtain a record of all local calls made to a specific number for some period in the past, without having requested a trace in advance. My house has been robbed twice in the last six weeks, and I suspect the culprits have called in advance to make sure I wasn't home. There have been a few times recently when I have been home when I'm normally at work, and the phone would ring. When I answered, the caller would hang up. This rarely happens at times when I'm "supposed" to be home. I think someone knows my schedule fairly well, but calls just to be sure. I'm going to run this idea past the local sheriff, but these guys aren't too swift about stuff like that. Maybe sometime I'll entertain you folks with the story of my parents' tenant who suffered obscene, threatening phone calls, as well as repeated break-ins, and the local constabulary's incompetent efforts at catching the perpetrator. Anyway, I thought if anybody out there could tell me if this is possible, I could be a little more insistent about it. I don't know exactly what kind of switch I'm on. It's fairly new, was installed about 18 months ago, with much hype about how great it would be. The company is South Central Bell, and the exchange is 606-987, if that helps any. [Moderator's Note: Yes, the new switches do keep very detailed calling records. Getting them examined may be a hassle, but they do exist. Now of course if you had that nasty old Caller-ID, or even 'return last call', you could invade the caller's privacy by noting the calling number and act on it from that direction. Not only do hackerphreaks not care for Caller-ID, I suppose most burglars who call ahead to scope things out don't like it very well either. PAT] ------------------------------ Organization: The American University - University Computing Center Date: Saturday, 11 Jul 1992 23:00:51 EDT From: GHADSAL@AMERICAN.EDU Subject: Re: SWBell Marketing Voice Mail We may thank Judge Harold Greene for this and *more*. In his last year's decision (forced decision) Judge Greene finally is allowing the RBOCs to participate in the National Information Services Industries. VoiceMail and a host of other potential services that any *non* RBOC were always available to anyone or anycompany up until July 1991; as of that date the "strangle hold" he and his court has held on the RBOCs is withering away. Thank you !!! In our regional area Bell Atlantic offers a host of services including the VoiceMail, Caller ID, CallBack, and more; they market them as "IQ Services". ------------------------------ From: g9129499@cc.uow.edu.au (Jeremy Lawrence) Subject: Re: 911 in Australia Reply-To: jeremy@snrc.uow.edu.au Organization: University Of Wollongong Date: Fri, 10 Jul 92 04:59:00 GMT ash@mlacus.oz.au (Ash Nallawalla) writes: > dbw@crash.cts.com (David B. Whiteman) writes: >> The radio had a news story about a fellow in Australia who loved to >> watch the TV show Rescue 911. When his house was on fire he kept >> frantically trying to dial 911 without sucess. He forgot that where >> he lived one dials "0 0 0" (three zeros) for emergency services. > Sounds like an urban legend in the making. In Australia they have > William Shatner (sp?) telling viewers that 000 is the number to use in > Oz -- I believe this is repeated more than once during the hour-long > programme. The way I heard it here in Oz (radio/newspapers a couple of weeks ago), the guy was a New Zealander who dialled the the NZ emergency number, 111, instead of 000. Jeremy Lawrence jeremy@snrc.uow.edu.au Switched Networks Research Centre or: g9129499@uow.edu.au University of Wollongong, Australia +61-42-21 3244 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1992 12:35:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeffrey J. Carpenter Subject: Re: 911 Circuitry Can Detect 91 Pushpendra Mohta@nic.cer wrote: > The string being redialed was *70 011 91 11 xxxyyyy > Those of you who have cancel call waiting will recall that there is > brief pause after you enter the cancel code and before the dial tone > returns. During the redial process, that pause ate the 011 tones ... > [Moderator's Note: My experience here has been that with either *67, > *70, *71 or *72 (all return stutter dial tone) you can 'dial through' > ... that is, no pause is required in the modem string, etc. Other > places are different on this? PAT] What probably was happening was there was a delay long enough to miss the beginning zero of "011", so what ended up going through was 1-1-911, with the leading ones being ignored. jeff ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #553 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19364; 12 Jul 92 14:12 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09356 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Jul 1992 05:52:27 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01574 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Jul 1992 05:52:17 -0500 Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 05:52:17 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207121052.AA01574@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #554 TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 Jul 92 05:52:10 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 554 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson The Earliest Talking Clock? (was Jane Barbie) (Bill Higgins) Leap Seconds and Telco Time-of-Day Accuracy (Paul Eggert) Identa-Ring Decoding Box (Steven A. Rubin) Residential ISDN (John Higdon) Why Not PEP Over Cellular? (Brian Litzinger) Connecting Phone Lines to a Computer (Eric Woudenberg) Simple Volume Boost (Chris Ambler) 1-800-ATF-GUNS and Anonymity (Michael G. Katzmann) Idiot Dialing 911 (Cliff Stoll) Pager Modem? (Peter Lucas) Loop Simulators (Ray Berry) Here is the Number to Read Back Your Calling Number (Paul Robinson) Looking For Phone Exchange Stats (Douglas W. Martin) Telecom in Remote Countries? (Douglas W. Martin) Ground Wire on Network Interface? (Jim Rees) The Message Center Offers 'Daily Reporter' Service (Justin Leavens) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1992 22:11:16 -0500 (CDT) From: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) Subject: The Earliest Talking Clock? (was Jane Barbie) The thread about talking clocks in TELECOM Digest (comp.dcom.telecom) reminded me of the earliest talking clock I ever heard of... About ten years ago there was a Silly Science Fair held as part of our local science fiction convention. Entrants were encouraged to create bogus or parody science projects. Dan Cohn entered one whose centerpiece was a recording of the "cosmic background radiation--" the microwave hiss of three-degree-Kelvin blackbody photons left over from the early moments of the hot universe. It sounded like this: "Sssssssssssssss...." Dan claimed to have applied advanced forms of signal processing to this (apparent) noise, and after all his fancy algorithms and equipment had worked on the background radiation, the tape sounded like this: [faint voice over background hiss] "The time... at the bang... will be Zero.... exactly." Bill Higgins Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET ------------------------------ From: eggert@farside.twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) Subject: Leap Seconds and Telco Time-of-Day Accuracy Organization: Twin Sun, Inc Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1992 19:10:09 GMT In comp.protocols.time.ntp <208@visicom.com>, Jeff Makey reports that Pacific Bell's time-of-day service in San Diego adjusted for the June 30 leap second sometime between 28 and 53 minutes late. (Since they hang up after reporting the time, it was impractical for him to determine the exact moment of switchover.) This suggests that PacBell adjusts their time-of-day clock manually rather than relying on an automated system linked to WWV. And it brings up more general questions: How accurate is the time-of-day reported by PacBell, GTE, etc.? What incentives do the telcos have to report time-of-day accurately? I can think of a _disincentive_: the service is free, and the more accurate it is, the more it'll be used. Surely accurate timekeeping is important within the telco switches for performance and accounting reasons. How are times within the switches synchronized to the times reported to the public? ------------------------------ From: Steven A Rubin Subject: Identa-Ring Decoding Box Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1992 20:02:04 GMT I currently have a phone line with two different numbers, with distinctive ringing letting me determine which number the person is calling on. I purchased an Autoline Plus box from ITS that 'listens' to the rings and routes the call to the proper device. The problem (more like a frustration) is that the box takes three rings to determine where to send the call. Is there a device that can do the routing on less rings yet still be reliable? Other than this, I am extremely pleased with this device, and it so far has 100% error-free routing. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Jul 92 23:21 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Residential ISDN I have been having serious conversations with a Pac*Bell rep concerning the installation of ISDN at my residence. After getting all of the prices, I was admonished to wait just a bit to see what happens with Pac*Bell's current RESIDENTIAL ISDN proposal before the PUC. Yes, you read that right. Pac*Bell may soon be offering ISDN to the common man. It seems that for the first time in my memory, I can call the business office, give my prefix and NOT be told, "Oh, I'm sorry. [Fill in feature or offering of your choice] is not available in your area." I have decided to wait for the residential version. Ordering two lines of Centrex (that I do not need) seems just a bit much even still. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: brian@apt.bungi.com (Brian Litzinger) Subject: Why Not PEP Over Cellular? Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 06:13:04 GMT I have an adapter that allows me to use a standard fax machine and V.22bis type modem over my cellular phone. However, my Telebit Trailblazer+ won't do PEP over it. It actually acts slightly odd. I get the PEP tones of the answering modem, it goes through the normal PEP undulations and turns the speaker off, but never sends the connect message, and eventually gives up. Any ideas? brian@apt.bungi.com ------------------------------ From: eaw@alliant.com (Eric Woudenberg) Subject: Connecting Phone Lines to a Computer Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 08:02:16 GMT I'm helping a research lab connect several PBX extensions to a VMEbus based computer. They would like to develop a program which can answer calls placed to these extensions and use speech recognition to find a phone number when given a (spoken) name. The main problem is how to do the phone line handling and A/D and D/A conversion. My vision of the ideal solution would be a VMEbus board with 8 or so RJ-11 jacks on the front. The board would be able to answer and hangup the phone and also digitize incoming audio and DMA it into memory, it would also need to be able to output audio from digital data in memory. Does anyone know of a board like this? Can anyone give some suggestions on they might approach this problem? I would be very interested in talking to someone who knows about this sort of thing. Thanks, Eric Woudenberg (eaw@alliant.com) ------------------------------ From: cambler@nike.calpoly.edu (The Squire, Phish) Subject: Simple Volume Boost Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business. Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 11:47:08 GMT This is probably very simple, but alas, I'm a software weenie :-) I have a very nice 20 line phone picked up at surplus. All the lights and such don't work because they want some voltage from a PBX or something, but all 20 lines work nicely. Because it's a PBX phone, however, the volume out of the handset is pretty low. I'm also told that the volume from the mic is low. Interestingly, when another extension in the house is picked up, I'm told the volume on the other end improves. Can anyone explain this? And can any suggest a simple circuit (preferably passive, or using phone power) to boost volume to the earpiece? Thanks in advance. cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu | Fubar Systems BBS (805) 54-FUBAR 3/12/24, MNP5, 8N1 FSBBS 2/FSUUCP 1.3 ------------------------------ From: vk2bea!michael@arinc.com (Michael G. Katzmann) Subject: 1-800-ATF-GUNS and Anonymity Date: 11 Jul 92 13:52:44 GMT Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology., Crofton, MD There is an advertisment that has been running in the {Washington Post} over the last few weeks, placed by General Dynamics (heavy irony), asking members of the public to call the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to report illegal gun dealings. It says call 1-800-ATF-GUNS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE YOUR NAME. This is, at the least, misleading since it implies anonymity for the caller. Since as astute comp.dcom.telecom readers know, ANI is available to 800 service subscribers, the caller's number would surely be recorded by ATF. Whilst one can't argue the objectives of the campaign, it is not fair to mislead the general public. (Perhaps we've all become used to being lied to by advertisments ... sigh) Michael Katzmann Broadcast Sports Technology Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A Amateur Radio Stations: NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV opel!vk2bea!michael@uunet.uu.net [Moderator's Note: I've often had the same thoughts about the numerous signs I see on the subways here urging people to call and seek help for a problem with cocaine, abusing your children, etc. They all use 800 numbers also, with ANI, I'm sure. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stoll@ocf.Berkeley.EDU (Cliff Stoll) Subject: Idiot Dialing 911 Date: 12 Jul 1992 00:20:42 GMT Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility A friend of mine answered phones at the Buffalo 911 hotline. Perhaps it's an urban myth, but she swears that one woman wouldn't dial 911 because "I couldn't find the eleven button on my phone." Since then, they advertise the service as "nine one one" instead of "nine eleven." Cliff Stoll 12 July 92 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 21:54:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Peter Lucas Subject: Pager Modem? Since there is now a service that forwards Internet mail into the alphanumeric pager world, I assume there must also exist receivers that one can connect to a laptop to recieve them, right? This sounds pretty wonderful in principle. Does it work? Where does one get such a device and how much is it? Are there options? More generally, how close are we to a nationwide two-way cellular data network? pete lucas (lucas@maya.com) ------------------------------ From: ole!ray@uunet.UU.NET (Ray Berry) Subject: Loop Simulators Organization: Cascade Design Automation, Bellevue, WA Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 19:51:25 GMT To vary loop voltage over 100 volt range, vary impedance, etc.; also, would like a programmable ring generator of variable frequency and voltage ( 40-130 Vrms, 16-60 Hz) ; the ability to gate it or program it for particular ring patterns would be a plus. I need something that looks like a *real* line- not a quick hack power supply, square wave inverting ringer, etc. I don't know who the vendors of this type of stuff are -- hence this post. TIA. Ray Berry kb7ht ray@ole.UUCP 73407.3152@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Reply-To: tdarcos@mcimail.com From: Paul Robinson Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 00:01:08 EDT Subject: Here is the Number to Read Back Your Calling Number There is a number you can dial to obtain the telephone number that you are calling from. I got this number off of the RIME BBS Network "Phones" conference. I have tried it and it works, even from a U.S. Government Centrex number. I do not know if there is a charge for the call, as I do not remember seeing it on my phone bill. The exact number to dial is: 10732-1-404-988-9664 Note this is a special number using the 732 network, a private network operated by AT&T. After a tone, it reads back the area code and phone number placing the call, then what apparently is a checksum digit. At this point it no longer has the ANI information and then reads back all zeros. If AT&T is charging for this; all well and good, they are not likely to drop it; if not, please be prudent in using it so as not to see it cancelled. Paul Robinson - These opinions are mine (Who else would want them?) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 92 08:32:02 -0700 From: martin@cod.nosc.mil (Douglas W. Martin) Subject: Looking For Phone Exchange Stats I am looking for some statistics or even rough estimates of what percentage of particular exchanges are actually assigned. There has been much discussion of area codes running out of exchanges, but what about exchanges running out of numbers? That is, in long-established exchanges (not those involved in recent area code splits) are 99% or 20% etc of numbers actually assigned to phones? Similarly, if calling various exchanges, what might be the probability of getting an actual phone vs an intercept recording? Obviously, there will be a wide variation; so I am looking for extremes; e.g. some urban residential exchanges, vs exchanges like: (907) 852 Barrow Alaska or (819) 793 Baker Lake NWT? Where might I find such info? Thanks, Doug Martin martin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 92 08:47:24 -0700 From: martin@cod.nosc.mil (Douglas W. Martin) Subject: Telecom in Remote Countries? I am looking for data on types of equipment and exchange and phone number assignment in remote countries. E.g. How many exchanges are there in Vanuatu? Is there one for each island? How would numbers be assigned; e.g. with four-digit numbers would the assignment be first 2222, 2223, 2322, etc? And what kind of equipment is in use? Are there still lots of step-by-step switches? I am interested in such information for places like Seychelles, Tuvalu, and the Australian Territories (country code 672). Any info is appreciated. I have seen discussions here about the phone systems in larger countries; there was a very good series of articles on the phone system of India. In addition to small remote island nations, does anyone have info about the phone system in mainland China? Their partition of the country code list is small, I think only one two-digit prefix is assigned to China? Does this suggest not very many phones? or simply that most phones are inaccessible from the rest of the world? Thanks, Doug Martin martin@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) Subject: Ground Wire on Network Interface? Reply-To: Jim.Rees@umich.edu Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project Date: Sat, 11 Jul 92 15:57:17 GMT I just had yet another phone line installed, and I now have a new network interface box on the side of my house. The other lines are the old fashioned kind that go directly into the house, with the protector block mounted in my basement. I assume that the protector block is now part of the network interface. What I don't understand is that there is no ground wire going in to the network interface box. All my other protector blocks require a ground for proper operation. There are two screw holes on the "customer" side of the box marked "G," but these are just holes and don't have any conductors (or screws) in them. There is no other obvious place to put a ground wire. Should I connect up a ground wire somehow? To what? Should I install my own "old-fashioned" protector block in the basement? The network interface is a Keptel SNI 4600 and the line is basic rate ISDN, if that makes a difference. ------------------------------ From: leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) Subject: The Message Center Offers 'Daily Reporter' Service Date: 11 Jul 1992 10:24:50 -0700 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA As a recent subscriber to Pacific Bell's Message Center, I was offerred a free month of their new 'Daily Reporter' service. Essentially, the service drops you a piece of voicemail every day from Dow Jones giving you a little blurb on whichever of the topics you subscribe to (now offerring News, Sports, and Financial categories). The messages are not cumulative, so yesterday's news is replaced by today's news. Each topic is $0.75 monthly, $1.50 for two, and $2.00 for all three. This is supposed to be an inital test of the system, with future additions to the topics: weather reports, restaurant and movie reviews, "and even a daily horoscope!" [oh boy]. To quote more: "You'll also be able to receive information customized to your needs. For example, you'll be able to select only the sports teams you want to know about, or choose spcific financial reports on the companies you're most interested in." We'll see how this works. Considering Pacific Bell somehow 'lost' my original order for the Message Center in the first place, and the problems of the Message Center last year, I'm skeptical. But the operator I spoke with told me that they were planning on expanding the functionality of the Message Center in the next few months (that service to be available for 3X the price of current service) which would include features that GTE currently offers in it's voicemail service. Imagine that, GTE actually _ahead_ of Pacific Bell! Justin Leavens University of Southern California ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #554 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19587; 12 Jul 92 14:15 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15266 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Jul 1992 06:47:22 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27790 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Jul 1992 06:47:14 -0500 Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 06:47:14 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207121147.AA27790@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #555 TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 Jul 92 06:47:05 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 555 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Digital in $1 Billion Australian Telecom Project (Dec News via M. Solomon) More on That Pesky Message Center (Justin Leavens) AT&T's Left Hand Doesn't Know What its Right Hand is Doing (Will Martin) AT&T Makes Junk Phone Calls (Andrew Klossner) Clinton pro Internet? (Joseph Jesson) Book on North American Phone System Wanted (Tom Diessel) Buying Up the Whole Exchange (was New 5ESS(tm) Here) (Alan Boritz) Telephone Vanity Plates? (Alan Boritz) Lower Phone Bills (was Per-Call Charge on Caller-ID) (Justin Leavens) E-Mail Address of "FERMA" (Chang Hyeoungkyu) 800 vs. Calling Cards (John Carr) Broadcasting News Group Expands Digest Distribution (William Pfeiffer) "Two Nine(s)" (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1992 02:02:09 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Digital in $1 Billion Australian Telecom Project From: price@mrktng.enet.dec.com (Dave Price, UNIX Press Relations ) Newsgroups: biz.dec Subject: DECnews/Optus Communications Selects Digital in $1 Billion Date: 10 Jul 92 20:29:13 GMT |||||||||||| DEC n e w s |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Digital Equipment Corporation Maynard, Massachusetts 01754-2571 Editorial contact: (UNITED STATES) Dick Calandrella Digital Equipment Corporation (508) 496-8626 (AUSTRALIA) Peter Davidson Digital Equipment Corporation 011-61-2-561-7008 (AUSTRALIA) David Foster Optus Communications 011-61-2-238-7723 OPTUS COMMUNICATIONS SELECTS DIGITAL AS PRIME CONTRACTOR IN $1 BILLION (AUS) SYSTEMS INTEGRATION TELECOM PROJECT MAYNARD, Mass. -- July 9, 1992 -- In a strategic agreement estimated to be worth $1 billion (AUS) over the next 10 years, Digital Equipment Corporation was named as the prime contractor to provide the complete information technology and service needs for Optus Communications, the second largest telecommunications carrier in Australia. Under terms of the agreement, signed in Sydney, Australia on June 22, 1992, Digital will serve as the prime contractor to Optus to develop an Operational Support System (OSS) for what will be the world's first fully digital telecommunications network. OSS includes the network operating systems and applications software required to manage the many elements of a digital telecommunications network. Building Australia's Second Telecommunications Network Optus, which secured the right to operate Australia's second telecommunications network in November 1991, is a consortium of Bell South, Cable and Wireless, and several Australian firms. Plans call for digital cellular facilities to cover 80 percent of the population, with fibre transmission facilities built to cover most major centers by 1997. This will provide virtually all of Australia with access to Optus' services. Under terms of this contract, Digital will be responsible for the systems integration, management, training, and operation of the entire information technology needs of Optus, and, in effect, become the information technology arm of Optus. Other strategic contractors involved with Digital are: * NorTel Australia Proprietary Limited (for the switching equipment) * Fujitsu Australia Limited (for the transmission equipment) * Nokia Telecommunications (for the digital mobile systems) * Leighton Contractors Proprietary Limited (for the building construction) Optus Chief Executive Officer, Bob Mansfield, described the agreement as one of the largest contracts in the world for development of a fully integrated OSS. "This agreement will see the establishment by Digital of a global OSS Support and Development Center in Australia," Mansfield said. "Digital will also commit its international marketing resources to develop an export market for OSS with the potential to earn up to $1 billion (AUS) for new Australia-developed technology over the next decade," he added. Mansfield also noted that Digital had won its position by solutions and a business plan which will provide world class service and long-term export growth for Australia to other carriers and private network operators. Frank Wroe, Digital-Australia Chairman, said that the agreement with Optus "is a highly significant challenge to Digital. We are involved with every major telecommunications provider in the world, but Australia will move quickly to become a leader in fully- integrated open systems, using fibre technology in end-to-end digital networking." Russ Gullotti, worldwide Vice President of Digital Services, noted that "this agreement with Optus is the largest single systems integration and services contract we have signed anywhere in the world, and we are excited by the challenges and opportunities it will provide in the global telecommunications arena." OSS Potential For Export OSS will allow Optus to provide superior customer service, and a software product for export. It will also be the first fully integrated OSS. Previous projects attempted to integrate a mix of mechanical, analog, and digital technologies that existed in established networks. Digital will be the principal marketer of the new systems through its global operations, and is examining joint venture opportunities with Optus. Digital Equipment Corporation, headquartered in Maynard, Massachusetts, is the leading worldwide supplier of networked computer systems, software and services. Digital pioneered and leads the industry in interactive, distributed and multivendor computing. Digital and its partners deliver the power to use the best integrated solutions - from desktop to data center - in open information environments. #### DECnews is sent as a courtesy to members of the press. For subscription information please contact: David Price, USS Press Relations, Digital Equipment Corporation Voice:603-884-3467 FAX:603-884-3467 Internet:price@decvax.dec.com ------------------------------ From: leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) Subject: More on That Pesky Message Center Date: 11 Jul 1992 15:25:30 -0700 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Apparently something happened to the Pacific Bell Message Center again yesterday. A message today informed users that messages from June 23 to July 8 had been lost, but message receieved between June 28 and July 8th were being restored "and should begin to be recieved in your mailbox again soon." Messages receieved between June 23 and June 27th are apparently gone for good. Callers who reached the Message Center yesterday during the outage time between 1:15pm and 6:30pm were told that the Message Center was "experiencing difficulties" and were not able to leave messages. All Message Center users, according to the recording, will receive a credit for a month's free service in an "upcoming" phone bill. Anyone know the scoop on this outage? Luckily (depending on how you look at it) I just got my Message Center service and didn't set up my mailbox until last night, so I didn't lose anything. But this is two serious outages in one year, this one resulting in the loss of saved messages. Why does the Message Center seemed to be so plagued with problems? Justin Leavens University of Southern California ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Jul 92 8:21:31 CDT From: Will Martin Subject: AT&T's Left Hand Doesn't Know What its Right Hand is Doing This appeared on the SWL mailing list; thought you might want to put it in Telecom, if you didn't already get a copy direct: Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1992 13:08:00 GMT Sender: Short Wave Listener's List From: Jerry Dallal Subject: So what's a little poor English? If bad English is a company's worst fault ... I'll take that, especially if the English is "good enough" to tell you how the product works. Consider a blue-chip USA company whose English is usually flawless -- AT&T. Yesterday, I returned one of their 5405 cordless phones. (Yes, there is a broadcasting tie-in, even if not shortwave.) Why? Because their cordless phones are incompatible with THEIR OWN answering machines. The 5000 series of phones puts out tones in 80 millisecond bursts, no matter how long you depress the key. This is too short to trigger many of the remote features in their currently-market, top-of-the-home-use-line 1323 answering machine, as one of AT&Ts technicians admitted. (I believe the specs require a 750 millisecond tone.) Wait. It gets better. The entire 5000 series of phones puts out burst tones, so AT&T couldn't even specify another one of their models that IS compatible with their answering machines! So which is worse, a company whose manuals are written in poor English, or a company whose telephones and answering machines are incompatible? ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: AT&T Makes Junk Phone Calls Date: 10 Jul 92 09:14:48 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon I send GTE extra money every month to keep my home phone number unlisted, just so that I can enjoy my dinner without interruptions from phone solicitors. Last night such an interruption occurred. A rep from AT&T, my long distance carrier, wanted to sell me a package. Experienced parents may sympathize with my plight: I had a baby in one hand, a bottle in the other, and had to break off a hard-to-manage feeding to answer the damned call. (I can't ignore the phone; I have a second baby in the hospital.) Obviously I can't keep my carrier from knowing my phone number. What steps might I take to prevent more such calls? Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) ------------------------------ From: joe@netcom.com (Joseph Jesson) Subject: Clinton pro Internet??? Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 00:04:56 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) From what I have read, Clinton places the improvement of the Internet (increased bandwidth) VERY high on his list of priorities. Al Gore, the father of the NREN bill, also places the "national info highway" at the top of the list! joe ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 92 02:56:58+0200 From: Thomas Diessel Subject: Book on North American Phone System Wanted Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany) Can you recommend an introductory book on the North American ("Bell", USA/Canada) phone or telecommunication network? Thomas Diessel Federal Armed Forces University, Munich - Computer Science Department Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39 - W-8014 Neubiberg Germany ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 92 21:03:14 EDT From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Buying Up the Whole Exchange (was New 5ESS(tm) Here) dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) writes: > In the wee small hours of July 4th of this year, the Millington, NJ > central office switch was replaced by a nice new 5ESS switch. It > replaced a 1A-ESS switch which had been installed there approximately > ten years ago. A New Jersey Bell employee claims that this > early-retirement of the analog switch was the result of pressure from > AT&T. They wanted ISDN service at the Bell Labs Liberty Corner > location, which is served by this switch. > Apparently, if you're a big enough customer, you can get the local > telco to supply you with ISDN, even if they have to replace the whole > central office to do it! Not only can you get a central office replaced, but you can buy the whole thing! My former boss at the City of New York, a former Bell Labs scientist, explained a while back how Bell had found such a bargain in the land now occupied by AT&T that the real estate people had not realized that it was in the area covered by the independent telco (now known as United Telephone) in northern New Jersey, NOT by New Jersey Bell. It cost a bundle to negotiate the territory from the independent -- and an unlucky Bell employee's job. Alan Boritz 72446.461@compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: 11 Jul 92 21:02:59 EDT From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Telephone Vanity Plates? Did you know that the State of New Jersey issues special vanity license plates for "Telephone Pioneers?" Am I the only one that didn't? I spotted one on a car in a Mahwah, New Jersey, parking lot today. The plates have a "PA" prefix and sport a Telephone Pioneers of America logo with the familiar bell in the middle. What'll they think of next? First Bell-Shaped-Heads, now Bell-Shaped license plates. ;) Alan Boritz 72446.461@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) Subject: Lower Phone Bills (was:Re: Per-Call Charge on Caller-ID Dropped in MI) Date: 11 Jul 1992 14:30:52 -0700 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA > [Moderator's Note: I'll watch eagerly for each issue of "Telebriefs" > in my mail to see what it has to say. Lord knows I could use a > reduction in my phone bill. :) PAT] > From my new GTE-CA bill this month: Where the bill usually reads: TEMPORARY SURCHARGE AS MANDATED BY FCC $1.50 was replaced this month with: TEMPORARY SURCREDIT AS MANDATED BY FCC - $1.50 This was the result of our legal system in action, wasn't it? Gotta love it ... Justin Leavens University of Southern California Microcomputer Specialist leavens@mizar.usc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Jul 92 22:37:32 KDT From: chk@ssp.etri.re.kr (Chang Hyeoungkyu) Subject: E-Mail Address of FERMA Dear netters, Does anybody know the e-mail address of FERMA? I'm interested in DIVAPHONE which is developed by FERMA. A short description of it can be found in the 2nd International Conference on Intelligence in Networks, page 70. Any help will be very much appreciated! Best regards, Chang Hyeoungkyu ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 1992 07:03:43 GMT From: John Carr Subject: 800 vs. Calling Cards Some of our travellers and remote personnel have requested 800 dial-in access to our network. They current call in using AT&T Calling Cards. Should I expect to save money by offering 800 service over their using CCs or are CCs generaly less expensive (if somewhat less convenient). An added factor is that many of these calls will originate in hotels using ripoff AOSs and not all our travellers have grasped the concept of 10288 completely (though we are trying to re-educate them :-) The volume would probably be less than 100 call-hours/month. So, the question is, which is cheaper: 800, AT&T CC direct dialed thru AT&T, AT&T CC direct dialed thru Big Bob's LD & Fish Emporium. Thanks, ------------------------------ From: wdp@airwaves.chi.il.us Subject: Broadcasting Newsgroup Expands Digest Distribution Date: Sat, 11 Jul 92 19:02:24 CDT Dear Telecom readers: Anyone interested in receiving the Usenet newsgroup/mailinglist rec.radio.broadcasting is encouraged to let us know. In the past, we have been reluctant to expand the mailing database due to system restrictions, but that has been remedied now and we are capable of adding subscribers. Rec.radio.broadcasting covers any and all phases of 'domestic' radio broadcasting and related fields such as engineering, recording, formats, news and views, radio history, radio news and political coverage, legal ,matters, new technologies, AM/FM and even some Television DXing, pirate broadcasting, marketing, network radio and employment. Virtually any subject pertaining to the arena of domestic radio broadcasting or matters which are likely to be of interest to the broadcast community (including listeners) is acceptable for inclusion. By 'domestic' we refer to radio which is intended for reception in the country in which it is broadcast. While this is not a 'hard-fast' rule, it is a guideline by which we operate. International participation is welcomed. We do not limit discussion to USA or North Americam radio. To subscribe, send e-mail to wdp@airwaves.chi.il.us and let me know. To submit articles, send to rrb@airwaves.chi.il.us Thank you. William Pfeiffer Moderator - rec.radio.broadcasting ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 0:40:15 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: "Two Nine(s)" Back in 1975 on a college campus, I heard that a phone in an office was ABC-2909 (ABC being used, in this message, for the prefix) and was billed for some calls which the people in that office were sure they did not make. It turns out those calls should have been billed to ABC-9909, which was off-campus. For all I know, this could have been before stricter rules were put in for third-party billing. Anyway, I heard what had caused the confusion: People commonly said "...two nines oh nine" when referring to ABC-9909, and ABC-2909 was of course referred to as "two nine oh nine". ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #555 ****************************** ^A^A^A^A ^A^A^A^A Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09319; 13 Jul 92 0:18 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08592 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 12 Jul 1992 22:22:27 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07106 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 12 Jul 1992 22:06:26 -0500 Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 22:06:26 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207130306.AA07106@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #556 TELECOM Digest Sun, 12 Jul 92 21:29:56 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 556 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Depths of Sliminess (Bill Mayhew) Re: The Depths of Sliminess (Roy Smith) Re: The Depths of Sliminess (Joseph Citro) Re: The Depths of Sliminess (Michael P. Deignan) Re: The Depths of Sliminess (John Higdon) Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor (John Higdon) Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: Payphones With Bogus DTMF Tones? (Alan Boritz) Re: Alarm Bells (Alan Boritz) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu (Bill Mayhew) Subject: Re: The Depths of Sliminess Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 17:10:08 GMT I try to deal with telemarketers with a respecetful, "No thanks," because I know that they are people who are just trying to do a job the same as anyone else. I really get mad, however, when the person on the other end won't termiate the call -- then all bets are off and I show no mercy. Phone telemarketers are not the functional equivalent of people who leave advertising slips in my door. The latter do little to impair the intended function of my door for me to enter and exit, and to admit my intended guests. Telemarketing prevents me from using my phone completely during the call. Telemarketers are more like fuller brush sales people that tie up my door. Like the former, like the latter always see to come calling when I'm the shower! :-) One thing that disturbs me greatly is receiving unsolicited fax calls on my home phone. These universally occur between 11:30 PM and 5:30 AM ET. I am obliged to get out of bed and answer the phone because I am on call for systems support at work. I have no practical means of fighting back to this particularly pathological form of telemarketing. I have a suspicion that I receive the fax calls because I meet a demographic model for a person who is likely to have a fax machine, but apparently the model is not smart enough to differentiate between a home and office telephone. I've been surprised that I've never received any sort of telemarketing attempts on my cellular telephone. It would seem that cellular users would be a juicy techie market and cellular exchange prefixes aren't terribly secret. It must be that success rate for telemarketers isn't very high when potential customers have to pay 40 cents per minute to listen to advertising. What would be nice to implement for caller ID is the ability to have the telco screen incoming from "unknown" numbers. Any friend or repair person would unlikely be calling from a station with unknown number enabled. I'd love sales droids to get a telco intercept recording informing them that, "your party does not accept calls from unknown numbers; this is a recording 2-1-6-1-7." This would speed up life for both the telemarket employee and myself. We'd both benefit. The employee would not have to listen to me being annoyed at her/his untimely interruption (good for the psyche) and I would have have to be interrupted. I disagree with Pat re: caller ID. Yep, I'd love to have it. Of course, I've called the local BOC to plead to have caller ID. The hard truth is that I still don't have Caller ID. There isn't any prohibition on telelmarketing companies from pestering me until such time as I may have Caller ID. Bill Mayhew NEOUCOM Computer Services Department Rootstown, OH 44272-9995 USA phone: 216-325-2511 wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu (140.220.1.1) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 10:02:28 EDT From: Roy Smith Subject: Re: The Depths of Sliminess Organization: Public Health Research Institute (New York) > I use a Caller-ID product that [...] permits me to automatically > terminate the calls I preselect as telemarketers or whoever I don't wish > to communicate [...] It is a DOS machine board that takes up one slot > and can be run as a TSR or as a dedicated machine. Reality check time. Are you seriously suggesting that people should go out and buy PC's which they should then dedicate to the task of screening phone calls? Sure, maybe it's a fun project for a technogeek with lots of spare time and money, but we're talking about plain folks who just don't want to be disturbed by annoying people selling newspaper subscriptions or replacement windows while they're eating dinner. And explain to me how I'm supposed to "preselect" telemarketers? roy@wombat.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 92 19:40:44 CST From: Joseph.Citro@ivgate.omahug.org (Joseph Citro) Subject: Re: The Depths of Sliminess Reply-To: joseph.citro%drbbs@ivgate.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In article coyne@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU writes: >> But the bottom line is that the call costs you nothing, you don't have to >> answer the phone if you don't want to, and if you don't want what is >> being sold, then say so right away, cutting them off if you have to >> [Moderator's Note: ... easy to pick the phone up, say 'no thank >> you' and disconnect. > Pat, > What seems to be missed is, that people are interrupted by these sales > tactics ringing their telephone. I believe that many people drop > whatever they are doing to go and answer a ringing telephone (Maybe > this would be another good thread to decide if this is sane behavior > or not). But there is this feeling that is missed in the previous > posts that this is not an inconvenience on the called person. I really hate to be interupted by those nuisance calls. I never buy anything from unsolicited phone calls. When I do receive them, rather than be nasty to them or even wait until they start their spiel, I ask them to "Hold on for just a minute" then I go continue what I was doing before, leaving them on the line. After five or so minutes, I go back and say "Oh are you still on the line?" Most times they are not. If they do happen to hold on, I hang up on them. And yes I have caller ID so if I get any harrassing phone calls, I can return the favors. Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1 DRBBS (1:285/666.0) ------------------------------ From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) Subject: Re: The Depths of Sliminess Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 06:43:58 GMT jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes: > Ok Pat, tell us how to do that.... The phone is ringing and > a number appears on the screen that I don't recognize. Explain to me > how to use that magic Caller-ID box to make the distinction between a > friend whose number I don't recognize or a potential customer calling > and teleslime? The first thing I would do is integrate Caller ID into my computer system, and have the system interpret the phone number against a database, and announce via its voice subsystem who is calling over my residential PA system. In our area, businesses and residential lines have different prefixes So, I can tell by the prefix whether I am receiving a call from a business line or another residential line. If my system doesn't recognize the phone number from its database, it can simply announce "incoming call from business exchange xxx-xxxx". I would be less likely to get up and answer the phone, only to have AT&T on the other end attempting to convince me to "switch back"... Dr. Michael P. Deignan (deg.pend.) Domain: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net UUCP: ..!uunet!anomaly!kd1hz ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 00:17 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: The Depths of Sliminess pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) writes: > My "call screening system" works this way. An ordinary answering > machine is set to answer on the first ring and has a message that > suggests that the telephone does not ring (it actually does, but I > don't react to it, though that would be longer to explain on the > announcement). I ask the calling party to announce who they are so I > might pick up the phone, or if I don't pick up they can leave a > message (three minutes available from the beep). Since as a Californian, I am not permitted Caller ID ... Mine works this way. My machine answers the phone with a menu offering three choices: leave a message, talk to me direct, and page me. If I'm in bed, very busy, or just grumpy, I remove the 'talk direct' option. But even when active, it blocks many telemarketing calls, particularly those from calling machines since most of them cannot deal with an answering menu of options. In the five years I have used this system, the number of junk pages received has been minimal. > If you are tempted to look up my listed phone number and call me to > see what my message says ("your dime"), you might at least leave a > message saying that it was just a TELECOM Digest reader checking the > announcement. I do not need to make such a request. If you call and do not make a selection, the machine simply unceremoniously hangs up on you and I would never know you were there. I figure that anyone calling me without a touch-tone phone is not worth talking to anyway. In five years I have yet to see a fallacy with this assumption. Knock yourself out. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 08:14 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor mmaster@parnasus.dell.com (Michael Masterson) writes: > Well, it's about 100 times the power levels of a laser that says > "AVOID EXPOSURE TO BEAM" on the warning label, and that's just talking > about dead surface skin cells ... heck, .5 watts is about what the > cutting lasers run that are used to cut master disks for CDs. This is a perfect example of the "science" used by the product scare crowd. As anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of modern technology knows, the point of a laser is to concentrate a highly coherent beam of light energy at a target. The "footprint" of a laser beam is literally millions of times smaller than that which results from 800 MHz RF originating from a handheld antenna. The name of the game is "w/cm^2". In the case of the .5 watt laser, we could be talking about thousands of watts per square centimeter. If we take that same .5 watt and apply it to an area of about 100 centimeters (conservatively the area covered on the body by cellular RF), then we are talking about 1/200 watt per square centimeter. Mr. Masterson's example is several orders of magnitude off from the discussion and not relavent in any way to the topic. Again, we are plagued by the "new voodoo": scare mongers who attempt to frighten the ignorant masses bringing up every conceivable psuedo-scientific ill that modern inventions supposedly cause. Most of the scare disolves away with even the slightest investigation and reality check. The real harm here is that all the "wolf crying" numbs many, including myself, to those few possibly real dangers. Unfortunately, our law and rule makers rarely aquaint themselves with the facts, so we get some very silly restrictions. Even the people of California enacted Proposition 65, which requires warning signs and labels on just about everything. It set up a whole governmental department (pretty lavish in a state that is currently without a budget!) that does nothing but enforce the placement of these silly signs. Has our quality of life improved from this law? Get real! What it has done is cause many such as myself to now virtually ignore all warning labels and signs. This is not good. A good rule of thumb is: check everything out from using established, recognized sources. And avoid organizations that have names in the format of "_________ For a Responsible _________" (e. g. "Union of Concerned Scientests", etc.). These are political action organizations who "use" science any way they see fit to achieve certain POLITICAL ends. Let us keep science and politics separate. On Jul 12 at 14:55, Michael Masterson writes: > The best lasers listed in the 1992 Uniphase catalog have a beam > diameter of .5mm, so even if you took enough of them to make up a > square centimeter, you'd only have about 250 watts, not "thousands" as > you imply ... try the math yourself. I've got the warning label from a > 8 milliwat laser in my hand, it states "avoid exposure to beam", > that's 8/1000ths of a watt, what, oh, 1/125th of a watt? Ok here's the math: .5mm = .0025 cm^2. That is one four-hundredth of a centimeter times .008 or 3.2 watts per centimeter^2 or about 640 times the amount of RF concentration caused by a cellular phone. But you changed laser powers on me. I was using a .5 watt laser for my original figures and you substituted a much less powerful unit in your rebuttal. In any even, it still comes out to a comfortable order of magnitude difference. And just what does the warning label prove? That some yahoos in the EPA are covering their collective asses. > not too far off from your 1/200th of a watt, obviously not "several > orderes of magnitude ... and not relevent in any way to the topic". If you yourself had finished the math, you would have come up with more than one order of magnitude. Again, typical of the scare fanatics. > flame the right person next time. I think I hit the mark this time. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 00:45:41 GMT adk@sun13.SCRI.FSU.EDU (Tony Kennedy) writes: > BTW, do you realize that eating butter reduces your chances of dying > of cancer? Probably by increasing the chances of croaking via heart disease first! Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 92 14:47:44 EDT From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Payphones With Bogus DTMF Tones? analyst@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes: >> I was in Whitefish, Montana at a payphone a couple of days ago, (in a >> casino, perhaps indicitively) trying to make a long distance call to >> Missoula. Being wise to the usual scams, I prefixed things with 10288+ >> but wasn't surprised to note that it was intercepted with "your call >> cannot be completed as dialed". What was strange though, was that the >> DTMF tones appears to have been hacked: (after dialing numbers often >> enough, you get to recognise the tones.) > There's an AT&T 800 number for reporting such things. Dunno what it is > but you could start with 800-CALL-ATT and see if they do. AT&T's > attornies are death on this sort of thing, and will go after them. Don't bet on it. I couldn't complete an AT&T calling card call to a number in Missouri from a LEC's pay phone at a service plaza on I-80 in Indiana (ITC was grabbing the 0+ and 1+ calls). After a few unsuccessful tries with "102880 ...," I called the AT&T operator and asked for assistance. When SHE couldn't get through she called what sounded like a marketing person, who explained that I could not place a 0+ call to that area code because the LEC had not made arrangements for handling calls to that area and that there was nothing they could do. I guess some parts of the country are not as important as others, as far as AT&T's potential calling card business is concerned. (I finally completed the call using MCI with MCI's ENFIA access.) Alan Boritz 72446.461@compuserve.com [Moderator Banging Head Against the Wall: Now I have heard everything! Did you get the name or title of this so-called 'marketing person'? I would have immediatly tried to reach the office manager wherever she was located and urge that she be pulled off the phones until she had been through some sort of training class. What she said was absolutely preposterous ... the system does not work that way. Just as you completed the call using MCI/ENFIA, you could have also completed the call using 1-800-CALL-ATT to route your way around the LEC. No doubt the LEC was screwed up somehow, but it had *nothing* to do with 'making arrangements to handle 0+ calls to that area'. Let me ask, do any of the AT&T readers here become embarrassed by some of the stupid things their co-workers say to or pass off on the public? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 12 Jul 92 14:47:04 EDT From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Alarm Bells wb8foz@SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher) writes: > 3) Past history shows how the Bells' "arms-length" unregulated > subsidiaries are really mostly close-dancing, if not sleeping with, > the regulated LEC's. That's always been the case with New York Telephone. For example, NYNEX's unregulated subsidiary NYNEX Business Information Systems has always made a hefty profit on no-bid commissions for City of New York adds, moves, and changes (the City bid long distance, but never LEC agency contracts). They also didn't bifurcate their mobile telephone operation when they were supposed to. NYNEX Mobile picked up the MTS, IMTS, and paging operation, but NY Tel continued to pick up the tab for the transmitter site until last year. Alan Boritz 72446.461@compuserv.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #556 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09128; 14 Jul 92 2:58 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27026 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 14 Jul 1992 01:07:22 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13764 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 14 Jul 1992 01:07:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 01:07:13 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207140607.AA13764@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #557 TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 Jul 92 01:07:10 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 557 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Perot Compuserve Account (Mike Seebeck) Re: Perot Compuserve Account (jrw27953@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) Re: Perot Compuserve Account (Matt McConnell) Re: Residential ISDN (Robert L. McMillin) Re: Residential ISDN (John Higdon) Re: Do ESS Systems Keep Detailed Call Records? (Dave Niebuhr) Re: Do ESS Systems Keep Detailed Call Records? (John Higdon) Re: Do ESS Systems Keep Detailed Call Records? (Phillip J. Birmingham) Re: 911 Circuitry Can Detect 91 (Tim Smith) Re: 911 Circuitry Can Detect 91 (Steve Forrette) Re: Fixed Call Forwarding (Francois Truchon) Re: Fixed Call Forwarding (Dane Jasper) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: lens@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Mike Seebeck) Subject: Re: Perot Compuserve Account Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 20:16:51 GMT In article rv01@gte.com (Robert Virzi) writes: > I attempted to send mail to the account I submitted for Ross Perot. > It finally got through, and I received a response from David Bush. > Although the account used to be a quasi-official Perot account, it is > no longer used for that purpose. David has asked me to please not use I am not much interested in sending e-mail to Perot or any other candidate. I hardly believe that any candidate would read the huge number of messages we would generate. I feel sorry for David Bush suffering the results of netters believing this could be real. Now, if you had an e-mail address for Neil Bush I have a few flames I would like love to send his way. Michael Seebeck RMH Group, Telecomm Dept. (303) 239-0909 *DISCLAIMER: Its mine, all mine (D.Duck?) [Moderator's Note: I don't feel sorry for any candidate who receives a large volume of mail, paper or electronic style. What does he think people are going to do, remain silent and not express their opinions? And the idea that electronic mail is somehow a step-child in the way we communicate -- that paper mail is legitimate (who has yet to express sympathy for the volume of paper mail David Bush must receive for Perot each day?) but electronic mail must be restricted somehow lest it cause too much aggravation for the recipient is very silly. Electronic mail is where things are at these days. Certainly, let's get the addresses correct, but most emphatically, keep writing! PAT] ------------------------------ From: jrw27953@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon W.) Subject: Re: Perot Compuserve Account Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1992 19:00:37 GMT ---- forwarded posting follows --- From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis) Date: 9 Jul 1992 07:49:16 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Perot's E-Mail address is... You can try IN%"campaign@perot.com", or you can email one of the many Perot volunteers that have email addresses. The electronic representative on my campus is saxman@matt.ksu.ksu.edu. Stratocaster ------------------------------ From: Matt McConnell Date: 12 Jul 92 15:30:37 MDT Subject: Re: Perot Compuserve Account I sent this to the gentleman who posted the Perot address and thought you might want to include it in the Digest. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: Self To: rv01@gte.com Subject: email for pres canidates Date: 9 Jul 92 15:23:39 Hi, Please do NOT post the Ross Perot address AGAIN. This account is owned by a young man who did work for the Perot campaign at one time. He is now being FLOODED with mail! Also, on CompuServe messages from the Internet cost the subscriber if he reads the message. He refused, deleted, your message without reading it thus the error message. Matt McConnell mccomatt@ba2.isu.edu [Moderotor's Note: This brings up the original question: Does Perot have an email address for the proposed electronic forum for the candidates? Should we use 'campaign@perot.com' instead? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 08:21:15 -0700 From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Re: Residential ISDN John Higdon writes: > I have been having serious conversations with a Pac*Bell rep > concerning the installation of ISDN at my residence. After getting all > of the prices, I was admonished to wait just a bit to see what happens > with Pac*Bell's current RESIDENTIAL ISDN proposal before the PUC. Yes, > you read that right. Pac*Bell may soon be offering ISDN to the common > man. And the operative word is 'may'. John, when you say you have been having "serious conversations" with Pac*Bell, just how serious? Wasn't there some noise recently in the Digest concerning Pac*Bell's floating a residential ISDN trial balloon as a way of relieving political pressure? Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 08:47 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Residential ISDN On Jul 12 at 8:21, Robert L. McMillin writes: > And the operative word is 'may'. John, when you say you have been > having "serious conversations" with Pac*Bell, just how serious? Wasn't > there some noise recently in the Digest concerning Pac*Bell's floating > a Residential ISDN trial balloon as a way of relieving political > pressure? No, this is real. Unfortunately, there is a good reason for this proposed offering: information services. In order to deliver some of the things Pac*Bell has in store, ISDN will of necessity be installed at subscriber locations (including residences). To keep up the sham of "competition", Pac*Bell cannot arbitrarily install ISDN for itself and its products; it must do so under a definitive tariff. This is the very thing that Mitch Kapor and I have had e-mail disagreements about. His view (as I have come to understand it) is that information services from the RBOCs are a Good Thing because they will hasten the availability of ISDN for the common man. As far as that goes, he is right on. My concern has always been that the tricky telcos will tariff the ISDN in such a way as to make it virtually useless for any purpose other than the delivery of telco-provided services. In the case of Pacific Bell, this remains to be seen (but I could give you a prediction :-) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 07:10:02 EDT From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Re: Do ESS Systems Keep Detailed Call Records Matt Simpson writes: > Does anyone out there know if local exchanges keep any kind of call > detail records? Specifically, I'm interested to know if a > law-enforcement agency would be able to obtain a record of all local > calls made to a specific number for some period in the past, without > having requested a trace in advance. [ ... text deleted about breakins ... ] > exactly what kind of switch I'm on. It's fairly new, was installed > about 18 months ago, with much hype about how great it would be. The > Anyway, I thought if anybody out there could tell me if this is > possible, I could be a little more insistent about it. I don't know > company is South Central Bell, and the exchange is 606-987, if that > helps any. > [Moderator's Note: Yes, the new switches do keep very detailed calling > records. Getting them examined may be a hassle, but they do exist. Now > of course if you had that nasty old Caller-ID, or even 'return last > call', you could invade the caller's privacy by noting the calling > number and act on it from that direction. Not only do hackerphreaks > not care for Caller-ID, I suppose most burglars who call ahead to > scope things out don't like it very well either. PAT] At PAT's suggestion a few months ago, I found that my 5ESS switch had "call return" and I've used it with great success in telling a little twerp off when she called at 3 AM one day. This incident occurred about two months prior to NYTel made their public announcement about this feature and "repeat dialing". Trap and trace are available but not announced as yet. I'm now waiting for NYTel to announce Caller-ID which is supposed to be available in August. Try *66 for repeat dial; *69 for call return; and *57 for trap and trace (there will be a charge for this and won't show you the calling number. Yours will probably appear though. Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 08:37 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Do ESS Systems Keep Detailed Call Records? Matt Simpson writes: > Does anyone out there know if local exchanges keep any kind of call > detail records? Specifically, I'm interested to know if a > law-enforcement agency would be able to obtain a record of all local > calls made to a specific number for some period in the past, without > having requested a trace in advance. You are probably out of luck for several reasons. The level of detail on calls is "settable" by the telco. If the purpose is to bill count and duration of local calls FROM a telephone (telcos do not keep any kind of records concerning calls TO a telephone), then a "peg count" is used and carries little detail. In the case of unmeasured service, the telco typically keeps no local records at all. I know Pac*Bell does not (although some telcos evidently do when they go after the customer for "excessive" use). For local calls, unless you have "Call Trace" in your area, prior arrangements must be made to trap a calling number to your phone. And remember, even if such detailed records were kept, those records are designed for billing purposes and show calls made FROM a telephone. Every telephone subscriber's records would have to be scanned for YOUR number's appearance. The last time we heard about this was the famous Cincinati Bell case. > Anyway, I thought if anybody out there could tell me if this is > possible, I could be a little more insistent about it. I don't know > exactly what kind of switch I'm on. It doesn't matter what switch you are on. I can guarantee you that no records are kept of calling numbers to your telephone. I would not bother to push the issue. > [Moderator's Note: Yes, the new switches do keep very detailed calling > records. Getting them examined may be a hassle, but they do exist. In his case, no they don't. It would be grand and glorious to believe that telco keeps indefinitely all records of every single connection transaction that goes on in every switch (including CALLING numbers), but such is fantasy. Telcos record those transactions necessary to bill customers and gauge traffic flow and nothing more. > Now of course if you had that nasty old Caller-ID, or even 'return > last call', you could invade the caller's privacy by noting the > calling number and act on it from that direction. As a proponent of Caller ID, you weaken your case by suggesting that all the records necessary to solve any harassment or criminal matter already exist within the phone company. The fact is, they do not. Hence, your suggestion for Caller ID, etc., is valid. In this case, however, the service "Call Trace" would be most desirable since we are looking for evidence in a serious criminal matter. Call Trace data would be far superior to the hearsay reporting of a number on a CNID display. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! Moderator's Note: If you want to bother taking them to court you would be correct. PAT] ------------------------------ From: birmingh@fnalo.fnal.gov Subject: Re: Do ESS Systems Keep Detailed Call Records? Date: 12 Jul 92 21:51:34 GMT Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab > [Moderator's Note: Of course if you had that nasty old Caller-ID, or > even 'return last call', you could invade the caller's privacy by > noting the calling number and act on it from that direction. Unless, of course, the crooks stole your CNID box... Phillip J. Birmingham birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough... [Moderator's Note: Then you would have a problem! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: ts@cup.portal.com Subject: Re: 911 Circuitry Can Detect 91 Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 02:08:25 PDT > Speaking of 911 stories, this happened a couple of years ago: Well, speaking of 911, there was an article in the paper a while back about there being too many non-emergency calls to 911 in the San Jose area. I think I know one of the reasons. Have you ever tried to call the police without using 911? I wanted to call them to report a road hazard (someone had been placing shopping carts in the street at night). I looked in the phonebook and got the number. I called it, and there was an answering machine. The message on the answering machine described various departments, and gave their numbers. You have to determine which you want, hang up, and then call that department. Of course, I didn't have a pen and paper handy, and from the message it was not clear which number I needed to call. Next time, I'm going to use 911, emergency or not. It wouldn't surprise me if many of the 911 non-emergency calls are from people who couldn't figure out what other number to call. Tim Smith [Moderator's Note: In the case of the Chicago Police, despite the fact that the Emergency Communications Center, the CPD Public Relations Department, the telco and others say that 911 should *only* be used in the event of a dire emergency requiring immediate police intervention (a stolen car is not an emergency; it already happened), when you call the district stations they tell you to call 911. :( PAT] ------------------------------ From: 6.vef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: 911 Circuitry Can Detect 91 Date: 12 Jul 92 02:26:32 GMT Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 538, Message 3 of 10: > [Moderator's Note: My experience here has been that with either > *67, *70, *71, *72 (all return stutter dial tone) you can 'dial > through' ... that is, no pause is required in the modem string, etc. > Other places are different on this. PAT] It depends on the switch type. 1AESS and 5ESS allow dialing over the stutter dialtone, but the DMS-100 requires a pause. (GTD-5, as operated by GTE, require a pause, and an extra $1.50/month, for cancel call waiting). Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 14:48:43 EDT From: francois%tollys.UUCP%bnrmtl.UUCP@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU (F Truchon) Subject: Re: Fixed Call Forwarding KASS@drew.drew.edu writes: > Here's what I think Fixed Call Forwarding is: On busy or no answer, > with the number of rings before no answer selectable as 4 or 6, a call > to the subscriber number is forwarded to another number, but that > number can't be changed as with Call Forwarding, nor can (?) the > forwarding be turned on or off. According to NJB, Fixed Call > Forwarding is _not_ available except in combination with Answer Call, > but the Answer Call brochure seems to indicate that Fixed Call > Forwarding is at least tariffed as a separate service (it's $2/month). > (Presumably, NJB sets it up with Answer Call to go to the Answer > Center, and CLID enables the Answer Center to handle the call > appropriately. > I want Fixed Call Forwarding, but I don't want Answer Call, since I'd > like busy/no answer calls to go to my ASPEN voice box at work, keeping > all my messages in one place. I don't want regular Call Forwarding, > since I'd have to do a lot of button pushing for it to do the same job > (turn it on before, and off after, every call I make for busy > forwarding, for example). The name I've heard for the call forwarding feature used for voice mail services is "Call Forward No Answer" (different telcos, different names ... what a drag!) The situation with Call Forward No Answer with Bell Canada (in Quebec and Ontario) is that it's not offered to residential customers. I don't know whether it's offer to business customers though. The Call Forwarding No Answer feature is used by Bell for their own voice mail service (TeleReponse, in French) so they may very well be reluctant to offer it for the reasons you mention. The situation in British Columbia is different. BC Tel offers three species of call forwarding to its residential subscribers: (1) Call Forward No Answer. Forwards to a telco programmed number after a number of rings or when busy. (2) Call Forward Variable. This is the normal user programmable call forwarding. Bell Canada only offers this one. (3) Call Forward Fixed. Once activated, calls are automatically forwarded to a telco programmed number. (Not very useful it seems) Concerning telco voice mail: The one advantage that I get from subscribing to my telco's voice mail service rather then forwarding to my voice mail at work (if I could) is that the dial tone changes on my phone when I have messages. This is like the flashing LED on answering machines. You can quickly check if you have messages by listening to the dial tone rather than having to dial the voice mail number and to log in. Regards, Francois Truchon Bell-Northern Research, Montreal, Canada uucp: bnrmtl!francois@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU [Moderator's Note: Ours is called 'Busy/No Answer Transfer'. In our land line service, this has to be permanently programmed in the CO and can only go to voicemail or another phone in the same CO. It cannot be turned on or off. But with our Ameritech cellular service, we can use *71 to turn it on and off at will, and send the forwarding wherever we please. IBT is part of Ameritech, so I wonder why the discrepancy? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Dane Jasper Date: 12 Jul 92 09:04:14 PST Subject: Re: Fixed Call Forwarding > Can anyone tell me if Fixed Call Forwarding is available either here > (was the service rep wrong?) or anywhere else (just because I'm > curious). Here in California, there seem to be two types of forwarding - on/off forwarding, and call forwarding on busy. The call forward on busy would take care of turning it on and off when you want to make a call, etc, and you can forward it anywhere you want, but that's not all you need. Those two seem to be the only things offered by Pacific Bell. Dane Jasper Business Computing Labs Santa Rosa Junior College ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #557 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11617; 14 Jul 92 4:13 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15885 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 14 Jul 1992 02:08:18 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20441 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 14 Jul 1992 02:08:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 02:08:06 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207140708.AA20441@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #558 TELECOM Digest Tue, 14 Jul 92 02:08:05 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 558 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CCITT FTP Archives (Joshua Hosseinoff) Cellular Phone Hacking (u1066579@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au) Caller-ID, Telephone Marketing Request (Tom Streeter) European Phone in Canada? (Christian Doucet) INMARSAT Call Are Expensive (Monty Solomon) Recommendations on Waterproof/Resistant Cordless Phones (Justin Leavens) More Than I Wanted to Know About INTELPOST (John R. Levine) New files for the Archives (David Leibold) House Voice/Data Wiring Question (Mark Blumhardt) EPA at Bay City (Thomas K. Hinders) Democratic Convention (Including Telecom) (Dave Niebuhr) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Jul 1992 00:35:26 -0400 (EDT) From: JOSHUA HOSSEINOFF Subject: CCITT FTP Archives Here are some ftp'able archive sites that have CCITT documents. prog ccitt # matches / % database searched: 15 /100% Host toklab.ics.osaka-u.ac.jp (133.1.12.30) Last updated 05:08 11 Jul 1992 Location: /doc DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x 512 Jun 26 21:59 ccitt Host src.doc.ic.ac.uk (146.169.2.1) Last updated 06:01 9 Jul 1992 Location: /doc/ccitt-standards DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x 512 Dec 25 1991 ccitt Host sh.wide.ad.jp (133.4.11.11) Last updated 05:27 8 Jul 1992 Location: /WIDE DIRECTORY rwxr-x--- 1024 Oct 10 1991 ccitt Host nz20.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (129.13.96.2) Last updated 05:02 5 Jul 1992 Location: /pub/doc DIRECTORY rwx------ 1024 Feb 3 16:51 ccitt Host isfs.kuis.kyoto-u.ac.jp (130.54.20.1) Last updated 05:37 30 Jun 1992 Location: /ftpmail/ftp.ricoh.co.jp/pub/doc DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x 512 Jun 13 19:13 ccitt Host iraun1.ira.uka.de (129.13.10.90) Last updated 05:08 30 Jun 1992 Location: /network/standards DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x 512 Nov 28 1991 ccitt Host ftp.uu.net (137.39.1.9) Last updated 15:00 29 Jun 1992 Location: /doc/standards DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x 512 Mar 24 02:28 ccitt Host gumby.dsd.trw.com (129.193.72.50) Last updated 05:40 28 Jun 1992 Location: /pub/standards DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x 512 Oct 22 1991 ccitt Host goya.dit.upm.es (138.4.2.2) Last updated 05:38 28 Jun 1992 Location: /info/doc DIRECTORY rwxrwxr-x 512 Jan 30 16:02 ccitt Host gatekeeper.dec.com (16.1.0.2) Last updated 05:07 28 Jun 1992 Location: /.3/bruno.cs.colorado.edu/pub/standards DIRECTORY r-xr-xr-x 512 Feb 8 15:39 ccitt Host swdsrv.edvz.univie.ac.at (131.130.1.4) Last updated 05:49 27 Jun 1992 Location: /doc DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x 512 Jun 15 17:49 ccitt Host relay.iunet.it (130.251.1.17) Last updated 05:16 27 Jun 1992 Location: /disk0/documents DIRECTORY rwxrwxr-x 512 Oct 20 1991 ccitt Host corton.inria.fr (192.93.2.5) Last updated 06:45 23 Jun 1992 Location: /ITU DIRECTORY rwxr-x--- 512 Dec 14 1991 ccitt Host coombs.anu.edu.au (150.203.76.2) Last updated 06:44 23 Jun 1992 Location: /pub/iserv DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x 2048 Jun 16 10:37 ccitt Host ariadne.csi.forth.gr (139.91.1.1) Last updated 05:08 20 Jun 1992 Location: /doc/standards DIRECTORY rwxr-xr-x 512 Apr 5 23:29 ccitt Joshua Hosseinoff eaw7100@acfcluster.nyu.edu ------------------------------ From: u1066579@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au Subject: Cellular Phone Hacking Date: 14 Jul 92 14:36:10 +1000 Organization: University of New South Wales I have seen several books for sale on the topic of cellular phone modification. The idea seems to be to change the ESN so that free phone calls can be made on someone else's line. Anyone have any knowledge of potential problems etc? Does it work? If possible please E-mail. Best Wishes, Henry University of NSW, Sydney Australia. [Moderator's Note: What you suggest is highly illegal in the USA and probably everywhere else in the world except possibly the Netherlands where it seems that everything is okay where defrauding the telco is concerned. Another problem is that in most modern cellular phones, the chip containing the ESN is difficult to get into, let alone modify. They tend to be buried under wax, thoroughly soldered in place and with few or no markings on them. A third problem is that if you could easily change them (let's say you swap it out entirely for a bunch of little dip switches or pin wheels you set by hand), is that the place you call is recorded by the cellular company and if you intend to call anything other than hotel/radio station switchboards/contest lines, etc then eventually any regular calling pattern will be investigated. Wouldn't you love to have your mother get a call from a security representative for Telecom, asking who she spoke with and how to reach you? Would your friends cover for you? For how long? PAT] ------------------------------ From: streeter@cs.unca.edu (Tom Streeter) Subject: Caller-ID, Telephone Marketing Request Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 22:05:52 GMT I'm pulling together some material for a class I'm teaching in the fall, and I've been struck by the continuing discussion of telephone marketing, privacy, and Caller ID. It's interesting to read these comments in light of early attitudes about the impact of the telephone on home life -- well-documented in Carolyn Marvin's book "When Old Technologies Were New: Thinking about Electric Communication in the late Nineteenth Century" (Oxford University Press, ISBN:0-19-506341-4). The book, especially the second section, makes it fairly clear that there has historically been a variety of opinions about what social rights exist when a telephone is present in a household. The issue has never been resolved -- and probably never will be -- but many of the old issues are making a new appearance. There have been, of course, a number of changes in the expectations people have about the "public good" (for lack of a better phrase) new telephone technologies will play in society, and these are also reflected in many of the posts dealing with telemarketing as well. I'd like my students to see comments from participants in this forum about the issue of personal privacy as it relates to telemarketing and Caller ID. I'm going to go back through the archives to pull postings that pertain to this and collect them into a packet to give to my students. I wouldn't feel comfortable about doing this without the permission of the original poster, so I may be contacting you over the next few weeks to get your permission to use something you wrote. I'd also like to include the comments of people who may not have been moved to submit something to the Digest on this topic. If you feel so moved, please answer the following questions and mail the response to me (streeter@cs.unca.edu). Answer as many or few of the questions as you want (any and all help is appreciated!) 1. Who has the right to call you? What circumstances make this a less-than-straightforward question to answer? Are telemarketers the same as other people? Why or why not? 2. Does (or would) the existance of Caller ID on your home phone change your life in terms of the issues raised in #1? For PAT's sake -- so to speak -- send your responses to me and not the Digest since this has been a hot topic there. Thanks, Tom Streeter | streeter@cs.unca.edu Dept. of Mass Communication | 704-251-6227 University of North Carolina at Asheville | Opinions expressed here are Asheville, NC 28804 | mine alone. [Moderator's Note: Thank you for your final paragraph. Yes readers, please respond direct to Mr. Streeter -- not me! I don't care what your opinion is, I am not interested, and I am overloaded with stuff. As a matter of fact, 247 unused messages from last week bit the dust earlier this evening. To the unused posters, sorry! Try later. PAT] ------------------------------ From: lancelot@Mais.Hydro.Qc.CA (Christian Doucet) Subject: European Phone in Canada? Date: Mon, 13 Jul 92 19:33:52 EDT Greetings! My sister bought a phone in Amsterdam and it somewhat looks like a 2500 set. She want's to use it here in Canada because it has this "oldish European look" :). It has a DTMF keypad on it. I apologize if this is a FAQ but I have three of them: Will this phone work in Canada? Will the DTMF keypad work in Canada? How to wire it? We opened the unit and here's what we found where the phone line gets inside: (round connector) / | | \ / | | \ / / \ \ / / \ \ / | | \ / | | \ o o o o a ground b EB The ground is marked by the international symbol. Any help appreciated and thanks in advance! Christian Doucet ----- lancelot@Mais.Hydro.Qc.Ca | Hydro-Quebec System Administrator - lancelot@Rot.Qc.Ca | voice: + 1 514 858 7704 I speak for myself! -- #include | fax : + 1 514 858 7799 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 19:57:45 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: INMARSAT Call Are Expensive Begin forwarded messages: Date: Mon, 13 Jul 92 07:54:38 HST From: Bob Cunningham Subject: Re: Suggestion for Taylor UUCP > I think this need would also be satisfied by the "don't call until > nn minutes from last successful call has elapsed"-feature that I > and others have proposed to be added to taylor-uucp. A feature that I, too, hope could be added to the taylor-uucp distribution at some point. It's useful in other circumstances as well, including the converse of Marc Unangst's situation. I've a couple of long-distance sites where the charges are $19.50 for the first three minutes (or fraction thereof) within a three-hour "cheap" call window; at other times they're $31.50 for the first three minutes (or fraction). It's important to make one contact a day, even at the higher rate if absolutely necessary, but extra unneeded calls (even -- or actually, especially -- if successful) can be quite costly [One extra call a day at the higher rate, and I end up with nearly $1,000 more on that month's phone bill.] It'd sure be a lot easier to say "don't call within 18 hours of the last successful call" than to have to do the schedule tweaking I have to do now. Date: Mon, 13 Jul 92 10:40:57 HST From: Bob Cunningham Subject: Re: Suggestion for Taylor UUCP [Since several people have asked "where in the world" do you have to pay so much ...] Those are COMSAT/AT&T combined rates for INMARSAT-A satellite calls to ships at sea for the Pacific Ocean (rates to ships in the Atlantic are a dollar or so a minute cheaper). The ships I'm interested in are scientific research ships that we (University of Hawaii) operate, but setup is not unique; there's lots of outfits that work with ship at sea using modems, although as far as I know, we're the first to try using Taylor-UUCP for this. The calls are direct dial, with long-distance part to the nearest earth station included (from Hawaii, the nearest are in Australia and California, though that part is relatively cheap), the actual INMARSAT satellite link to the appropriate ship is the most expensive part. Incidentally, the same cost applies to voice calls between ship and shore. On board, they have a special phone for that, traditionally called the "gold phone" because of the rate. Even if they're not THE most expensive phone calls in the world, they're surely amongst the most expensive. ------------------------------ From: leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) Subject: Recommendations on Waterproof/Resistant Cordless Phones Date: 13 Jul 1992 13:03:23 -0700 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA A recent incident in which my cordless phone (a Panasonic TX370 or something to that effect) took a little unexpected dip in our pool has led me to ask for recommendations on waterproof/resistant cordless phones. I've been to the department stores (who don't seem to carry them) and to a Circuit City (who didn't carry one either) and finally located a Fry's Electronics that had a Sony model and a Columbia model that claimed to be "water-resistant". Does anyone know about these products or have any experience as to how water-resistant these phones really are? While calling around, my basic request was "I want one that can float" (not really what I want, but I want it to be that resistant) and I was told that there are none that are completely "waterproof". Actually, my old Panasonic unit still works, sort of. It clicks incessantly when on-hook but on standby, beeps at me a few times before it will connect to the base unit and go off-hook, and pulse dials even though the setting on the base unit is set on tone (which is weird, could the base unit have been damaged when the handset went underwater in standby mode? If I hit the 'Tone' button on the handset it will dial in tones for that call ...). Luckily it was only a couple months old and is still under warranty. But I think I'd like to get one for 'pool use'. Any comments? Justin Leavens University of Southern California ------------------------------ Subject: More Than I Wanted to Know About INTELPOST Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 1:45:56 EDT From: John R. Levine About three months after I originally asked, the Post Office has sent me a handy 157 page book explaining Intelpost. It turns out to be Group 3 fax with optional pick up and delivery. There are seven different delivery options, not all available at every destination point including regular service in which the receiving post office drops it in the mail for local delivery, two-hour express service, pick-up with optional notification by phone or telex, and fax delivery if the recipient has a fax (presumably the sender doesn't.) To send an Intelpost message you can either drop off the originals at one of 200 post offices or establish an account and fax them to the P.O. yourself. The price is $10 for the first page, $4 for every additional page, $5 extra for any delivery option other than regular service. The cover page is free. Most of the 157 pages list what service is available where in the 39 participating countries. So, basically, it's fax for situations where the sender and/or receiver doesn't have a fax machine. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 92 23:36:23 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: New files for the Archives A few new files have hit the TELECOM Digest Archives ... The new file "autovon.instructions" in the archives at lcs.mit.edu are instructions and info about how the Autovon works, including official descriptions of the various precedence levels from Flash Override down. There are new South American country codes lists in the country.codes subdirectory of the telecom-archives directory. The update meant that the zone 5 lists had to be split in two: zone.5.codes.50-54 and zone.5.codes.55-59 to represent country codes from 500-54 and 55-599 respectively. A new African zone 2 list of country codes was sent for inclusion in the Archives. This should appear when the Moderator is able to update the Archives, for the file zone.2.codes. Updates to other countries should eventually appear, but things will be going fairly slowly. Many thanks to Carl Moore and Manuel Moguilevsky for ongoing assistance with the lists. dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca ------------------------------ From: msb@tyler.uswest.com ( Mark Blumhardt) Subject: House Voice/Data wiring question Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 20:36:16 GMT I'm having a house built and am going to put in extra wiring. My goal is to provide voice and data to various rooms. I went out and bought three-pair unshielded twisted pair wiring (rated at 10 MBS), several two jack outlets and an M Block. If my goal is to have some pairs connected to the BOC network and others connected to my 10BASE-T network, how do I wire it up at the block (I.E. are the voice pairs connected in parallel)? Is the 10BASE-T network wiring done in a star configuration? What is the exact wiring at the block? Either information directly from you, or a reference to a book would be great. Thanks in advance. Mark ------------------------------ Date: 13 Jul 92 14:14:09-0900 From: /PN=Thomas.K.Hinders/OU=CCMAIL/O=CHAN.IS/PRMD=MMC/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com Subject: EPA at Bay City I'm being considered for a position as Communications Specialist at a EPA Cray site in Bay City MI, and I thought that the Telecom readers might be able to answer a few questions that I have: - Who is the FTS provider to EPA? - Who is the local telco in Bay City, and how might you rate them on a scale of 1 to 10? - I would welcome any comments from current/past Bay City residents. Thanks in advance. Thomas K Hinders Martin Marietta Computing Standards 4795 Meadow Wood Lane Chantilly, VA 22021 703.802.5593 (v) 703.802.5027 (f) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 92 12:35:29 EDT From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Democratic Convention (Including Telecom) Some of the Democratic Convention details were given in the July 12, 1992, issue of {Newsday} and I thought I'd pass them along. 60 computer systems will be located on the convention floor. About 189 miles of communications system wiring, nearly enough to go from New York City to Baltimore. 56 video screens make up the podium's back wall. The podium has room for about 40 people and 8 TV locations. Delegation voting will be electronic with votes recorded via the pressing of one of three buttons: Yes, No or Abstain. There will be two phones mounted on each station with one for communicating with the podium and the other for calls to other delegations or outside locations. The four principal sponsors are American Express, AT&T, Time Warner and NY Telephone. 75 percent are involved in communications in one way or another and I'm not sure about Amex. I wonder who the lucky ones to end up paying for this will be -- the ratepayers or stockholders (I'm leaning toward the former). These paragons of society are giving $100,000 in cash and providing perks like cable TV and free magazines (that takes care of Time Warner). Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 [Moderator's Note: Democratic conventions are the only telco subscribers in the world who can run up BIG bills and leave them unpaid for years at a time. IBT gave up ever trying to collect what they had coming from the Democratic convention here in 1968, and finally wrote it off, meaning of course we rate payers took a hit. I imagine the subscribers of NY Tel get to pay for this one, probably sometime around 1996 when it gets written off. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #558 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06425; 15 Jul 92 4:21 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21892 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 15 Jul 1992 01:42:03 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23103 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 15 Jul 1992 01:41:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 01:41:54 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207150641.AA23103@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #559 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Jul 92 01:41:55 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 559 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Hatred by Voicemail: Canadian Liberty Network (Ken McVay) Detroit Area 313 to Split (John R. Levine) Michigan Will Get Area Code 810 in August '94 (Jeffrey Kaplan) Airfone System Overload (Jeff Garber) Telling my Tip From my Ring (Bob Riegelmann) 911 Outage in Santa Clara (Marc T. Kaufman) Use (Abuse) of ANI? (Sam Israelit) What is ESN? (Carl Moore) Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Ron Natalie) Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Bill Squire) Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Richard Cox) Re: Perot Compuserve Account (Peter da Silva) Re: Perot Compuserve Account (John Higdon) Re: Perot Compuserve Account (Chris Kent Kantarjiev) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Hatred by Voicemail: Canadian Liberty Network Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 15:07:44 PDT From: Ken McVay (Reprinted from alt.revisionism at the request of a user who thought it might be appropriate to discuss this here - knm.) During the past year or so, a voicemail system calling itself the "Canadian Liberty Network" operated in Vancouver, British Columbia. The system operated out of a basement suite -- the owner of the home disclaimed any knowledge of the system, or the organization or individuals that operated it, even though he was "renting" the suite. The system amounted to a voicemail version of Dan Gannon's b-cpu bulletin board, with readings of the Leuchter report, "66 Questions & Answers About the Holocaust" and other material of a similar vein. Pressure from the Canadian government resulted in a court order which forbade the continued operation of the system. At that point, as I understand it, the system adopted a Washington State telephone number and continued to operate. I don't have enough details to know if the system itself remained in Canada, or moved south of the border, but the Canadian court just issued a contempt citation against the owners of the system, citing the continuing operation of the system in violation of the original order. (Canadian law prohibits dissemination of hate literature.) I would like to gather information about this system, or similar systems anywhere in North America, and solicit your assistance. It is my belief that the folks who operate these systems are either formally or informally linked to and supported by American Nazi front organizations, i.e. Carto and company, but I cannot substantiate that belief. Any and all information, including news clippings/citations, sound bites, etc. will be appreciated. Printed material, including newspaper clippings, Nazi literature advertising these systems, etc. can be sent to me via snail: Ken McVay c/o R.R. 1, C-28 Ladysmith, British Columbia, Canada V0R 2E0 NOTE: I was asked, after posting this request in its original form, whether or not I would use the information collected to assist the Canadian government in its efforts WRT this matter. The answer to that question is an emphatic no, although I _will_ most certainly make public use of information received which I can confirm, and that may very well result in the government's obtaining the information anyway. If you wish to contribute to my education, but do _not_ want your information used in any public or private forum beyond my "eyes only," please make that clear -- your request for complete confidentiality will be respected without reservation. [Moderator's Note: I see a flood of mail coming, and am starting to twitch in anticipation already. Please direct ALL replies to the author and not to the Digest. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Detroit Area 313 to Split Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 18:06:37 EDT From: John R. Levine UPI reports that the 313 area will split to a new 810 code effective 10 Aug 1994. Oakland, Macomb, Genesee, Lapeer, St. Clair and Sanilac counties as well as small sections of Saginaw, Shiawassee and Livingston counties wil go into 810. Wayne, Washtenaw, Monroe, and small parts of Jackson and Lenawee counties will remain in 313. Detroit itself is in Wayne county and won't change. As with all NPA splits, rates won't change. The telco consulted lots of local leaders so there seems to be little grumbling about the boundaries. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 14:24:30 -0400 From: kaplanj@emunix.emich.edu (Jeffrey Kaplan) Subject: Michigan Will Get Area Code 810 in August '94 That's what I heard on the radio a few moments ago. WXYT said that Michigan Bell announced that area code 313 will continue in Wayne, Washtenaw, and Monroe counties. Counties north of Eight Mile Road including the north and northeast Detroit suburbs will go to area code 810 in August '94. A Michigan Bell spokesperson came on to say that this will not impact long distance phone rates. Do they mean that you will have to use the new code after that date, or that you'll be able to? I understand that area code splits usually involve a transitional period that this brief radio story did not mention. Jeff Kaplan kaplanj@emunix.emich.edu tardaa@um.cc.umich.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 05:19 GMT From: Jeff Garber <0005075968@mcimail.com> Subject: Airfone System Overload Over the 4th of July weekend, I took a trip with a flight connecting in Chicago. While we were waiting on the runway at O'Hare to take off (with 40-50 planes in front of us, according to the captain), a bad storm came through and shut down the airport. Out of sheer boredom during the delay, I reached for the GTE Airfone built into the seat in front of me. I waited for the green LED to come on before proceeding. It wasn't coming on. Eventually it did illuminate, but it was gone again before I could get my credit card through the magnetic reader. I assume with all those planes grounded on the runway in addition to those in the air that could not land, the call traffic was more than the system could handle. One lady who managed to get her card through the reader and dial a number heard a message stating that all circuits were busy and to please wait. This message repeated at regular intervals. She waited about half an hour before finally giving up. Now I'm wondering just what is the traffic capacity of one Airfone ground station? How many calls must have been in progress to jam it up like that? On a side note, I'd be interested in seeing a study showing how much extra Airfone revenue is generated for the airlines when there are delays versus flights that are on time (why be on time when you can make extra money by being late?). Jeff Garber <507-5968@mcimail.com> My opinions are just that. ------------------------------ From: bob@sunspot.noao.edu (Bob Riegelmann) Subject: Telling my Tip From my Ring Organization: National Solar Observatory/SP, Sunspot NM, USA Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 15:51:47 GMT I'm re-wiring my house, and I need a trivia answer. To avoid confusing local craftpersons after I leave this house, is there a protocol that associates tip and ring with the color and color stripe wires? i.e. does tip go on the blue wire, and ring go on the blue/white wire? or reverse? Don't ask me why I'm rewiring, but this house was originally wired by the Air Force, and was recently on linebacker. Needless to say, nothing worked when I moved in. Bob Riegelmann bob@sunspot.sunspot.noao.edu P.O. Box 58 Sunspot, NM 88349-0058 ------------------------------ From: kaufman@cs.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: 911 Outage in Santa Clara Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University. Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 16:46:14 GMT (from the local news): "Santa Clara County lost its 911 emergency system in most areas for more than five hours Sunday night and this [Monday] morning due to a power outage and the failure of a battery-based backup system, phone company officials said." "Pacific Bell spokeswoman Judy Peterson said a switch -- which served as the hub of service for the entire area -- lost power about 11:10 PM She said a portable diesel generator restored power by about 4:15 AM after a set of batteries failed to provide enough power." Evidently, the regular standby diesel generator failed when its transfer switch burned up. After the Loma Prieta earthquake there was a post-mortem talk by members of SMPTE that was broadcast on satellite. It seems phone companies don't want to test emergency power systems because "it can cause disruptions", so when they are needed they are untested. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 14:38:23 PDT From: sami@scic.intel.com (Sam Israelit) Subject: Use (Abuse) of ANI? > [Moderator's Note: I've often had the same thoughts about the numerous > signs I see on the subways here urging people to call and seek help > for a problem with cocaine, abusing your children, etc. They all use > 800 numbers also, with ANI, I'm sure. PAT] Now come on PAT! This is going a little bit too far. There are a number of people in the world who don't give a damn about tracking phone numbers of people with problems so that they can place them on special lists! This is paranoia! A number of those organizations are out there doing legitimate work and they have 800 numbers so that you can call them free of charge (ie, too large a number of the population are indigent). And even if that isn't the reason, it doesn't mean that they are logging your call for help into "The System". I agree that there are some people who would abuse the use of ANI, but that doesn't make them all bad! Sam Israelit Engineer, Businessman, ... Brewer Portland, OR ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 11:49:49 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: What is ESN? I noticed a listing for Bell-Northern Research in Richardson, Texas (near Dallas) on the 214-684 prefix, and followed by a 7D number prefixed with "ESN". What is ESN? [Moderator's Note: If we were talking about cellular phones, I would say it means "Electronic Serial Number". In the context you describe it, I have no idea. Anyone? PAT] ------------------------------ From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking Date: 14 Jul 92 20:18:39 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. > Another problem is that in most modern cellular phones, Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by "modern" cellular phones. > the chip containing the ESN is difficult to get into, let alone modify. With the latest phones I think it's actually getting easier. Some of the new smaller handhelds actually store the ESN in the same programmable stuff as the NAM information. [Moderator's Note: By 'modern', I mean phones made in the past few years since the cellular carriers got the feds to crack down on the makers of the phones for not doing a better job of keeping the ESN tamper-proof. In the very early days, ESN tampering was common. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking From: bill@hacktic.nl (Bill Squire) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 18:00:05 WET/D Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine > [Moderator's Note: What you suggest is highly illegal in the USA and > probably everywhere else in the world except possibly the Netherlands > where it seems that everything is okay where defrauding the telco is > concerned. C'mon Pat be nice. Using the bluebox is one thing, but somebody's account is quite another matter. See the difference? There has been quite a problem with the criminal side of "phreaking" with cellular phones here and I assure you it will earn you a room in one of the fine hotels operated by the police! On the technical side, several cellular phones can be fully programed externally, but I don't do this and don't know about changing the ESN or anything like that. We have three different systems here, ATF1 in the 150MHz band, ATF2 in the 470MHz band and ATF3 in the 900MHz band (470-890 is still TV here). We also have a public CT2 system called "Greenpoint" with Motorola Silverlink phones called "Kermits" with a green protective edge instead of the standard grey. Henson's famous frog is pictured on them. This system uses 40 channels between 864 and 868 MHz with a maximum transmit power of 10mW. While there are numerous features possible, it is only used as a payphone replacement at this time and as a home cordless phone. Full details are in EDSI prl-ETS 300 131. Call +33 92 94 42 00 or 93 65 47 16 in France for more information. Don't believe this has been hacked, but there are allways those out there that think they have a trick ... until the phone bill arives! Bill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 21:42 GMT From: Richard Cox Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk >> The idea seems to be to change the ESN so that free phone calls can be >> made on someone else's line. Changing the ESN per se isn't illegal here in the UK. In fact it's become essential now that a number of cellular phone companies have started to "block" the ESNs of, for example, customers who disconnect to change to other cellular phone companies, so they can't use their phones on the network. Because a cottage industry has been set up to do this, its not too much of a surprise that as a result there has been a sudden increase over here of the "cloning" of working ESNs. This does result in fraud -- fraud against the registered user of that ESN -- and of course that is illegal. The problem is that it's not as easy to spot by checking bills, as Pat suggested. These phones are usually used to "sell" cheap international calls back home, to visitors and immigrants. There wouldn't be any pattern (other than the calls would all be expensive and international) and the people who receive the calls would genuinely know nothing about the criminal responsible. What has been done here, is to arrange for the Cellular system to "spot" cases where two phones are live on the system with the same ESN at the same time, or where a phone appears to "move" faster than normal between two different parts of the country. Not all cellular systems use our (ETACS) system; I believe USA uses AMPS and Oz uses something like GSM. So what may be possible in one country, is not necessarily possible in another. Richard Cox Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF Voice: +44 222 747111 Fax: +44 222 711111 VoiceMail: +44 399 870101 E-mail: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Perot Compuserve Account Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 12:07:06 GMT In article TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: This brings up the original question: Does Perot > have an email address for the proposed electronic forum for the > candidates? Should we use 'campaign@perot.com' instead? PAT] perot.com, eh? So if he gets elected we might actually see something like "perot@whitehouse.com"? Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 02:26 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Perot Compuserve Account The Moderator notes: > And the idea that electronic mail is somehow a step-child in the way > we communicate -- that paper mail is legitimate (who has yet to > express sympathy for the volume of paper mail David Bush must receive > for Perot each day?) but electronic mail must be restricted somehow > lest it cause too much aggravation for the recipient is very silly. > Electronic mail is where things are at these days. And becoming more so. Over the past years (and particularly the past year) I have been under the impression that the US Mail has become slower and less reliable. Letters that used to take a couple of days to travel coast to coast now take a week. Mail to Los Angeles from here takes a good five days now (if it makes it at all). For the price of a stamp, you can send a fax anywhere in the country. It gets there immediately for sure. E-mail costs considerably less than that, reaches its destination in less than a day (most of the e-mail I send and receive takes minutes), and again the odds of being delivered are exceedingly high. Accordingly, I now only use the US Mail in the absence of any alternative. When it started taking three days for a letter to reach San Francisco from here (40 miles), I reassessed the communication food chain. Hence, I agree with Pat. If someone is proporting to be participating in electronic communications, then he had better be sure that he can deal with commensurate incoming traffic. The day is coming when we all will look at paper mail as passe and archaic. I know I already do. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Remember when that guy wrote me a year or so ago saying I should not have given out reallen@attmail.com since if the chairman got too much mail they might cut the link to the net? I am still scratching my head over that one, wondering exactly who would be the loser. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Perot Compuserve Account Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 11:28:44 PDT From: Chris Kent Kantarjiev It has been suggested that "Ross.Perot@perot.com" is a way to reach Perot, or at least his administrative assitant. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #559 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06424; 15 Jul 92 4:21 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11124 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 15 Jul 1992 02:20:11 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00957 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 15 Jul 1992 02:20:00 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 02:20:00 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207150720.AA00957@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #560 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Jul 92 02:20:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 560 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach (Peter da Silva) Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach (Andy Sherman) Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Tom Wiencko) Re: Democratic Convention (Including Telecom) (Chuck Paquette) Re: Democratic Convention (Including Telecom) (Carl Moore) The Voice of the Phone Company (Jeff Garber) Creative Solutions (was The Depths of Sliminess) (Ed Hew) Re: Pat Townson Owes EFF an Apology (Alan Millar) Re: Strange Pulse Dialing Behavior: Summary (Todd Inch) Surprise Calling Card Fraud: Followup (Mark Schuldenfrei) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 12:04:00 GMT In article hpa@nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) writes: > A dedicated country code would probably be the best, especially from > an international standpoint. Otherwise, maybe we have found a use for > the 600 area code. No, the best would be to abandon the fixed-length phone number. Other countries don't have them, having benefited from the U.S. being the pioneers in this instance. Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032 ------------------------------ From: andys@flatline.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 17:20:57 EDT n 10 Jul 92 16:20:27 GMT, jjc+@pitt.edu (Jeffrey J. Carpenter) said: In response to Pat's explanation of how the 700 number space works: > You are certainly correct about this, but why couldn't they have > requested a new special service code for this type of service, > something like 500 or 600. They didn't have to use 700. I imagine that would have taken a fair amount of time, and the people involved EasyReach wanted to see it deployed in our lifetimes. AT&T already had the 700 number space to use. I suspect that a decision to open up another X00 NPA would have involved Bellcore, the FCC, the other IXCs and a cast of thousands. *AND* it could have involved the disclosure of detailed plans for a new (and unique) service to their competitors. If the service takes off, trust me, the industry will have to find a standard way to provide it. Andy Sherman (Yes, the same one!) Salomon, Inc. - Unix Systems Support - Rutherford, NJ (201) 896-7018 - andys@flatline.sbi.com "These opinions are mine, all *MINE*. My employer can't have them." ------------------------------ From: vta!tom@gatech.edu (Tom Wiencko) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking Organization: Wiencko & Associates, Inc. Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 14:14:26 GMT In article u1066579@csdvax.csd.unsw. edu.au writes: > I have seen several books for sale on the topic of cellular phone > modification. The idea seems to be to change the ESN so that free > phone calls can be made on someone else's line. As Pat mentions, this is highly illegal, and there is a significant amount of technology installed in most cellular phone companies to detect this. When you get caught, your number can and probably will be distributed to one of several nationwide databases which will restrict your ability to use that phone. It is also more difficult than just changing the ESN, and in the interest of propriety I will not expand on just what needs changing. > Anyone have any knowledge of potential problems etc? Does it work? Jail, law suits, and other nasty things. Note well that most cellular companies have well staffed and well equipped fraud departments, and some significant technology exists to detect fraudulent access, and in many cases to locate the offender. > [Moderator's Note: What you suggest is highly illegal in the USA and > probably everywhere else in the world except possibly the Netherlands > where it seems that everything is okay where defrauding the telco is > concerned. Another problem is that in most modern cellular phones, the > chip containing the ESN is difficult to get into, let alone modify. > They tend to be buried under wax, thoroughly soldered in place and > with few or no markings on them. A third problem is that if you could > easily change them (let's say you swap it out entirely for a bunch of > little dip switches or pin wheels you set by hand), is that the place > you call is recorded by the cellular company and if you intend to call > anything other than hotel/radio station switchboards/contest lines, > etc then eventually any regular calling pattern will be investigated. In fact, most cellular switches I am familiar with are generally programmed to collect *everything*, including free, service, and even unanswered calls. Getting listings of calls made to/from certain numbers or calls made by a particular ESN are relatively simple. Tracking numbers that do not have the correct ESN or whose ESNs change is also not terribly difficult. There is also an effort taking place to establish a standard interconnect scheme between cellular companies to track fraud and cellular system abuse. This system, when in place, will make it extremely difficult to defraud cellular companies. Tom Wiencko (404) 977-4515 Wiencko & Associates, Inc. gatech!vta!tom ------------------------------ From: Chuck Paquette Subject: Re: Democratic Convenvtion (Including Telecom) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 17:37:59 EDT Our Moderator's hit on the Democratic Party's payment record to telcos brought up a number of issues. As former staffer for both the Federal Election Commission and a financially squeezed presidential candidate (Hart), I think I can shed some light on telco billing policies toward political parties and candidates. First, Watergate changed most things in terms of financing campaigns, and one was that vendors (including telcos) can no longer provide special favors or exceptions to normal billing practices to political parties or candidates. A write-off would now be subject to a lot of scrutiny by the Federal Election Commission, and unless it was done in accordance with normal business practices would bring a suit or indictment against the telco for an illegal corporate contribution. Normal telco billing policies require stiff deposits for newly constituted organizations, and campaigns are no exception. So the Brown or Perot campaigns are probably given little leeway payment-wise, not because of any judgment call about their finances (guess which one is a better risk?), but because political customers are scrutinized under federal law. Similarly, political parties now get no special treatment. If the 1992 bill to NY Telephone and AT&T was not paid, the Democratic National Committee would no doubt have all phone service to them cutoff in the NYNEX region and all AT&T service suspended. Also, given the nationwide credit database used by RBOCs, nonpayment would also endanger service everywhere. Back in the pre-divestiture days, telephone service to campaigns (including long distance of course) was handled by the candidate's local telco, even for national candidates. For example, when the Hart presidential campaign in D.C. wanted six additional phones in the Portland, Maine office, they wired deposit money to Mountain Bell in Denver, where Hart was Senator. As I recall, the Hart campaign used a succession of long distance carriers (MCI, Sprint, Alltel, and a few more) and ended up owing them all hundreds of thousands of dollars. I've heard the carriers have learned their lesson since 1984. I suspect there was a reason AT&T carried the national Democrats for so long. AT&T was and is quite regulated and their regulators include a lot of Dems, and they probably didn't want to lead the charge for payment. No need to anger anyone. As I said above, their patience would no longer be legally possible today. Finally, remember that each political party now receives a payment in the $10 million range for their conventions from the federal Presidential Campaign Fund (that's our $1 checkoff). So the Republicans no longer need solicit from the likes of IT&T (as they did at their 1972 convention -- long story) and the Democrats can pay their bills. Our Moderator despairs even more! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 10:10:52 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Democratic Convention (Including Telecom) Democratic conventions with bills written off? How do the Republicans handle such phone bills? [Moderator's Note: Republicans pay their bills! :) Actually, as the other poster on this thread today notes, Hart was the most notorious example of a politician-deadbeat where telco was concerned. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 05:17 GMT From: Jeff Garber <0005075968@mcimail.com> Subject: The Voice of the Phone Company In article Steve Forrette writes: > Several years ago, before Aspen/Octel was popular, I had heard "the > woman behind the telco voice" referred to as Ramona. Note that the > voice that Octel uses (at least until recently, apparently "Jane" > retired) is the same as was used for many years by The Phone Company. > Perhaps Octel thought a simple pseudonym would be better for marketing > and training purposes ... > Does anyone know if this voice was originally called Ramona by TPC, > and if Jane (or both) is a pseudonym? I remember seeing a story on television about "The Voice of the Phone Company" several years ago. If I remember correctly, Ramona was the lady who frequently recorded "time" and intercepts for TPC, but she retired and her sister (or cousin or other relative) Jane Barbie took her place (they have similar voices). The program I saw said these ladies were chosen for their lack of a regional accent (I don't remember where they are from) and a "friendly" quality in the tone of their voices (personally, I always thought intercepts sounded harsh and anything BUT friendly). I remember noticing that when one of them (probably Jane) was interviewed, she sounded much different and less harsh since she was was speaking naturally instead of uttering canned phrases. Apparently, Octel is quite proud that they were able to get Jane to record their prompts. When the company I used to work for installed its Aspen system, the vendor made a big fuss about the fact that it was Jane Barbie, "the same voice the phone company uses!" Other people I know who use Aspen were told the same thing. Jeff Garber <507-5968@mcimail.com> My opinions are just that. ------------------------------ From: eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) Subject: Creative Solutions (was The Depths of Sliminess) Organization: XeniTec Consulting, Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 05:28:48 GMT In article pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) writes: > Caller ID is also not a solution. It only tells me where someone is > calling from, not who is calling or why. A relative or friend I want > to talk to may be calling from a phone I have no knowledge or record > of. Should I have to brush them off by not answering just because > the telemarketers also call from numbers I don't know about (at least > the first time)? Time for some creative solutions ... Why not impliment a feature similar to "Identicall" where telemarketers calls would (be ughhh, legislated to) ring with a specific identifible teleslime chime. We could then simply ignore it, knowing that what's awaiting should we choose to answer. That might take the annoyance level down to that of a lawn mower across the street at 6:30 AM on a Sunday. Of course the telco would charge me another $1.35 for this feature, but that's a whole lot cheaper than my time. Better yet, have all telemarketers pay the telecom $1 for each completed call, the profits from which would be split between the telecom and service account holder who answers the phone. The telecom gets more revenue, and I wind with paid telecom service for life. Alternatively, there might well be a lot fewer such calls wasting my time. Ed. A. Hew, ....!uunet.ca!xenitec!eah XeniTec Consulting Services, Kitchener ON, Canada +1 519 570 9848 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 14:01:44 PDT From: amillar@netcom.com (Alan Millar) Subject: Re: Pat Townson Owes EFF an Apology Organization: The Bolis Group, San Jose, CA In article you write: [re: Pat Townson] > But only someone whose disregard for the truth borders on the > pathological could suppose that we *ever* seek to excuse unauthorized > access, or that we routinely defend those who engage in such acts. > And I am certain that we have higher regard for the truth than he > does. You know, I was starting to think you had a good point about libel. But you corrected that. email: Alan Millar amillar@bolis.SF-Bay.org ames!zorch!bolis!amillar [Moderator's Note: Next thing you know, they'll be saying I owe Gary Hart and the entire Democratic Party an apology for claiming they do not pay their bills in uh, a 'timely and business-like manner.' :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: toddi@mav.com (Todd Inch) Subject: Re: Strange Pulse Dialing Behavior: Summary Organization: Maverick International Inc. Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 05:56:47 GMT In article jon_sree@world.std.com (Jon Sreekanth) writes: > This is a summary of email and posted responses to my question about > pulse dialing. Briefly, I found that if pulse digits are dialed > during a stable call, the exchange would mistake it for a hangup or > hook flash. This is unexpected and annoying, because even if a voice > mail front end was smart enough to decode pulse digits, the exchange > would probably not let the caller transmit them. Exchanges never transmit pulses to the far end. Remember: Pulses are just quick disconnects of the phone from the line -- there is (was) no reason to disconnect the other caller when you disconnect yours momemtarily. So, your CO (phone company equipment) isn't being "nasty", there's just no reason for the additional complexity of adding this feature which you think should exist. Customer equipment MIGHT theoretically be able to listen for "clicks" from pulse dialing and guess that these are pulses, but it would be a near-impossibility to get this to actually work from a technical aspect. (No, I didn't dial a "1" - I just dropped the handset on the table, I just turned on my speakerphone, I just got a call-waiting beep, my furnace just started and I'm on the cordless phone, my roommate picked up the extension phone, or any other source of "clicks" on a phone line.) In fact, most CO's would probably accept "clickless" pulses which had triangle or sine-shaped wave forms instead of square pulses. The corners of the square pulses are what make the clicks. If someone were to ever build such a phone (might be kind of a novelty -- silent dialing) there is NO possibility of customer equipment at the far end ever decoding for it (unless maybe it detected gaps in the caller's breathing cause by the disconnection pulses? :-) Followups please CC me via mail -- my newsfeed has leaks - TIA. ------------------------------ From: schuldy@progress.COM (Mark Schuldenfrei) Subject: Surprise Calling Card Fraud: Followup Organization: Progress Software Corp. Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 14:35:15 GMT The original posting was about my wife's unused AT&T calling card number being stolen after it's only use being within a hotel room in Miami. I suspected SMDR records were used. I still have no response from AT&T, or the FBI, and at this point am expecting none. I did get an interesting call last night from my local RBOC (New England Telephone, part of Nynex). They wanted to "warn me" that the bill was over 1000 dollars for last month, and was I aware of that? I mentioned the call from AT&T, which it seems has not contacted them as promised. The bill, minus fraudulent calls to Costa Rica, seems to be the normal $70 dollars or so. My caller promised to enter a "perm records" on the account, to charge back the additional calls to AT&T. She also suggested that the originating phone numbers for the calling card calls were probably residences. This gives me a real urge to make long distance call or two, and imply I'm an immigration officer. But that would be illegal, and I shall not do it. Best of luck to AT&T's stockholders, however, it seems that the fraud unit is willing to write off $1000 dollars at a time. Oh, and for your information, the hotel group in question is the Art Deco Hotels in Miami Beach, dba the Lesley, Carlyle and Cardozo. Do not make calling card calls from their rooms, is my best advice. Mark Schuldenfrei, speaking for myself only, and not for my employer, or the INS for that matter... Mark Schuldenfrei (schuldy@progress.com) [Moderator's Note: When you call, NEVER claim to be anyone other than yourself ... but you can still give them hell and tell them to clean up their act or eventually respond to a federal investigator. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #560 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07019; 15 Jul 92 4:35 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30251 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 15 Jul 1992 02:24:49 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10302 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 15 Jul 1992 02:24:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 02:24:15 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207150724.AA10302@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: telecom@delta.eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #559 TELECOM Digest Wed, 15 Jul 92 01:41:55 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 559 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Hatred by Voicemail: Canadian Liberty Network (Ken McVay) Detroit Area 313 to Split (John R. Levine) Michigan Will Get Area Code 810 in August '94 (Jeffrey Kaplan) Airfone System Overload (Jeff Garber) Telling my Tip From my Ring (Bob Riegelmann) 911 Outage in Santa Clara (Marc T. Kaufman) Use (Abuse) of ANI? (Sam Israelit) What is ESN? (Carl Moore) Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Ron Natalie) Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Bill Squire) Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Richard Cox) Re: Perot Compuserve Account (Peter da Silva) Re: Perot Compuserve Account (John Higdon) Re: Perot Compuserve Account (Chris Kent Kantarjiev) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Hatred by Voicemail: Canadian Liberty Network Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 15:07:44 PDT From: Ken McVay (Reprinted from alt.revisionism at the request of a user who thought it might be appropriate to discuss this here - knm.) During the past year or so, a voicemail system calling itself the "Canadian Liberty Network" operated in Vancouver, British Columbia. The system operated out of a basement suite -- the owner of the home disclaimed any knowledge of the system, or the organization or individuals that operated it, even though he was "renting" the suite. The system amounted to a voicemail version of Dan Gannon's b-cpu bulletin board, with readings of the Leuchter report, "66 Questions & Answers About the Holocaust" and other material of a similar vein. Pressure from the Canadian government resulted in a court order which forbade the continued operation of the system. At that point, as I understand it, the system adopted a Washington State telephone number and continued to operate. I don't have enough details to know if the system itself remained in Canada, or moved south of the border, but the Canadian court just issued a contempt citation against the owners of the system, citing the continuing operation of the system in violation of the original order. (Canadian law prohibits dissemination of hate literature.) I would like to gather information about this system, or similar systems anywhere in North America, and solicit your assistance. It is my belief that the folks who operate these systems are either formally or informally linked to and supported by American Nazi front organizations, i.e. Carto and company, but I cannot substantiate that belief. Any and all information, including news clippings/citations, sound bites, etc. will be appreciated. Printed material, including newspaper clippings, Nazi literature advertising these systems, etc. can be sent to me via snail: Ken McVay c/o R.R. 1, C-28 Ladysmith, British Columbia, Canada V0R 2E0 NOTE: I was asked, after posting this request in its original form, whether or not I would use the information collected to assist the Canadian government in its efforts WRT this matter. The answer to that question is an emphatic no, although I _will_ most certainly make public use of information received which I can confirm, and that may very well result in the government's obtaining the information anyway. If you wish to contribute to my education, but do _not_ want your information used in any public or private forum beyond my "eyes only," please make that clear -- your request for complete confidentiality will be respected without reservation. [Moderator's Note: I see a flood of mail coming, and am starting to twitch in anticipation already. Please direct ALL replies to the author and not to the Digest. Thanks. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Detroit Area 313 to Split Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 18:06:37 EDT From: John R. Levine UPI reports that the 313 area will split to a new 810 code effective 10 Aug 1994. Oakland, Macomb, Genesee, Lapeer, St. Clair and Sanilac counties as well as small sections of Saginaw, Shiawassee and Livingston counties wil go into 810. Wayne, Washtenaw, Monroe, and small parts of Jackson and Lenawee counties will remain in 313. Detroit itself is in Wayne county and won't change. As with all NPA splits, rates won't change. The telco consulted lots of local leaders so there seems to be little grumbling about the boundaries. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 14:24:30 -0400 From: kaplanj@emunix.emich.edu (Jeffrey Kaplan) Subject: Michigan Will Get Area Code 810 in August '94 That's what I heard on the radio a few moments ago. WXYT said that Michigan Bell announced that area code 313 will continue in Wayne, Washtenaw, and Monroe counties. Counties north of Eight Mile Road including the north and northeast Detroit suburbs will go to area code 810 in August '94. A Michigan Bell spokesperson came on to say that this will not impact long distance phone rates. Do they mean that you will have to use the new code after that date, or that you'll be able to? I understand that area code splits usually involve a transitional period that this brief radio story did not mention. Jeff Kaplan kaplanj@emunix.emich.edu tardaa@um.cc.umich.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 05:19 GMT From: Jeff Garber <0005075968@mcimail.com> Subject: Airfone System Overload Over the 4th of July weekend, I took a trip with a flight connecting in Chicago. While we were waiting on the runway at O'Hare to take off (with 40-50 planes in front of us, according to the captain), a bad storm came through and shut down the airport. Out of sheer boredom during the delay, I reached for the GTE Airfone built into the seat in front of me. I waited for the green LED to come on before proceeding. It wasn't coming on. Eventually it did illuminate, but it was gone again before I could get my credit card through the magnetic reader. I assume with all those planes grounded on the runway in addition to those in the air that could not land, the call traffic was more than the system could handle. One lady who managed to get her card through the reader and dial a number heard a message stating that all circuits were busy and to please wait. This message repeated at regular intervals. She waited about half an hour before finally giving up. Now I'm wondering just what is the traffic capacity of one Airfone ground station? How many calls must have been in progress to jam it up like that? On a side note, I'd be interested in seeing a study showing how much extra Airfone revenue is generated for the airlines when there are delays versus flights that are on time (why be on time when you can make extra money by being late?). Jeff Garber <507-5968@mcimail.com> My opinions are just that. ------------------------------ From: bob@sunspot.noao.edu (Bob Riegelmann) Subject: Telling my Tip From my Ring Organization: National Solar Observatory/SP, Sunspot NM, USA Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 15:51:47 GMT I'm re-wiring my house, and I need a trivia answer. To avoid confusing local craftpersons after I leave this house, is there a protocol that associates tip and ring with the color and color stripe wires? i.e. does tip go on the blue wire, and ring go on the blue/white wire? or reverse? Don't ask me why I'm rewiring, but this house was originally wired by the Air Force, and was recently on linebacker. Needless to say, nothing worked when I moved in. Bob Riegelmann bob@sunspot.sunspot.noao.edu P.O. Box 58 Sunspot, NM 88349-0058 ------------------------------ From: kaufman@cs.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: 911 Outage in Santa Clara Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University. Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 16:46:14 GMT (from the local news): "Santa Clara County lost its 911 emergency system in most areas for more than five hours Sunday night and this [Monday] morning due to a power outage and the failure of a battery-based backup system, phone company officials said." "Pacific Bell spokeswoman Judy Peterson said a switch -- which served as the hub of service for the entire area -- lost power about 11:10 PM She said a portable diesel generator restored power by about 4:15 AM after a set of batteries failed to provide enough power." Evidently, the regular standby diesel generator failed when its transfer switch burned up. After the Loma Prieta earthquake there was a post-mortem talk by members of SMPTE that was broadcast on satellite. It seems phone companies don't want to test emergency power systems because "it can cause disruptions", so when they are needed they are untested. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.stanford.edu) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 14:38:23 PDT From: sami@scic.intel.com (Sam Israelit) Subject: Use (Abuse) of ANI? > [Moderator's Note: I've often had the same thoughts about the numerous > signs I see on the subways here urging people to call and seek help > for a problem with cocaine, abusing your children, etc. They all use > 800 numbers also, with ANI, I'm sure. PAT] Now come on PAT! This is going a little bit too far. There are a number of people in the world who don't give a damn about tracking phone numbers of people with problems so that they can place them on special lists! This is paranoia! A number of those organizations are out there doing legitimate work and they have 800 numbers so that you can call them free of charge (ie, too large a number of the population are indigent). And even if that isn't the reason, it doesn't mean that they are logging your call for help into "The System". I agree that there are some people who would abuse the use of ANI, but that doesn't make them all bad! Sam Israelit Engineer, Businessman, ... Brewer Portland, OR ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 11:49:49 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: What is ESN? I noticed a listing for Bell-Northern Research in Richardson, Texas (near Dallas) on the 214-684 prefix, and followed by a 7D number prefixed with "ESN". What is ESN? [Moderator's Note: If we were talking about cellular phones, I would say it means "Electronic Serial Number". In the context you describe it, I have no idea. Anyone? PAT] ------------------------------ From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking Date: 14 Jul 92 20:18:39 GMT Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. > Another problem is that in most modern cellular phones, Actually, I'm not sure what you mean by "modern" cellular phones. > the chip containing the ESN is difficult to get into, let alone modify. With the latest phones I think it's actually getting easier. Some of the new smaller handhelds actually store the ESN in the same programmable stuff as the NAM information. [Moderator's Note: By 'modern', I mean phones made in the past few years since the cellular carriers got the feds to crack down on the makers of the phones for not doing a better job of keeping the ESN tamper-proof. In the very early days, ESN tampering was common. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking From: bill@hacktic.nl (Bill Squire) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 18:00:05 WET/D Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine > [Moderator's Note: What you suggest is highly illegal in the USA and > probably everywhere else in the world except possibly the Netherlands > where it seems that everything is okay where defrauding the telco is > concerned. C'mon Pat be nice. Using the bluebox is one thing, but somebody's account is quite another matter. See the difference? There has been quite a problem with the criminal side of "phreaking" with cellular phones here and I assure you it will earn you a room in one of the fine hotels operated by the police! On the technical side, several cellular phones can be fully programed externally, but I don't do this and don't know about changing the ESN or anything like that. We have three different systems here, ATF1 in the 150MHz band, ATF2 in the 470MHz band and ATF3 in the 900MHz band (470-890 is still TV here). We also have a public CT2 system called "Greenpoint" with Motorola Silverlink phones called "Kermits" with a green protective edge instead of the standard grey. Henson's famous frog is pictured on them. This system uses 40 channels between 864 and 868 MHz with a maximum transmit power of 10mW. While there are numerous features possible, it is only used as a payphone replacement at this time and as a home cordless phone. Full details are in EDSI prl-ETS 300 131. Call +33 92 94 42 00 or 93 65 47 16 in France for more information. Don't believe this has been hacked, but there are allways those out there that think they have a trick ... until the phone bill arives! Bill ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 21:42 GMT From: Richard Cox Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking Reply-To: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk >> The idea seems to be to change the ESN so that free phone calls can be >> made on someone else's line. Changing the ESN per se isn't illegal here in the UK. In fact it's become essential now that a number of cellular phone companies have started to "block" the ESNs of, for example, customers who disconnect to change to other cellular phone companies, so they can't use their phones on the network. Because a cottage industry has been set up to do this, its not too much of a surprise that as a result there has been a sudden increase over here of the "cloning" of working ESNs. This does result in fraud -- fraud against the registered user of that ESN -- and of course that is illegal. The problem is that it's not as easy to spot by checking bills, as Pat suggested. These phones are usually used to "sell" cheap international calls back home, to visitors and immigrants. There wouldn't be any pattern (other than the calls would all be expensive and international) and the people who receive the calls would genuinely know nothing about the criminal responsible. What has been done here, is to arrange for the Cellular system to "spot" cases where two phones are live on the system with the same ESN at the same time, or where a phone appears to "move" faster than normal between two different parts of the country. Not all cellular systems use our (ETACS) system; I believe USA uses AMPS and Oz uses something like GSM. So what may be possible in one country, is not necessarily possible in another. Richard Cox Mandarin Technology, Cardiff Business Park, Llanishen, CARDIFF, Wales CF4 5WF Voice: +44 222 747111 Fax: +44 222 711111 VoiceMail: +44 399 870101 E-mail: mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Perot Compuserve Account Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 12:07:06 GMT In article TELECOM Moderator notes: > [Moderator's Note: This brings up the original question: Does Perot > have an email address for the proposed electronic forum for the > candidates? Should we use 'campaign@perot.com' instead? PAT] perot.com, eh? So if he gets elected we might actually see something like "perot@whitehouse.com"? Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 02:26 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Perot Compuserve Account The Moderator notes: > And the idea that electronic mail is somehow a step-child in the way > we communicate -- that paper mail is legitimate (who has yet to > express sympathy for the volume of paper mail David Bush must receive > for Perot each day?) but electronic mail must be restricted somehow > lest it cause too much aggravation for the recipient is very silly. > Electronic mail is where things are at these days. And becoming more so. Over the past years (and particularly the past year) I have been under the impression that the US Mail has become slower and less reliable. Letters that used to take a couple of days to travel coast to coast now take a week. Mail to Los Angeles from here takes a good five days now (if it makes it at all). For the price of a stamp, you can send a fax anywhere in the country. It gets there immediately for sure. E-mail costs considerably less than that, reaches its destination in less than a day (most of the e-mail I send and receive takes minutes), and again the odds of being delivered are exceedingly high. Accordingly, I now only use the US Mail in the absence of any alternative. When it started taking three days for a letter to reach San Francisco from here (40 miles), I reassessed the communication food chain. Hence, I agree with Pat. If someone is proporting to be participating in electronic communications, then he had better be sure that he can deal with commensurate incoming traffic. The day is coming when we all will look at paper mail as passe and archaic. I know I already do. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! [Moderator's Note: Remember when that guy wrote me a year or so ago saying I should not have given out reallen@attmail.com since if the chairman got too much mail they might cut the link to the net? I am still scratching my head over that one, wondering exactly who would be the loser. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Perot Compuserve Account Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 11:28:44 PDT From: Chris Kent Kantarjiev It has been suggested that "Ross.Perot@perot.com" is a way to reach Perot, or at least his administrative assitant. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #559 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28384; 16 Jul 92 2:27 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06692 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 16 Jul 1992 00:29:10 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29048 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 16 Jul 1992 00:29:00 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 00:29:00 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207160529.AA29048@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #561 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Jul 92 00:29:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 561 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Unions Wrap Up AT&T Talks (Phillip Dampier) AT&T Voicemark (Ken Jongsma) AT&T Automated Rate Information (Ken Jongsma) Baby Bells Get Attention (Phillip Dampier) Newport LAN2LAN/Compression Error Rates (Chris Cox) Pac*Bell Joins the Fray (John Higdon) Overseas AT&T Calling Card? (Peter Quodling) ECTL: New Speech Mailing List (David C. J. Leip) Helpful Ameritech ISDN Person (Matthew Holdrege) Auto Attendant and KSU Wanted (Thomas Metro) Nynex Cellular Mobile Perks (Monty Solomon) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Reply-To: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 16:07:34 -0500 Subject: Unions Wrap Up AT&T Talks UNIONS WRAP UP LOCAL ISSUE TALKS WITH AT&T, CLEARING WAY FOR NATIONAL CONTRACT RATIFICATION WASHINGTON -- Unions representing 127,000 AT&T workers announced that they had reached settlement with the company at six local issues bargaining tables after marathon talks over the weekend, clearing the way for a national membership ratification vote on a new three-year contract. A settlement on national bargaining issues had been announced earlier, on July 1, by AT&T, the Communications Workers of America (CWA), which represents 100,000 workers at AT&T, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), which represents another 27,000. However, that settlement was contingent upon successful completion of further talks on issues specific to various individual work groups and manufacturing plants. The local issues settlement came late last night following intense bargaining sessions that saw negotiators meeting at one point for 43 straight hours from Friday through yesterday morning. Membership ratification of the complete settlement package will take several weeks to complete, the unions reported. Strengthened employment security was identified as the unions' chief goal in the talks, and union negotiators said they had achieved further gains in this area in the local talks. The national settlement calls for over 30 improvements in the employee job transfer system at AT&T, as well as access to a larger pool of available jobs and a better chance to be rehired into new jobs. The settlement also boosts base wages for most workers by 12.3 percent over the three years, provides $3,300 worth of AT&T stock to each employee, raises pension benefits by 13 percent, and expands worker training and family care provisions. ------------------------------ From: jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: AT&T Voicemark Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 15:57:08 EDT I had an occasion to use AT&T Voicemark (The store and forward message service) the other morning. First, a kudo ... I needed to record a message at 5AM the other morning for delivery later in the morning, but I couldn't remember the Voicemark number. (Actually, I did remember the number, but thought it was a 700 number like Alliance, when it really was an 800 number.) Anyway, I called the 1-800-CALL-ATT number, waded through the menus and got to a live operator. I asked her for the Voicemark number. Within 60 seconds she found the number, apologized for taking so long and connected me to the number herself. (She said they had a huge book of various AT&T departments/products and it took a while to find things.) All this at 5AM. I was impressed. Anyway, Voicemark worked as advertised. A couple of comments, since I know at least one Voicemark engineer reads the Digest: Please add the ability to send the same message to multiple numbers. it's a drag having to rerecord the same message. Voicemark stumbles when it encounters an answering machine. I did not know that one of the target numbers was answered by a machine. Voicemark called the machine at the designated time and left my message. Fortunately the machine recorded the message. It didn't know what to do when Voicemark said "Press # to reply" though! Eventually Voicemark gave up and hung up. I could have told Voicemark to use a live operator, had I known there was a machine on the other end, but I didn't know at the time. Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries jongsma@benzie.si.com Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115.1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) Subject: AT&T Automated Rate Information Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 16:01:50 EDT I was in the Little Rock airport the other day and noticed something interesting: The AT&T Darth Vader phones (old CRT style) had a small sticker on them that said "For free AT&T rate info, Dial 0 + AC + number + 0". Well, you can't do that. These phones capture the number and kill the dial after 0 + AC + number. They then outpulse the number with the receiver muted. When the "bong" occurs, you can dial 0, but that just gets you the AT&T operator. I expected something more automated. Anyone know why these phones are stickered this way? Ken Jongsma ken@wybbs.mi.org Smiths Industries jongsma@benzie.si.com Grand Rapids, Michigan 73115.1041@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Reply-To: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 16:20:57 -0500 Subject: Baby Bells Get Attention MIAMI -- With Florida's attorney general accusing a baby of Ma Bell of acting like Ma Barker, the telephone company is trying to restore its image by warning consumers they may have been overcharged. Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth said Southern Bell Telephone Co. owes $14 million in refunds to customers who were pressured into ordering expensive services or billed for services they did not order. Phone companies in Pennsylvania, California and Wisconsin also have been fined or ordered to make restitution for deceptive marketing, said Gene Kimmelman, legislative director of the Consumer Federation of America in Washington. Southern Bell spokesman Spero Canton said Tuesday that a few dishonest sales people were to blame and were no longer with the company. He also said that when the company found out about the practices 1 1/2 years ago, it refunded more than $850,000 to about 30,000 customers. Butterworth, however, said company employees tried to persuade customers to accept only a fraction of what they were owed. To help alert consumers to refunds they might be owed, Southern Bell, one of the so-called Baby Bells created by the breakup of AT&T, planned to place full-page ads in newspapers around Florida encouraging customers to check their bills. Canton said bills were being itemized this month to provide a rundown of charges. Customer service hours would be extended for the next two weeks to handle calls, he said. Butterworth said Monday he would sue to force the company to make refunds to at least 225,000 of its 4.7 million Florida customers. "We all grew up trusting Ma Bell," Butterworth said. "We didn't expect to encounter Ma Barker." The optional services included touch-tone dialing ($1 a month); call forwarding ($2.45 a month); call waiting ($3.50); speed calling ($2.20 to $3); and wire maintenance (up to $2.50 a month), in which the phone company agrees to fix problems inside a customer's home. Before the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. monopoly was broken up by court order, the maintenance service was free. Kimmelman said watchdog groups such as his are pushing in Congress for safeguards against such abuses. The federation is backing a bill passed July 1 by the House Judiciary Committee that would limit phone companies from getting into new information services so long as they remain the local monopoly. In 1990, Bell of Pennsylvania was ordered to pay $42 million in refunds. That same year in California, Pacific Telesis Group was ordered to refund $3.5 million. In 1989, Wisconsin Bell was fined $1.2 million. ------------------------------ From: ramrod!chrisc@lmt.mn.org (Chris Cox) Subject: Newport LAN2LAN/Compression Error Rates Organization: LaserMaster Technologies, Minneapolis, MN USA Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 13:35:30 GMT We have been using a pair of Newport LAN2LAN/Compression NIC's providing a wide-area link between Minneapolis and Amsterdam for about six weeks now. The link is working pretty well, however, I am seeing (what is to me!) an alarming number error messages in the file server SYS$LOG.ERR files at each end of the link -- typically between 2 and 30 link status error messages per HOUR. The cards are installed in NetWare 3.11 file servers, connected to Republic Telecom MUXes with 64kb of our 128kb bandwidth assigned to them. They are routing both IP and IPX. Has anyone any experience with a feel for the relative significance of this sort of error level rate? Am I being overly paranoid? Thanks in advance. Chris Cox W0/G4JEC (612) 944-6069 Network Administrator LaserMaster Technologies ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 04:52 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Pac*Bell Joins the Fray In commercials that began on July 13th, Pac*Bell started pushing its own Calling Card, making comparisons with other carriers' cards. As some of you may know, Pac*Bell's monopoly on intraLATA calling will be ending in the forseeable future. The ads proudly tout the fact that with the Pac*Bell Calling Card "it is never necessary to dial an access code". Well, as they always say in business, if you have a liability -- feature it. While AT&T tells you that to avoid being ripped off by AOS slime you should dial the AT&T access code, Pac*Bell says go ahead and get screwed. At least you don't have to dial an access code! As I have noticed over and over, AOS criminals cannot accept the AT&T-only card while, of course, they readily accept an LEC card. Hence, "no need to dial an access code". The other face of the access code mention is that when intraLATA competition is a reality, it will be necessary to use a code if you wish to use a different carrier than Pacific Bell. By indoctrinating the public with the notion that using an access code is "inconven- ient", it will enhance its position as default carrier. These very misleading commercials point out what I have been preaching for years. Advertising is not meant to inform, only to sell. How many people do you think there are out there who actually believe that "Friends and Family" is just the cheapest plan there is? I would wager that it is quite a few and that would indicate a very successful campaign. On July 27, Pac*Bell will launch its new Centrex spots. All of the Centrex advertising that I have seen so far is borderline fraudulent. Example: A software company executive in Scotts Valley is crowing about how he stayed "up and running" after the earthquake because he had Centrex while a neighbor business with a PBX was down (no power) for two days. Yeah, right! I wonder how the software company kept its computers running for two days, or did the people just talk on the phone shooting the breeze? And even if it DID keep its computers running on backup power, why would that have not worked for a PBX switch? I will be eagerly awaiting Pac*Bell's latest Pac of Lies. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: quodling@blumon.enet.dec.com Subject: Overseas AT&T Calling Card? Organization: The New Software Group Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 13:36:22 GMT Some time back, I heard mention (in this forum, I believe) of an AT&T calling card specifically for people living overseas. I am an Australian about to relocate back there, and would like to have an AT&T card for when I am travelling, or need to contact people in the U.S. Anyone know what it is called, or which part of AT&T to ask about it. Peter Quodling Internet: quodling@blumon.enet.dec.com Distrib. Computing Components UUCP: ...!decwrl!blumon.enet!quodling Part of The New Software Group. Phone: (508) 486 6177 Digital Equipment Corporation Fax: (603) 881 0120 110 Spitbrook Road, ZKO1-3/J35 Nashua, NH 03062-2642 I said it, not them... ------------------------------ From: david@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca (David C. J. Leip) Subject: ECTL: New Speech Mailing List Organization: Indiana University Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 14:33:38 -0400 Announcing a fairly new mailing list. Electronic Communal Temporal Lobe ================================= The Electronic Communal Temporal Lobe (or ECTL) is a moderated mailing list for SIE'ers (Speech Interface Enthusiasts). It's a fairly new international list which serves as a place to post notices and queries or debate issues of interest to SIE'ers (Typically issues regarding speech interface research). Subscription is open to all. Presently, there are about 350 subscribers from 25 different nations. To subscribe just send a message to the moderator (me), David Leip, at the following address. Please include your name, institution, department, daytime phone, and e-mail address. The address is: ectl-request@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca If for any reason you have trouble mailing to that account, please contact me at the address or phone number below. David Leip University of Guelph david@snowhite.cis.uoguelph.ca Computing & Information Science (519) 824-4120 ext.3709 Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 19:49 GMT From: Matthew Holdrege Subject: Helpful Ameritech ISDN Person I'm sorry I didn't post this earlier. If anyone is interested, I can give you the name and number of a helpful and knowledgeable IBT datacomm salesman who has many contacts with IBT/Ameritech marketing and Switch Operations. He really helped smooth the way for my ISDN installs. Why is he so helpful you ask? Well, he isn't a Bell employee. He is an independant authorized reseller. His prices are the same as IBT's and his service is far superior. I don't know if this kind of relationship is unique to IBT, but I would like to find a similar agent in Southern California. Email if you need his name and number. Email if you know of a good reseller in Southern California. Matt Holdrege 5156065@mcimail.com holdrege@eisner.decus.org 714-229-2518 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 4:52:22 EDT From: Thomas Metro Subject: Auto Attendant and KSU I am looking for a device to do the following: 1. Answer the telephone on the first ring. 2. Play a greeting message. 3. When the greeting message ends, ring through to an attached phone. Most voice mail systems can do this, but I am looking for a dedicated, low cost ($100/line) device that can do the above. If the device will work with two lines, that would be even better. One thought I had was to use one of those fax/phone switches. I'm not sure, but I think I have heard of some that allow you to record your own greeting (as apposed to the synthesized or "burnt-in-ROM" kind). I'm not entirely sure if one of those boxes would even do the trick in terms of following steps 1 through 3. What can you tell me about an old KSU with a part number of 400D KTU on the line cards. I'm sure it was common many years ago. Are the customer side lines standard analog (i.e. can I plug in a POT)? What features/ functions does this KSU provide? Please send replies via mail -- I can't always keep up with the volume on this group. Thanks, Tom tmetro@ds5000.dac.northeastern.edu Venture Logic Newton, MA ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 05:35:06 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Nynex Cellular MobilePerks In an ad in the 7/14/92 {Boston Globe}, Nynex Mobile is promoting their MobilePerks program where customers get a MobilePerks point for every minute of local airtime used. These points can be used towards plane tickets, hotels, rental cars, gas, etc. Points can also be cashed in for cellular airtime, a portable cellular phone, or portable cellular fax machine. I don't know if you get points for incoming calls. Any Nynex Mobile customers here have more information? Monty Solomon / PO Box 2486 / Framingham, MA 01701-0405 monty%roscom@think.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #561 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00812; 16 Jul 92 3:23 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26030 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 16 Jul 1992 01:17:28 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14476 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 16 Jul 1992 01:17:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 01:17:14 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207160617.AA14476@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #562 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Jul 92 01:17:14 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 562 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: The Depths of Sliminess (Peter da Silva) Re: The Depths of Sliminess (tanner@ki4pv.compu.com) Re: The Depths of Sliminess (James Joseph) Re: The Depths of Sliminess (B. J. Herbison) Personal Identification (was The Depths of Sliminess) (Gregory G. Woodbury) Re: Teleslime (A Tip) (tanner@ki4pv.compu.com) Re: What is ESN? (Andrew G. Minter) Re: What is ESN? (Kevin Culhane) Re: What is ESN? (Francois Truchon) Re: European Phone in Canada? (Peter Knoppers) Re: European Phone in Canada? (Rop Gonggrijp) Re: Perot Compuserve Account (John Slater) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: The Depths of Sliminess Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 01:50:05 GMT In article Clint Ruoho writes: > Peter de Silva writes: >> As for "it's better they have a job than nothing at all"... I don't >> buy that argument. Unless a person is doing productive work, >> contributing to the economy, their job is worthless. Yes, that >> includes Dan Quayle. > I would consider telemarketing productive work ... it certainly > contributes to the economy. So, technically, does any activity that is paid for, whether it's useful work or not. Telemarketing, as far as I'm concerned, reduces the available resources in the economy, reduces people's quality of life, and encourages defensive measures that would otherwise be unnecessary. Therefore it is a drain on the conomy ... not a contribution to it. > And still, I'd rather have somebody working as a telemarketer > instead of collecting welfare. I'd rather have them collecting welfare. At least that leaves them free to engage in productive (if non-remunerative) pursuits. I'd much prefer that they engaged in productive work, like prostitution. In article syd@dsi.com writes: > invasion. An example (contrived) "I used to be able to put up a sign, > saying no soliciting" and if a salesman called on me, at my door, I > could have him arrested and tried for trespassing. That would stop me > from having my door bell rung and interrupting me. (Of course it wont > work for political and some other sub classes, but most salesman) > What do I do that is similar for telemarketers? Get "blocked ID blocking", which would play a recording at the CO saying "I'm sorry, but you need to disable blocking on your line before calling this number" if someone called with their ID blocked. That at least lets the teleslime know that you're not interested in anoymous calls (yes, I assume that they would have their ID blocked as a matter of course). This service is actually more useful than Caller-ID itself. BTW ... isn't it time to move this thread to TELECOM-PRIVACY? In article kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes: > The first thing I would do is integrate Caller ID into my computer > system, and have the system interpret the phone number against a > database, and announce via its voice subsystem who is calling over my > residential PA system. I see. How does a minimum-wage grocery sacker afford that sort of stuff? Or do minimum-wage sackers deserve to get interrupted? Don't want the hoi polloi to get uppity ... Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032 [Moderator's Note: Peter is correct that this thread has pretty much worn out its welcome here. As has happened before, I've carried it far longer than I should in this group. Off to comp.privacy with it! PAT] ------------------------------ From: tanner@ki4pv.compu.com Subject: Re: The Depths of Sliminess Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand Date: Mon, 13 Jul 92 07:06:38 GMT TELECOM Moderator noted: > So for you folks that don't like answering the phone blind and > risking a call from (oh my God!) a 'telemarketing slime', I don't think you are understanding the issue even yet. The problem is quite simply that some pest is interrupting whatever I am doing to drag me over to the phone so that he can try to sell me something. You are ignoring the direct cost to me or my employer, even before I have decided if the call is from someone important. Concentration on work is interrupted, even if I can decide to ignore the call. No, I don't have a secretary. As a writer, I have learned to type fairly well over the years, and it is faster than hand-writing. The existence of door-to-door salescritters in no wise justifies the existence of phone salescritters. You can't use one evil to justify another. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 11:32:45 -0400 From: joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com (James Joseph) Subject: Re: The Depths of Sliminess > [Moderator's Note: Fifty years ago there was a breed of person known > as the 'door-to-door salesman', who literally went house to house > selling things. People then had to get up and answer the door only to > slam it shut again or invite the person in or whatever. And those guys > going door to door sold everything under the sun including pots and > pans, insurance, women's lingerie, shoes, brushes, you name it. > People would look through a peephole in the door and remain quiet, > pretending to not be at home. But the modern day equivilent of the > peephole, Caller-ID, is still banned in some places at the behest of a > a few people who keep squalling about their fantasy of a woman in a > shelter somewhere whose husband will come to get her if he knows where > she is. So for you folks that don't like answering the phone blind and > risking a call from (oh my God!) a 'telemarketing slime', I suggest > you put up or shut up. This is not directed to you, Leonard, because I > don't know where you stand ... but amazingly, many people gripe about > intrusions on the phone and condemn the most effecient way of dealing > with it also. I think it is because they don't want the intrusions > *they* make on the phone to be easily detected or stopped. PAT] I am neither for, nor against caller ID. I just don't care one way or the other. But how can you promote caller ID as the cure-all for the nuisance calls? I am not smart enough to look at a number and determine who is making the call. May be it is my wife calling from a payphone to tell me that her car went kaput on the way home. Or it may be the sales-slime. Is there something more to the caller-ID than I know of? All it can do is flash the caller's number on a display on the callee's phone, right? If I am at the receiving end, and do not recognize the call I want to pick up the phone and find out who it is, just in case it is something important. james joseph joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com [Moderator's Note: Although I use Caller-ID to screen calls, I use it more as a way to have recourse to a (previously) unknown caller for whatever reason. I tend to pick and choose who I will answer when the number is known to me ... but I always answer unknown numbers. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 06:47:43 PDT From: B.J. Subject: Re: The Depths of Sliminess > How do I know it's a telemarketer until I answer the phone? > [Moderator's Note: How do you know? Simple. You say to your telco and > your utility commissioners, "I want Caller-ID available in our phone > exchange now. I want control of my phone instead of telemarketers, > phreaks and other people having control of it." When installed, then > you answer those calls you wish and ignore the others. PAT] Caller-ID is almost useless for this purpose. My friends don't always call from the same numbers, people I do business with don't always call from the same numbers, telemarketers don't call from the same numbers, and, the biggest current problem, most telemarketers seem to call from other LATAs anyway. If an unknown number appears with Caller-ID, it could also be a telemarketer. But, if a friend is calling from a non-standard location I don't want to miss the call -- the topic is probably more important than idle chatter. Caller-ID can sometimes be useful to show that friends are calling, but if the number isn't a friend's number then the number is almost always useless. It only helps with repeated annoyance calls from the same number (or bank of numbers). > [Moderator's Note: ... But the modern day equivilent of the > peephole, Caller-ID, is still banned in some places at the behest of a > a few people who keep squalling about their fantasy of a woman in a > shelter somewhere whose husband will come to get her if he knows where > she is. Caller-ID is about as useful as a peephole that only shows the color of the caller's socks. It will help if a friend has a distinctive pair of socks, but a pair of white socks doesn't tell you anything. B.J. ------------------------------ From: wolves!ggw@duke.cs.duke.edu (Gregory G. Woodbury) Subject: Personal Identification (was The Depths of Sliminess) Reply-To: ggw@wolves.durham.nc.us Organization: Wolves Den UNIX Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 03:21:37 GMT In responding to several bashers of telemarketers, the Moderator suggests that Caller-ID is the perfect answer to knowing who is calling. This, I suggest in turn, is *not* the answer. Caller-ID will tell me if a caller from a properly equipped exchange is at a particular number. It does not tell me *who* at that number is calling. It helps, but not much. It also does not cover situations where someone is calling from somewhere else. It simply returns the number from wherever they are calling. Once again, there is no way of knowing *who* is calling in particular. There are systems available that allow someone to give out special codes so that "special" people can be identified by their dialing, but these are not always available, or universally applicable. (Consider someone calling from a COCOT that blocks touchtone after connecting; several systems will not work in such cases.) About the only one that works in any sort of universal fashion is the "distinctive ring" that assigns multiple numbers to one pair and rings in different fashions, but that is not universally available, and costs to bloody much for most folks tastes. Saying that Caller-ID is the way to go is just to much of a "pat" answer. Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw ...duke!wolves!ggw [use the maps!] Domain: ggw@wolves.Durham.NC.US ggw@cds.duke.edu ggw%wolves@duke.cs.duke.edu [Moderator's Note: It may not be perfect, but Caller-ID is the best we have available at present. Anyway, see my earlier comments. I don't care *who* calls as long as I have some recourse later if desired. PAT] ------------------------------ From: tanner@ki4pv.compu.com Subject: Re: Teleslime (A Tip) Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand Date: Mon, 13 Jul 92 07:39:19 GMT [ call phoneco to report harrassing calls ] Around here (Southern Bell), the phone company effectively encourages such calls, as they increase revenue. If you call to report such a problem, they take the opportunity to try to sell a `service' where, for so much per month, you can key a certain number to have the calls logged. It looks like profiteering from crime, but of course they don't care. They don't have to. They're the phone company. The encouragement of such calls is found in their unwillingness to take responsible action to provide the service they purport to provide. The harassing calls bureau is now a sales desk. ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner [Moderator's Note: Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread which now has to be closed out. PAT] ------------------------------ From: A.G.Minter@bnr.co.uk (Andrew G. Minter) Subject: Re: What is ESN? Reply-To: A.G.Minter@bnr.co.uk (Andrew G. Minter) Organization: BNR Europe Limited Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 10:24:16 GMT In article , Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > I noticed a listing for Bell-Northern Research in Richardson, Texas > (near Dallas) on the 214-684 prefix, and followed by a 7D number > prefixed with "ESN". What is ESN? An ESN number is an internal number on Northern Telecom's global, digital corporate network. It's seven digits because NT is a big company. One day all telephone networks may be like it. Cheers, Andrew (no, I don't work in sales) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: What is ESN? From: Kevin Culhane Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 10:36:12 -0400 In article Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) writes: > I noticed a listing for Bell-Northern Research in Richardson, Texas > (near Dallas) on the 214-684 prefix, and followed by a 7D number > prefixed with "ESN". What is ESN? At BNR, ESN stands for Electronic Switched Network -- it is used to communicate between all BNR and Northern Telecom sites. It provides long-distance telecom routing at the lowest cost using SL-100's and other assorted goodies. To get to any site in North America or the UK, one dials 6 + ESN + extension. The ESN code, however, is pretty useless if you're off-net. Kevin Culhane kculhane@descartes.UWaterloo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 17:26:31 EDT From: francois%tollys.UUCP%bnrmtl.UUCP@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU (F Truchon) Subject: Re: What is ESN? ESN is an acronym for "Electronic Switched Network". In this context, it simply refers to NT/BNR's corporate voice network. Basically, a telephone network is implemented by leasing voice trunks between the Meridian 1 (SL1) PBX's at various locations. I believe that the first two or three digits of an ESN telephone number refer to a particular PBX (same as for public networks). Is ESN a standard name for corporate voice networks or is it only used with NT's Meridian 1 PBX? Regards, Francois Truchon Bell-Northern Research, Montreal, Canada uucp: bnrmtl!francois@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU P.S.: Usual disclaimer applies... ------------------------------ From: Peter Knoppers Subject: Re: European Phone in Canada? Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1992 09:37:58 GMT lancelot@Mais.Hydro.Qc.CA (Christian Doucet) writes: > My sister bought a phone in Amsterdam and it somewhat looks like a > 2500 set. She want's to use it here in Canada because it has this > "oldish European look" :). It has a DTMF keypad on it. She has probably bought a type T65-TDK phone. > I apologize if this is a FAQ but I have three of them: > Will this phone work in Canada? If the Canadian telephone system is anything like the USA system, yes. > Will the DTMF keypad work in Canada? DTMF is an international standard; it should work. > How to wire it? ..picture deleted... Any Dutch telephone has four wires named a, b, e and eb. The standard coloring for the wires is: a = red b = blue e = green eb = yellow A and b correspond to tip and ring in the US. Connect those to the wire pair from your phone company. Polarity is unimportant. If you want the internal ringer to operate you must connect wire eb to b. If you want an external ringer to operate together with the internal one, connect it between eb and b. This puts it in series with the internal ringer. If you don't want the internal ringer to operate, don't connect eb. Do not connect the e (earth) wire. It is needed to generate an out-of-band signal to PBXs by pressing the white (in some sets black) push button. This type of out-of-band signal is (to my knowledge) not used outside the Netherlands. If your phone is indeed a T65 or other model with mechanical ringer, you can adjust the volume of the ringer with the toothed white wheel in the bottom of the set. There is a big and a small bell symbol near this wheel indicating higher and lower volume. Peter Knoppers - knop@duteca.et.tudelft.nl ------------------------------ Subject: European Phone in Canada? From: rop@hacktic.nl (Rop Gonggrijp) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 16:50:46 WET/D Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine lancelot@Mais.Hydro.Qc.CA (Christian Doucet) writes: > [Amsterdam phone in Canada] > > (round connector) > / | | \ > / | | \ > / / \ \ > / / \ \ > / | | \ > / | | \ > o o o o > > a ground b EB > > The ground is marked by the international symbol. a and b are the tip and ring, if you want the phone to ring, connect EB (Extra Bel) to b. Phone should work otherwise. DTMF is the same the world over. This EB wire is because they wanted to always make sure that extra bells were hooked up in SERIES with the bell in the phone. Old principle, doesn't really apply to modern ringers anymore. It is handy to keep using the system, because you can determine by the wiring in the outlet whether the phone that is plugged in will ring. Kinda handy. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 09:09:15 BST From: John.Slater@UK.Sun.COM (John Slater - Sun UK - City SE) Subject: Re: Perot Compuserve Account In article 12@eecs.nwu.edu, peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > perot.com, eh? So if he gets elected we might actually see something > like "perot@whitehouse.com"? whitehouse.gov, surely? ^^^ John [Moderator's Note: And thanks to Dennis Rears for the same suggestion in an almost identical message not included here. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #562 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02983; 16 Jul 92 4:40 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27576 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 16 Jul 1992 02:24:07 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08231 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 16 Jul 1992 02:23:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 02:23:58 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207160723.AA08231@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #563 TELECOM Digest Thu, 16 Jul 92 02:23:54 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 563 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Rop Gonggrijp) Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Alan Boritz) Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Chris Arndt) Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Paul Robichaux) Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Steven S. Brack) DISA Hacking vs CNI (Andrew Klossner) Re: "Legal" Phreaking? (Peter da Silva) Re: "Legal" Phreaking? (Susan B. Huntsman) New Law in the Netherlands (was "Legal" Phreaking) (Dave Weitzel) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Cellular Phone Hacking From: rop@hacktic.nl (Rop Gonggrijp) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 16:30:44 WET/D Organization: Hack-Tic Magazine u1066579@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au writes: [Question on cellphone hacking: can you swap the ESN?] > Anyone have any knowledge of potential problems etc? Does it work? > If possible please E-mail. > [Moderator's Note: What you suggest is highly illegal in the USA and > probably everywhere else in the world except possibly the Netherlands > where it seems that everything is okay where defrauding the telco is > concerned. Many things that can be done with cell-phones are 'highly illegal' (even here in Holland I might add), but that does not mean that we cannot discuss the possiblities here. This guy may just be curious. In fact: that may be why he wanted us to reply be e-mail, so that no 'criminals' could see his post. Ofcourse he could also be a 'criminal' himself. Who knows. Let's stop the whole discussion on what is illegal, where it is illegal and all the flames concerned. > Another problem is that in most modern cellular phones, the > chip containing the ESN is difficult to get into, let alone modify. > They tend to be buried under wax, thoroughly soldered in place and > with few or no markings on them. If they solder it in like that, it means they have something to fear. > A third problem is that if you could easily change them (let's say you swap it out entirely for a bunch of little dip switches or pin wheels you set by hand), ... Do you have a schematic? Here in Holland this would NEVER work, because on the newest network you not only send an ESN, but also an answer to a 'question' from the cellular exchange. This 'signature' is generated by a little module that you can't open (it's one chip). So you can only replace the module by another one, but then it would not match with the numbers stored in the cellular exchange. There IS no easy hack into this one, in fact there might not even be a complicated one. This is what you get if 'the system' puts its mind to making phreaking impossible instead of catching the phreaks, but let's forget about that flame ... > ... is that the place you call is recorded by the cellular company > and if you intend to call anything other than hotel/radio station > switchboards/contest lines, etc then eventually any regular calling > pattern will be investigated. Wouldn't you love to have your mother > get a call from a security representative for Telecom, asking who she > spoke with and how to reach you? Would your friends cover for you? > For how long? Is this really related to cellular phones or technology? This trick is as old as phone-phreaks. Phreaking does not happen anymore because of it, right? [Moderator's Note: In landline service here in the USA, it is quite common for telco investigators to find patterns of calling and then (at first politely, then later sometimes in a harassing way) inquire about the matter from 'regular' recipients of such calls. In an almost apologetic and innocent-sounding way ("Our operator must have written down the wrong number for billing when the call was placed, can you help by telling us who called you?") they pry for details. Far too many mothers, grandmothers and air-headed friends, lovers, etc are very naive about this and run their mouth willingly. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 92 15:06:29 EDT From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) writes: >> the chip containing the ESN is difficult to get into, let alone modify. > With the latest phones I think it's actually getting easier. Some of > the new smaller handhelds actually store the ESN in the same > programmable stuff as the NAM information. > [Moderator's Note: By 'modern', I mean phones made in the past few > years since the cellular carriers got the feds to crack down on the > makers of the phones for not doing a better job of keeping the ESN > tamper-proof. In the very early days, ESN tampering was common. PAT] The EIA spec (which was incorporated verbatum within FCC rules) always specified that the ESN was to be, "buried within." It was intended to be installed within more than one solid state device so that tampering with any portion would render the apparatus permanently inoperable. The manufacturers (like Motorola) that made equipment that allowed it's ESN to be changed in the field did not comply with the letter or the spirit of the law. While the cellular service industry will always have law enforcement agencies on their side for any fraud issue (after all, many law enforcement agencies depend upon cellular phone service to bypass inadequately planned radio systems), who is more at fault? Slime-ball pirates for stealing the service, or the cellular equipment manufacturers for failing to follow FCC rules and making the process possible? mandarin@cix.compulink.co.uk (Richard Cox) writes: >> The idea seems to be to change the ESN so that free phone calls can be >> made on someone else's line. > Changing the ESN per se isn't illegal here in the UK. In fact it's > become essential now that a number of cellular phone companies have > started to "block" the ESNs of, for example, customers who disconnect > to change to other cellular phone companies, so they can't use their > phones on the network. It would seem that one type of fraud begets another. Once an ESN is in the "dead file" the phone is practically useless. If those cellular operators had any brains they wouldn't play Russian Roulette with their livelihood. Alan Boritz 72446.461@compuserve.com [Moderator's Note: The cell companies frequently ignore the list in their cutthroat efforts to get business. Ameritech adds one to the negative listing here; the phone shows up with a customer of Cellular One and they kill it from the list and reactivate it because they want the business. It works the same way in reverse with Cell One here blacklisting an ESN they had 'difficulty' with; the customer goes to Ameritech and later complaining he cannot roam so Ameritech removes it from the negative list. Back and forth, and so it goes. PAT] ------------------------------ From: carndt@zeus.calpoly.edu (Chris Arndt) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 21:19:52 GMT It seems that there is a lot of talk about hacked ESNs and cellular fraud here, but no victims. Here's and intersting little first-hand account. My GTE Mobilenet bill is always small enough, and I travel little, so checking it every month is easy. Last month, I had over $80 of fraudulent calls on my bill, including one marathon hour plus call placed in New York. As this has happened once before, I knew to call customer service and they gave me credit for the fraudlent calls no questions asked. Curious about GTE's lack of interest in following up on this, I called my account manager and asked him what GTE was doing about fraud. He said that, since I brought it up, they'd like to change my number. I said OK. What a pain in the behind!! I thought that they would just cancel the old number and give me a new one to put in my phone. No, I had to fill out a whole new service application, with all the financial info on it. I did it anyway,'cause I pursuaded them to give me a cooler number. However, when I was done, I called my account manager back and said that, if they were serious about beating the hackers, they were going to have to make the number changing process easier. He said, he'd look into it. Sigh. ------------------------------ From: robichau@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Paul Robichaux) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking Reply-To: robichau@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov Organization: New Technology, Inc. Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 13:07:24 GMT In vta!tom@gatech.edu (Tom Wiencko) writes: > Jail, law suits, and other nasty things. Note well that most cellular > companies have well staffed and well equipped fraud departments, and > some significant technology exists to detect fraudulent access, and in > many cases to locate the offender. My wife is a customer service manager for BellSouth Cellular, which provides cellular service throughout much of the southern US. Her office has a bulletin board covered with "fraud alert" notices generated by BellSouth Cellular HQ in Atlanta. Perhaps not surprisingly, the bulk of reported frauds involve "human engineering": providing fake information to establish service, activating several numbers then leaving town, and so on. Technological fraud only accounts for a fractional portion of BSC's losses. > There is also an effort taking place to establish a standard > interconnect scheme between cellular companies to track fraud and > cellular system abuse. This system, when in place, will make it > extremely difficult to defraud cellular companies. I wonder how this fits into the MFJ? My understanding was that landline companies couldn't share this type of information, and I'm not sure I understand how cellular "children" of RBOCs could (granted, cellular providers who aren't associated with an RBOC are home free.) Paul Robichaux, KD4JZG robichau@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov [Moderator's Note: I don't think the MFJ says anything about telcos not being able to exchange information for billing purposes, and certainly fraud billing would be in the category of 'discussable' topics. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jul 1992 14:27:26 -0400 (EDT) From: sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack) Subject: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) In article mandarin@cix.compulink. co.uk (Richard Cox) writes: > What has been done here, is to arrange for the Cellular system to > "spot" cases where two phones are live on the system with the same ESN > at the same time, or where a phone appears to "move" faster than > normal between two different parts of the country. A friend of mine had an experience with calling card fraud, where two calls were placed, one by him, and one by the person who had stolen his CC number, from two locations hundreds of miles apart, within minutes of one another. It makes me wonder why the issuing telcos couldn't detect and possibly block calls made on the same CC but made too far apart in distance and too close together in time to have been made by the same person. Steve Brack ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 14:02:26 PDT Subject: DISA Hacking vs CNI Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon Bill Garfield tells us that ANI has little value in catching hackers: > you send a team of investigators out to the address associated > with the number and you find zero. Our Esteemed Moderator turns this upside down and proclaims ANI of great value in catching hackers: > Do you see why so many hackers ... absolutely despise > Caller-ID and its cousin ANI? Perhaps Pat was low on sleep that night? > So the next time you hear someone carrying on about 'a woman in a > shelter whose husband is looking for her so he can beat her up' or the > one about 'companies will make lists so they can practice teleslime > ... "Are you a hackerphreak, or just trying to be Socially > Responsible?" These continue to be real social concerns, and belittling them does not make them go away. As the subject of much teleslime and the brother of an abused wife, I think we could elevate the plane of this discussion a bit. Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: "Legal" Phreaking? Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1992 01:37:33 GMT You know, a lot of these guys claim they need to hack for education purposes: they can't get access to the latest software any other way. A recent note in alt.hackers.malicious reveals more of the real motivation: they do it for the thrill ... it's a sport to them. Pity they don't pay any attention to what balloonists (who frequently have to make non-prearranged use of other people's property) refer to as "landowner relations" ... paying for damages, looking for alternatives to landing in someone's crop, giving farmers free rides, and so on. In article gtephx!bakerj@enuucp. eas.asu.edu (Jon Baker) writes: > Because, there are many computer systems out there that are for free > public access by anyone who wants to dial the number and poke around. Mine included. +1 713 568 0480. > When I get onto a system, how do I know whether or not I'm 'supposed' > to be there? Well, when it says: Welcome to the AT&T 386 UNIX System (new users sign on as "new") login: That's a sign you're supposed to be there. When it then plays for you a list of rules for this BBS, that's a clue it's OK so long as you follow those rules. When it says: Authorised users only login: That's probably a clue you shouldn't be there. > How do I know whether this system is some private company's mainframe, or some guy's PC in his garage? > Where did you get the number? If you did it wargames-dialing, then you > should probably assume you're not supposed to be there. If you got it > from the "Houston Area BBS List" then you can probably assume it's OK > to login. How can you possibly "stumble onto" a system? Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 17:25:04 -0600 From: nha2308@dsachg1.dsac.dla.mil (Susan B Huntsman) Subject: Re: "Legal" Phreaking? > If the system tells me, right up front, 'for authorized personnel > only', then if I don't KNOW that I'm authorized, I'm not supposed to > be there. If it says 'Welcome! Glad you're here! Good Day!', I get > the idea that I'm welcome. If some Dutch hacker stumbles into a > private computer system and it welcomes him gleefully, I don't think > it's unreasonable for him to believe that he's welcome. Now, if he > does malicious harm to that system, that's another matter ... I agree. I am not a hacker but I like to look around, if the system stops me I know that I am not to go any farther. Without minimal security how is one to know what they can look at and what is off limits. > [Moderator's Note: How do you know if you are welcome or not? Well, > was the number advertised as a public service? That might say > something about it. "Good Day" does not imply you are welcome to enter > somewhere, nor does 'hello', nor does 'please sign on'. Those comments > could be addressed to authorized users only. PAT] The (US Government) had a problem with Welcome. The system said Welcome to TSO; Enter logon. I think someone used it as a defense to a break-in (at least that is the rumor going around). The logon is now: Notice: This is a U.S. Government Computer System. Unauthorized access is prohibited by (public law 100-235) the computer fraud and abuse act of 1986. If you are not an authorized user please exit immediately. enter logon: I am of the opinion that you should not have to lock anything. Nobody has a defense for taking anything, But in these days I think 'Lock it up or lose it' is the only way to keep people out.:] SHuntsman ------------------------------ From: M19249@mwvm.mitre.org Subject: New Law in the Netherlands (was "Legal" Phreaking) Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102 Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 20:12:30 GMT For those of you who haven't seen the July 13 issue of {Computerworld}: Under the headline "Netherlands, Mexico chase after hackers" with a byline crediting James Daly on page 14: " ...In the Netherlands, hackers now face up to six years in jail for illegally entering a secured data system. The law, which is expected to become official next spring, begins with a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment for hackers who enter a secured computer system but gets progressively more rigorous. "Imprisonment can be as long as four years if data in the system has been changed and six years for hacking a system that serves a common use, such as a hospital database. "Critics contend that the proposal does not differentiate between internal and external computer crime. Cracking the password of a colleague, according to the law, can merit prosecution." Hackers also said they believe the law will only increase the danger to computer systems because they will no longer give cheap warnings if a system has poor security ..." The article goes on to talk about chasing down software pirates in Mexico. Isn't a public telephone network a "system that serves a common use"? Dave Weitzel "Standard disclaimer here" ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #563 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03365; 17 Jul 92 4:07 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22042 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 17 Jul 1992 02:26:52 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24093 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 17 Jul 1992 02:26:44 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 02:26:44 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207170726.AA24093@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #564 TELECOM Digest Fri, 17 Jul 92 02:26:45 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 564 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Kevin Alexander) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Brian de Alwis) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Marc T. Kaufman) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Adam Shostack) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Leonard Erickson) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Ihor J. Kinal) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Robert L. McMillin) Cracker Running Rampant! (Michael Bender) Re: Pat Townson Owes EFF an Apology (Mike Godwin) Godwin Speaks Out ... (Sam Israelit) Re: Democratic Convention (Including Telecom) (Charlie Mingo) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kja2192@tamsun.tamu.edu (Kevin Alexander) Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) Date: 16 Jul 1992 10:14:26 -0500 Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station In article sbrack@jupiter.cse. UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > A friend of mine had an experience with calling card fraud, where two > calls were placed, one by him, and one by the person who had stolen > his CC number, from two locations hundreds of miles apart, within > minutes of one another. > It makes me wonder why the issuing telcos couldn't detect and possibly > block calls made on the same CC but made too far apart in distance and > too close together in time to have been made by the same person. I don't think that would be very smart. For example, while I'm at college I use my parents Sprint FON card, and I'm about 100 miles apart from them. So let's say my father goes to San Francisco on business and uses his card to call home/wherever and I'm calling long distance somewhere else. I'm sure one of us would be really ticked off if we wouldn't make our calls. I know many students here at A&M who also use thier parents long distance calling cards. Kevin Alexander kja2192@tamsun.tamu.edu [Moderator's Note: Rather than automatically killing the account, this could be set up as an exceptions type situation. It would be brought to the attention of a human being who would see the record indicated this would likely (or not likely) happen. Each subscriber could indicate how they wanted such a situation to be handled for them. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 11:12:33 -0400 From: dealwisb@cognos.com (Brian de Alwis) Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) Organization Cognos Incorporated, Ottawa CANADA In article sbrack@jupiter.cse. UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > It makes me wonder why the issuing telcos couldn't detect and possibly > block calls made on the same CC but made too far apart in distance and > too close together in time to have been made by the same person. How would the telco's know who was the legitimate caller? Brian de Alwis. Brain on loan to Cognos Inc, Ottawa, Ontario. dealwisb@cognos.com, or bsdealwi@napier.{waterloo.edu,uwaterloo.ca} ------------------------------ From: kaufman@xenon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) Reply-To: kaufman@cs.stanford.edu Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Date: 16 Jul 92 15:41:17 GMT sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > It makes me wonder why the issuing telcos couldn't detect and possibly > block calls made on the same CC but made too far apart in distance and > too close together in time to have been made by the same person. Then my wife at home and myself on a business trip couldn't use the same card number to charge calls. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU) ------------------------------ From: adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack) Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 17:33:09 GMT The difference here is that while only one user should be using a unique cellular phone at any given time, I can choose to loan my credit card number to friends. I have done this in the past, and if telco made this impossible it would be a serious pain. However, it would be nice if telco could give you the option of restricting your card to one user at a time, or perhaps limiting it so it couldn't be used out of the country. (I know the international number is different, but ATT USA Direct calls accept US credit cards for international calls.) Adam Shostack adam@das.harvard.edu ------------------------------ From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon. Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 14:14:39 GMT sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > It makes me wonder why the issuing telcos couldn't detect and possibly > block calls made on the same CC but made too far apart in distance and > too close together in time to have been made by the same person. Probably because they'd PO a bunch of *legitimate* customers. I used to have four people sharing a house with me. We *all* had AT&T calling cards which (as is *normal*) had the same card number and the same PIN. So if I made a call from a phone booth just across the state line, and one of the others was on a trip and made a call your idea would have us getting blocked. Heck, I know a lot of folks who don't even carry the cards, they just memorize the number. Makes it a lot harder to lose! Leonard Erickson leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com CIS: [70465,203] 70465.203@compuserve.com FIDO: 1:105/56 Leonard.Erickson@f56.n105.z1.fidonet.org (The CIS address is checked daily. The others infrequently) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 10:18:05 EDT From: ijk@violin.att.com (Ihor J Kinal) Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) Organization: AT&T In article , sbrack@jupiter.cse. UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > It makes me wonder why the issuing telcos couldn't detect and possibly > block calls made on the same CC but made too far apart in distance and > too close together in time to have been made by the same person. Nice idea, but some obvious problems -- I'm on the road in Dallas, and my wife is off in the Catskills -- we both place calls, and all of a sudden, we're blocked. Yes, we could get separate numbers, but ... Ihor Kinal include standard disclaimer att!trumpet!ijk [real mail address]. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 07:11:35 -0700 From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin) Subject: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) Steven S. Brack writes: > It makes me wonder why the issuing telcos couldn't detect and possibly > block calls made on the same [calling card] but made too far apart in > distance and too close together in time to have been made by the same > person. Because the callers could be husband and wife, for instance. It's quite possible that more than one person could have the same card number and be quite separated. Robert L. McMillin | Voice: (310) 568-3555 Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc. | Fax: (310) 568-3574 Los Angeles, CA | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 01:49:48 PDT From: Michael.Bender@Eng.Sun.COM (Duke of Canterbury) Subject: Cracker Running Rampant! A friend of mine at a small midwestern university has been having a horrendous cracker problem on their main Sun system that's connected to the Internet. One of the problems that he is having is that the computer center there didn't take the cracker seriously until a few days ago, when he rebuilt a new kernel, and rebooted the system (!). My friend isn't a computer center employee, he's a humanities and social science professor that is probably the most skilled person in the SunOS/UNIX environment at the school, but because of internal politics, the computer center staff and director is unwilling to give him much responsibility, and he really doesn't want that much, he would much rather have the computer center staff doing their jobs and learning about the system rather than spending their time installing copies of the latest DOS spreadsheet, but unfortunately, their level of expertise, coupled with their immense desire not to work more than eight hours a day, has caused this cracker problem to get out of hand. Imagine a system that has more suid programs than users! Their password file is readable by all, and various password cracker programs have been run against it and many accounts have been compromised. In our discussions of computer break-ins, this is a classic example of the system administrators not doing their job, even after getting information from CERT and Sun on how to plug their many holes. I generally have sympathy for the type of person that I call a hacker, one that explores but doesn't disrupt or destroy, but this person is not a hacker; he is a malicious person somewhere in the world (they think he's in Australia) that has not only refused to stop accessing the system after repeated requests by e-mail, but also has root privledge and the skill to modify the kernel to do his bidding. He engages in a cat-and-mouse game that often culminates in my friend or one of the system administrators knocking him off of the system, just to have him reappear and knock the legitimate users off of the system. I have included his latest e-mail that he has sent to many of the faculty and staff at the university. Notice the adolescent logic that he uses and the premise that he is only helping to "enhance" security, and how he is doing them a service by knocking other crackers off of the system. Things like this infuriate me, because certainly one side of the situation is that the system administrators aren't doing their jobs (for whatever reasons), but the other side is that little shits like this are what may cause the internet to crumble because no organization will want to be connected to it. What would you do in my friend's situation? If you have some constructive ideas, please send me some e-mail or post; I'm a regular reader of c.d.t and I'll forward them on to my friend. e-mail from cracker follows: > Good morning, evening, afternoon.. > > A couple of things.. I believe I am now being called 'Blackmailing' > which is an interesting thought. As far as I knew, a blackmailer was someone > who made someone do something with the threat of something other if they > didn't do it. [hmm] I have made it QUITE clear to Chris and Lance recently > that I am not on [your system] to cause havock, nor to randomly delete > stuff. I ALSO was trying to arrange this chat with tom to inform him of > EXACTLY what the holes in his security were, and tell him how to fix them. > Not to sit there and justify my actions to you. And then to happily wave > bye-bye as you run around closing up holes. What I think I will do now is > just leave. Leaving everything I have put here lying around for someone else > to find, and not breathing a word of what is wrong. I have fixed a couple of > things so that it will be relativly hard to become root if someone DOES > break in [chowning root of /etc and /usr/bin] but still quite simple if you > know what the basic holes in SunOS are. > I am on IRC a lot, with the nickname Zarg, and I will answer your > questions there. I'm not sure if I will tell you whats up with [your > system], but you can only try, can't you. > I'm now going to have a look thru the mail and see exactly what I am > blackmailing you about/for, because if I am, I would really like to know > what It's about.. > Zarg > PS: Want to hear a joke? I set up a cron job to do a suid file find at 5am > every morning. [As there is I think another hacker wandering around, armed > with the /etc/passwd file, and a copy of Crack] Now someone must have seen > that, [I told Lance, but I dont' think he's stupid enought to do this] and > went and deleted ALL of roots cron, and puts everyones name in > ../cron/cron.deny! Also apparently, he did a chmod 700 / as well.. Funny. ------------------------------ From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) Subject: Re: Pat Townson Owes EFF an Apology Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 15:20:43 GMT In article amillar@netcom.com (Alan Millar) writes: > You know, I was starting to think you had a good point about libel. > But you corrected that. > [Moderator's Note: Next thing you know, they'll be saying I owe Gary > Hart and the entire Democratic Party an apology for claiming they do > not pay their bills in uh, a 'timely and business-like manner.' :) PAT] I stand by my statements that Pat Townson has little regard for the truth, and that he owes us an apology. It may well be the case that Gary Hart (or whoever) doesn't pay his bills. But this is a non sequitur, since the particular lie that Pat tells is that EFF defends the unauthorized intrusion into others' computer systems. If Townson has respect for the truth, why does he persist in misrepresenting EFF? I think it's because he wants to create an image of himself as being a hardliner. I think any honest person would have trouble with Pat's deliberate misrepresentation of someone else in order to further his own purposes. Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-0665 EFF, Cambridge ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 12:25:15 PDT From: sami@scic.intel.com (Sam Israelit) Subject: Godwin Speaks Out ... In TELECOM #552, Mike Godwin chastised PAT with the paragraph: > I doubt anyone at EFF is capable of being as shrill as Townson. > And I am certain that we have higher regard for the truth than he > does. Well Mike, you had me leaning towards your side until I read the 13 July edition of {ComputerWorld}, specifically the article "Wiretap snares alleged hackers". In that article, you state: "This whole indictment could very well be an attempt to frame some people who the authorities believe glorify hacking." This sounds like a sensationalist defense strategy to me Mike. Why does it have to be a conspiracy on the part of the government to frame these people? Maybe the government just bungled another investigation, since they do have a pretty fair track record of doing that. Though you carefully couch your statement so that the wording cannot be legally used against you, when it is all boiled down you are doing the same thing that PAT did when he said: "Let's listen to the shrill chatter from the EFF ..." PAT is just a little less selective with his wording. If you believe his statement is below the level of "regard for the truth" held by your organization, then from the {ComputerWorld} article I can see that your regard for the truth is actually at a pretty low level. Sorry to be inflamatory, but I call 'em as I see 'em ... Sam Israelit ------------------------------ From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1992 15:08:24 -0500 Subject: Re: Democratic Convention (Including Telecom) Our Esteemed Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Democratic conventions are the only telco > subscribers in the world who can run up BIG bills and leave them > unpaid for years at a time. IBT gave up ever trying to collect what > they had coming from the Democratic convention here in 1968, and > finally wrote it off, meaning of course we rate payers took a hit. I > imagine the subscribers of NY Tel get to pay for this one, probably > sometime around 1996 when it gets written off. PAT] NY Tel is waaaay ahead of you on this one. According to the {New York Times} (July 10 at B1), NY Tel has charged the Democrats over $600 for each line it installs at the Garden (more than twice the price the Republicans will be charged in Houston -- I guess telcos have long memories). The breakdown is as follows: $150 is the "regular" charge for installing a business line (I'm glad I don't live there), plus $207 as a "special-event charge" (because they have to take the lines out four days later -- this is $9 less then the Dems were charged in 1980), and the remaining $250-odd dollars is a deposit for all those message units and tolls. Considering that there are several hundred lines installed at this bargain rate, I think NY Tel would have to work hard to lose money on this job. As for the poor Democrats, this is the price they have to pay for meeting in NYC. When will they ever learn how to save money? [Moderator's Note: The big news today of course is that Ross Perot has pulled out of the campaign, and things are looking brighter for the Democrats than anytime in the past twelve years. This may be their year for victory, for only the fourth time in forty years (Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, (??) Clinton (??). PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #564 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19984; 18 Jul 92 13:37 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03904 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 18 Jul 1992 11:35:50 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13276 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 18 Jul 1992 11:35:41 -0500 Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 11:35:41 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207181635.AA13276@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #565 TELECOM Digest Sat, 18 Jul 92 11:35:44 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 565 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson EARN Survey (Turgut Kalfaoglu) Inquiry: Info on Motorola People Finder (Tony J. Rinella) GTE and CLASS/ISDN (Randy Gellens) NZ Telecom Voice Mail (Randy Gellens) CLASS Services Available from Pacific Bell Now! (Well, Almost) (J. Leavens) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Organization: European Academic Research Network (EARN) Date: Saturday, 18 Jul 1992 14:01:16 GMT From: Turgut Kalfaoglu Subject: EARN Survey EARN (European Academic and Research Network) is conducting a survey of network usage, in order to have a clearer picture of the needs, wants, and opinions of the people who use EARN, as well as the users of other networks. The results of this survey will play an important part in decisions regarding EARN service, planning and development, and will be available to other networks as well. This survey questionnaire should take about 15 minutes to complete. It consists of questions on communications usage, electronic mail usage, awareness and usage of network services, and the quality of the services provided. Most questions can be answered by putting an "X", or a number or letter from a key, in the appropriate place (or places). If there are any questions which you are unwilling or unable to answer, just go on to the following question. Please send in just one completed questionnaire, even if you have more than one electronic mail address. Please return the completed questionnaire by 31 July 1992 to the electronic mail address: SURVEY@FRORS12.BITNET (or SURVEY@FRORS12.CIRCE.FR) If you are reading this questionnaire via electronic mail, the best way to fill it out and return it is to use the reply function of your mail system with the text of the original message included. Another possibility is to "forward" the questionnaire to the above address. Finally, you can "save" or "receive" the questionnaire as a file, fill it out, and then send it via electronic mail to the above address. In any event, when filling out the questionnaire please do not erase any lines or parts of lines. The format of the questionnaire must be preserved in order to allow electronic processing of the answers. If you have accidentally erased parts of the questionnaire, you can get another copy of the questionnaire, by sending electronic mail to: LISTSERV@FRORS12.BITNET (or LISTSERVFRORS12.CIRCE.FR) with the line: GET USER SURVEY If all else fails, print the questionnaire on paper, fill it out, and send it to the following postal address: EARN Office C.I.R.C.E. B.P. 167 91403 Orsay Cedex FRANCE EARN OFFERS 10 PRIZES!!! There will be a drawing among all those who send in completed questionnaires by 31 July 1992. Ten people will be selected at random. The ten winners will receive free memberships in the Internet Society (value: 70 USDollars) or may receive the 70 USDollars. Thank you for helping us improve our service. EARN User Survey Questionnaire ============================== Frequency key: Use the following key for all questions of "How often ...": 0 = never, not at all 1 = less than once a month 2 = less than once a week (but at least once a month) 3 = 1 to 3 times a week 4 = 4 times a week or more Please answer the following questions by putting the appropriate number or letter between the underscores (e.g., _2_) Part 1. Communications Usage Q1. How often do you use computers for the following? (use frequency key) _ _ a. electronic mail _ _ b. file transfer _ _ c. remote login Q2. How often do you use the following for communications? (use frequency key) _ _ a. personal computer _ _ b. Unix workstation _ _ c. dumb terminal _ _ d. X-terminal _ _ e. other (eg, Minitel): Part 2. Electronic mail usage Q3. How often do you correspond with people who are: (use frequency key) _ _ a. within your institution _ _ b. others in your country _ _ c. abroad Q4. How many people do you correspond with by e-mail? (1= none, 2= 1-10 people, 3= 11-100 people, 4= more than 100 people) _ _ a. within your institution _ _ b. others in your country _ _ c. abroad Part 3. Network services Q5. How often do you use the following network services? (use frequency key) _ _ a. Listserv _ _ b. Netserv _ _ c. Trickle _ _ d. Astra _ _ e. Relay _ _ f. Netnews _ _ g. FTP _ _ h. Telnet _ _ i. IRC _ _ j. X.500 _ _ k. Archie _ _ l. Gopher _ _ m. WAIS _ _ n. World-Wide Web Q6. How many distribution lists do you belong to? (1= none, 2= 1-5 lists, 3= 6-20 lists, 4= more than 20 lists) _ _ a. related to your profession _ _ b. related to computers _ _ c. others Q7. How often do you use online databases containing the following information? (use frequency key) _ _ a. library catalogs, bibliographies _ _ b. computer program collections _ _ c. whole texts _ _ d. information of professional interest _ _ e. computer network information _ _ f. other: Q8. What online databases are most important to you? a. b. c. Part 4. Quality of service Q9. Rate the importance to you of each one of the following networks on a scale of 0 to 5 (0=totally unimportant, 5= extremely important): _ _ a. EARN _ _ b. BITNET _ _ c. Internet _ _ d. EUNET _ _ e. X.400 Q10. Which of the following 12 factors limit your usage of these 6 services? (put an "x" in all appropriate places) 1 2 3 4 5 6 mail distribution FTP Telnet news databases lists ---- ------------ --- ------ ---- --------- a. not aware of service _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b. not available to me _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c. difficulty of use _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ d. response time _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ e. lack of documentation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ f. quality of documentation _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ g. lack of human support _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ h. quality of human support _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i. lack of need _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j. lack of time _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ k. cost _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l. difficulty in finding sources _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Q11. What suggestions do you have for new services or improved quality of service in the network? Part 5. Personal information Q12. Occupation: _ _ (1= computer professional, 2= researcher/lecturer, 3= administrator/office worker, 4= librarian, 5= student, 0= other) Q13. Country: _ _ (use two-letter country code) Q14. Age: _ _ (optional) Q15. Sex: _ _ (m/f) (optional) Thank you for completing this questionnaire! *END* ------------------------------ From: cb792@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony J. Rinella) Subject: Inquiry: Info on Motorola People Finder Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 08:13:51 GMT Reply To: rinelltj@odin.icd.ab.com Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA) VAX/VMS site seeking information on the Motorola People Finder or equivalent. Any and all information would be appreciated. ------------------------------ From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com Date: 18 JUL 92 09:40 Subject: GTE and CLASS/ISDN I called the GTE business office to ask them when the rest of CLASS would be offered (sans CLID), and also to ask about SS7 links to PacBell (I have had Busy Number Redial for some time, but only for numbers within the switch (which is surrounded by PacBell areas)). I asked when ISDN would be available ;-). The rep said CLID hadn't yet been approved by the PUC! When I pointed out that the PUC had approved it weeks ago, and mentioned the front-page articles in the {L.A. Times} and other papers, she said they were flat wrong. She started to suggest I call the business service reps to ask about ISDN, but then remembered that the business and residence reps were the same. She did give me another number to call, though. A media rep called me back from the other number, and he seemed to know what he was talking about, and to be quite reasonable. (Quite a change from the business office types!). He said November was the target date for CLASS features other than CLID, Call Trace, and Call Return. He said GTE's objection to CLID was that they felt it was impossible to educate people about what CLID was and what it meant, and how to ensure your number was or wasn't displayed in an environment with three forms of blocking and no way to know which is in effect for any given line. I suggested that they offer a code which would read back the state of all options, and he said he liked the idea but it would have to come from Bellcore. He mentioned that California has the most sophisticated phone consumers in the country, and also some of the least sophisticated, who come from countries where you can't even get a phone, and trying to educate them about CLID would be very hard. He said Call Trace would take longer to implement because of the education requirement. As for Call Return, he said they wouldn't want to offer it right away, because if you returned a toll call, the number would show up on your bill. He said GTE was considering a billing modification that would blank out the last four digits of the number in such cases. He said I was the first person ever to ask him about ISDN :-( Regarding SS7 links, he said GTE was working on them between their own switches. Links to PacBell would come, but he didn't know when. On other matters, he said he was bothered by the practice of IXCs selling ANI data, especially when the customers turn around and use it for marketing and other purposes. That surprised me, coming from a phone company representative. He said he wasn't aware of "block blocking" (Anonymous Call Reject). Didn't the PUC order it as part of CLID in California? Anyway, he promised to have someone call me back with more information on SS7 links, CLASS availability, and ISDN. Randy Gellens randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com >>>>>>> If mail bounces, forward to rgellens@mcimail.com <<<<<<<< Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself ------------------------------ From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com Date: 18 JUL 92 09:21 Subject: NZ Telecom Voice Mail Reprinted with permission from an internal electronic newsletter. Note that NAP is an interesting product, in that it is a break from the traditional way of doing telephony applications. The usual approach is to use small, dedicated computers, often coresident with the switch. NAP is a platform that runs on large, general purpose computers which supports a variety of voice applications. Among the advantages of using this approach are that you get the security and data integrety afforded by large computers, the 4GLs and environmental software to develop orp enhance voice applications quickly, and the scalability of the hardware. I don't work with NAP, but I try and follow the developments. UNISYS NEWS NETWORK, JULY 9, 1992 UNISYS WINS MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONTRACT The Telecom Corporation of New Zealand has purchased the Unisys Network Applications Platform (NAP) as the first step in enhancing its soon-to-be deployed intelligent telephone network. The NAP system will allow Telecom to offer a variety of voice messaging and fax services to its customers. NAP will offer as many as 11,700 simultaneously accessible message ports and accommodates approximately 1.6 million voice mailboxes. Telecom services approximately 1.4 million telephone lines and expects about 50,000 customers to use its message center. "The Unisys system was chosen for its ability to handle a large number of calls and to deliver the high level of service Telecom customers expect," said Barry Bailey, Telecom's Networks Organization managing director. "Another major influence in the decision was the fact that the same system is already used by a number of telephone companies around the world." As equivalent of the now widely used PC voice and fax boards, with digital and/or analogue interconnections, has been built for the large platform. This provides a much more flexible application development environment for integration with corporate database repositories. NAP gives Telecom an advanced development environment in Unisys LINC, and a powerful processor. The open nature of this platform also allows interface with databases from information suppliers, which allows Telecom to provide a comprehensive range of audiotext and interactive voice response services. "The new Unisys System will give us the ability to provide both our residential and business customers throughout New Zealand in the next year and into the future, with a wide range of products and services such as Message Delivery and Fax Mail," said Telecom's corporate executive, sales and marketing, Tom Potrykus. It can accommodate the integration of facsimile and electronic mail messages into a "universal mailbox". The system is also being developed to cater for video and images. Applications for the system will be developed in Wellington by the Unisys-owned systems integration company, SynerCom. -------- Randy Gellens randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com >>>>>>> If mail bounces, forward to rgellens@mcimail.com <<<<<<<< Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself ------------------------------ From: leavens@mizar.usc.edu (Justin Leavens) Subject: CLASS Services Available from Pacific Bell Now! (Well, Almost) Date: 16 Jul 1992 11:35:31 -0700 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA I got a call last night informing me that Pacific Bell was now authorized to offer the three CLASS services to residential customers and have them activated July 21. These services are Select Call Forwarding ($3.50) BusyRedial ($3.50) and Priority Ringing ($4.00). Of course, "the more you buy, the more you save", and they give 15% discounts on two features (which includes the old, standard features like Three-Way and Call Waiting), adding a 5% discount for every feature up to 30%. My setup now includes Call-Waiting, Three-Way Calling, BusyRedial, Priority Ringing, and The Message Center for $16.10 a month (plus basic rates and all that other good stuff). Pacific Bell is also waiving the $5.00 installation fee on these new services for a couple of months. A couple of questions maybe for PAT and others who have these services already: Do they work outside your local telephone area (that's the LATA, right?)? The rep I spoke to said that they weren't sure yet whether or not out of area calls would be handled correctly, even calls from local GTE areas. I know SS7 is in place and working to some degree, but is it fairly well implemented for these features to work USA-wide, as long as the switches are new enough to handle it? Justin Leavens University of Southern California [Moderator's Note: In IBT territory, three-way and call-forwarding work anywhere we can dial, local, interstate or international. Message Center takes calls from anyone who rings you anywhere. Callers cannot dial direct or be direct call-forwarded to Message Center; they must connect through transfer on busy/no answer via your number. What you call 'Busy Redial' we call 'Repeat Dialing'. It and 'Return Last Call Received' work (almost) anywhere in the IBT LATA, but not elsewhere. We have two styles of 'priority ringing'. One is in the form of a second and/or third telephone number which rings on your main line with distinctive ringing. Anyone dialing those numbers comes through with short rings, etc. We can elect to have those numbers follow call forwarding or not; if not, then even if the main number is forwarded, the additional numbers on the line will 'ring through'. If they 'ring through', then they follow whatever the main line would do regards message center, call-waiting, etc, but as they have distinctive rings, they also have distinctive call-waiting signals. The other style of 'priority ringing' involves designating up to ten numbers which when they call you cause a distinctive ring and will or will not follow call forwarding instructions as designated. These have to be in the IBT LATA. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #565 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22851; 18 Jul 92 15:01 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23584 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 18 Jul 1992 13:09:37 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28346 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 18 Jul 1992 13:09:28 -0500 Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 13:09:28 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207181809.AA28346@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #566 TELECOM Digest Sat, 18 Jul 92 13:09:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 566 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Phone Tap in Murder Case Ruled Illegal (Randy Gellens) Official Area Code 718 and 917 Annoncement (Dave Niebuhr) Please Help Save Old 2500 Desk Phone (Gary Korenek) 3W vs 0.6W (Dave Brillhart) 710 Intercept Changes in Southern CA (Randy Gellens) Switched 56? (Bill Chiarchiaro) Help! Looking for Antique Phone Cord (Daniel MacKay) Telephone Keypad Question (Dominique J. Cheenne) Cordless Phones Self-Dialing (Bob Hutson) Locating Cellular Information (Peter Wan) Pay Attention to Place Names! (Carl Moore) Ellis and Liberty Islands in N.Y. Harbor (Carl Moore) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com Date: 17 JUL 92 21:10 Subject: Phone Tap in Murder Case Ruled Illegal From the {Los Angeles Times} [date lost] PHONE TAP IN MURDER CASE RULED ILLEGAL LAW: Suspicious husband recorded wife and her lover before he was killed. Their convictions are overturned. By Philip Hager Times Legal Affairs Writer SAN FRANCISCO -- A husband's secret tapes of his wife's suspicious telephone conversations with her lover were improperly used to convict the two of murdering the husband, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday. In a rare defeat for prosecutors, the court ruled unanimously that federal law bars a family member from wiretapping the family telephone and that the tapes cannot be used as evidence in a criminal case. The justices rejected the state's two key contentions in the case: that the law permits domestic or "interspousal" wiretapping and that even if illegally made, the tapes were admissible because the government was an innocent recipient of evidence acquired by a citizen. The court acknowledged that the tapes were the "linchpin" of the prosecution's case but reluctantly concluded that the two lovers' conviction must be reversed. "We may question the wisdom of Congress in adopting such a broad-based suppression [of evidence] sanction," Justice Armand Arabian wrote for the court. "... We may not, however, substitute our judgment for that of [Congress]." Deputy State Atty. Gen. Morris Beatus said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will be considered. If an appeal fails, prosecutors hope to retry the accused killers even without the taped evidence, said Assistant Santa Clara County Dist. Atty. Joyce Allegro. "In an egregious case like this, it's really a shame that the tapes cannot be used," she said. "There was no government impropriety here." Mark L. Christiansen of Sacramento, lawer for the male defendant in the case, praised the ruling, saying it will strengthen legal barriers against wiretapping by third parties. "This is going to make home telephones much more secure," he said. "Even in the best of families, one spouse may prefer that the other not overhear everything they say." Laurance S. Smith, attorney for the female defendant, called the ruling "a tremendous victory" for the right to privacy. "If this decision had gone the other way, anyone in a household could tape conversations by anyone else in the household," he said. "And if there was anything juicy, it could be turned over to the local prosecutor." The case arose in 1986 after Joe Otto, a 61-year-old electrician, became suspicious of his wife, Brenda, a 39-year-old divorcee he had married a month before. Otto hid a voice-activated tape machine under a bed. It recorded all calls in or out of the couple's home. One tape picked up a whispered conversation between Brenda Otto and Marvin Mark, in which Mark said "everything was wrong" and "I tried every possible way," but then added: "I got a better plan." An uneasy Otto played the tape to his daughter and a neighbor who was a police officer. In response to his daughter's concern, Otto began carrying a gun under his jacket. He also gave his daughter a copy of his will in which he left her virtually all of his $300,000 estate and gave Brenda $1. Three days later, another call was taped in which Brenda Otto and Mark spoke cryptically about the daughter being absent from the home that night. Later in the evening, Otto was bludgeoned to death. The body was discovered after Brenda Otto appeared screaming and naked at a neighbor's home, claiming robbers had killed Otto and assaulted her. --------- [I can understand it being illegal to tap one's own phone, and also that evidence received through government (police) misconduct should be suppressed. It also makes sense to me that if you illegally tap your phone, you shouldn't be able to profit from it, such as by using the tapes in a civil suit. But if the government had no hand in making the tape (didn't put you up to it, etc.), then the tape should be usable in a criminal case. -- RCG] Randy Gellens randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com >>>>>>> If mail bounces, forward to rgellens@mcimail.com <<<<<<<< Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 07:32:54 EDT From: dwn@dwn.ccd.bnl.gov (Dave Niebuhr) Subject: Official Area Code 718 and 917 Annoncement The July "Hello" insert in my NYTel bill announced to the public that area code 718 was moving to the Bronx, thus leaving Manhattan as the sole holder of area code 212. The details are and I quote: "From July 1, 1992 throught May 15, 1993, calls to Bronx customers will be completed whether the caller dials 212 or 718. During this period, there will be no change for Bronx customers dialing out, except they will be able to dial Manhattan using either seven digits or 1 + 212 + seven digits. "On May 16, 1993, the change to 718 wilol become permanent. Customers who dial an incorrect area code will hear an announcement giving dialing instructions. These changes in dialing will not affect charges for telephone calls." The July "Hello" insert in my NYTel bill also announced to the public that area code 917 is introduced in New York City. The details are and I quote: "In recent years, the demand for telephone service has increased. To avoid a predicted shortage of telephone numbers, area code 917 has been introduced in the five boroughs of New York City to serve pagers, cellular telephones and certain other communications services in the 212 and 718 area codes. "July 1,1992, paging and cellular telephone companies will begin assigning telephone numbers with the area code 917 to NEW customers. Customers with EXISTING 212 and 718 pager and cellular numbers will be assigned new telephone numbers in the 917 area code over the next few years. "Please be aware that when dialing a number in the new 917 area code, you are not calling someone across the country. You are most likely calling someone with a pager or cellular telephone. "Charges for calling the 917 area code from 212 or 718 are still local calls. Charges from other areas also would not change." Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 ------------------------------ From: korenek@ficc.ferranti.com (gary korenek) Subject: Please Help Save Old 2500 Desk Phone Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 01:31:35 GMT I have an old (1981 or so) Western Electic 2500 desk phone that is broken. This is a request for information about having it repaired. When I pick up the receiver I hear dial tone in the earpiece, so far, so good. But when I speak into the mouthpiece, I cannot hear my own voice in the earpiece. In other words, I can hear the caller, but the caller cannot hear me. I have checked the round microphone cartridge (on another phone), it works. So the problem is somewhere in the phone's internals. Also the paticular wall-jack and wiring is good, as other phones work with it. Can someone offer me any advice on how to get this phone working again? Is there a common (simple?) part that I could replace? Ideally, might someone know a way I could get this phone repaired in the Houston, Texas area? If I played the game AT&T's way, I would have to send the phone in, and they would send back a refurbished newer phone. Well, I want to keep and use this particular 2500 phone (sentimental attachment, I suppose). Please don't reply "call AT&T", I already did that. Now it is on to Plan B. Please send response via e-mail, and to anyone that may be able to help; thanks in advance. Gary Korenek (korenek@ficc.ferranti.com) Ferranti International Controls Corp. Sugar Land, Texas (713)274-5357 ------------------------------ From: dbrillha@dave.mis.semi.harris.com (Dave Brillhart) Subject: 3W vs 0.6W Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 13:11:17 GMT Reply-To: dbrillha@dave.mis.semi.harris.com (Dave Brillhart) Organization: Harris Semiconductor I am about to purchase a cellular phone. I have two questions that salesmen can't seem to agree upon, and whose information always seems to be biased towards the particular model they are pushing at the time ... 1.) Are 3.0W units really going to buy me alot more compared to the compact 0.6W phones -- in regards to TX (and RX?) sound quality, battery life, max distance from the closest transceiver, or other issues I haven't thought of? 2.) Is there really a regulation that restricts 3.0W units to the "transportable" size? At our local AT&T center, a sales lady tried to tell me -- when I asked if she predicted even more compact 3W units in the near future -- that regulations prohibit the small single enclosure pocket sized phones from being more than 0.6W. Now I can believe that battery technology might limit futher size reductions of the more powerful transmitters, but what she told me makes no sense (but then many regulations make no sense). I ask because if 3W units are that much better and they aren't going to get smaller in the near future, then it's time for me to buy. Thanks for any response. Dave Brillhart Harris Semiconductor dbrillha@dave.mis.semi.harris.com Mail Stop 62A-024 Voice: (407) 729-5430 P.O. Box 883 Fax: (407) 724-7486 Melbourne, FL 32902-0883 [Moderator's Note: The answer is in the application, and where the phone will be used. My handheld 0.6 watt unit works fine in a very populated urban area like Chicago which is saturated with cell sites. A year ago, my handheld worked fine in Coffeyville, KS and latched on to the cellular carrier in Tulsa, OK about sixty miles away. Not all work that well. The three watt units are mostly for automobiles. And yes, regulations say you can't have a three watt handheld since there is a risk with the antenna so close to your head that you might irradiate your brain cells, and become goofy like your Esteemed Moderator, whose battery hasn't taken a full charge in many years. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Date: 84 JUL 92 01:02 Subject: 710 Intercept Changes in Southern CA The intercept I get when I trial and dial any 1-710-xxx-xxxx has changed from "Your call can't be completed as dialed" to "It is not necessary to dial a '0' or '1' when calling this number." My guess is that Southern California will soon see 710 used as a prefix, as this is the standard intercept one gets when dialing 1+ or 0+ and any prefix. Randy Gellens randy%mpa15ab@trenga.tredydev.unisys.com >>>>>>> If mail bounces, forward to rgellens@mcimail.com <<<<<<<< Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak only for myself ------------------------------ From: wjc@ll.mit.edu (Bill Chiarchiaro) Subject: Switched 56? Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington MA Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 11:14:15 -0400 Can someone tell me the real story on the so-called Switched 56 service? I've heard that a direct-dial, 56-kbps digital service is becoming available in the U.S. I didn't find any information in the c.d.t archive. I called my local telco business office which referred me to the Boston ISDN office. They sent me to a Network Consultant who admitted that he would be the person to carry out a Switched 56 work order, but that for me to get any substantive information I would have to talk to a marketing office. The marketing office has been a black hole. Any suggestions? I'm primarily interested in this service for use within eastern Massachusetts (508/617). Does it exist? How does it work? What are the installation and service costs? Thanks, Bill Chiarchiaro wjc@ll.mit.edu ------------------------------ From: daniel@nstn.ns.ca (Daniel MacKay) Subject: Help! Looking For Antique Phone Cord Organization: NSTN Network Operations Centre, Nova Scotia, Canada Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 15:17:53 GMT Hello! I'm doing some restoration on a friend's antique phone -- 1930s, he guesses, -- and part of the work will be to replace both the handset and line cord. I'm having a tough time finding something similar to the original cord that it came with -- silver satin just won't cut it in on a period set in a period room! I suspect the two cords were originally the same stuff; brown, silk cover, 1/4" thick with big rubber-covered wires inside. I don't need a whole spool of this, obviously; 12' or so would be plenty for both. Any suggestions on where to get this would be very much appreciated! Thanks! Daniel MacKay daniel@nstn.ns.ca NOC Manager, NSTN Operations Centre 902-494-NSTN Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada ------------------------------ From: dcheenne@unlinfo.unl.edu (Dominique J. Cheenne) Subject: Telephone Keypad Question Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 15:24:35 GMT This question might seem trivial to some but it has puzzled me for a while ... Why are the letters "Q" and "Z" missing from the telephone keypad? And why do the letters start on the number 2 key? Starting the alphabet on the number 1 key would allow for all letters to be present with room to spare ... Feel free to email me directly if desired. Thanks in advance. Dominique J. Cheenne dcheenne@unlinfo.unl.edu [Moderator's Note: Telephone numbers do not usually begin with '1', and having the letters /ABC/ there would have effectively precluded them from being the starting letter in an exchange name, back when telco officially used words to identify central offices. In order to keep the zero available as a single digit way to reach the operator, letters were not used there either. Imagine life with no AVEnue, AUStin, BIShop, BOUlevard, CIRcle, CAThedral or COLumbus ... Since only eight digits are left, two letters had to be elimininated, with /QZ/ least likely to be needed. Imagine life without QUAyle ... PAT] ------------------------------ From: atari!bob@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Bob Hutson) Subject: Cordless Phones Self-Dialing Organization: Atari Computer Corp. Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 09:18:16 GMT About eight years ago my friend (owner of a first generation cordless phone) left for a short vacation. Upon returning he learned that the police visited him twice in response to "911" calls from his address. It was later determined that his cordless phone (with weak nicads) had called the "911" number. Last month this same friend's cordless phone (a new one) had nicad problems. The phone could still receive calls, but any attempt to dial out resulted in "Thank you for using ATT ...". This is confusing to me. His default LD carrier is MCI. What could possibly cause the phone to call the ATT operator? Last week he replaced the nicads and the problem went away. Can either of these problems be explained? Thanks in advance. Bob Hutson ....uunet!ames!atari!bab (work) 408-745-2142 Sunnyvale, CA [Moderator's Note: By 'first generation', do you mean 1970? That's when I had my first cordless. The remote units looked like a 2500 desk set with rotary dial. ------------------------------ From: pwan@skidmore.EDU (peter wan) Subject: Locating Cellular Information Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 14:59:30 GMT I am looking for general and technical information regarding cellular systems and cellular technology. Are there any FTP archives which have such information, and can anyone suggest any printed books which cover the topic? Are there any vendors out there that will provide info on their products? Any suggestions are welcomed via email. pwan@scott.skiddmore.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 10:29:24 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Pay Attention to Place Names! Whenever possible, I map telephone-exchange place names to post office names (this is in the U.S.). But sometimes, a nonpostal name appears for a telephone exchange. Last night (July 15), someone noticed a poster, in a community center, which referred to Rawlinsville with no state name or phone number or road directions. This was in Cecil County, Maryland, and I was able to offer a suggestion that it was referring to Rawlinsville, Pa., in southern Lancaster County. (Rawlinsville is the place name for 717-284 phone prefix.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 10:25:20 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Ellis and Liberty Islands in N.Y. Harbor Earlier this year, I visited Ellis and Liberty Islands in the New York harbor, and have the following information on the phone prefixes there (pay phones only), in area 212: Ellis Island, zipcode 10003; phone prefix 668 Liberty Island, zipcode 10004; phone prefix 825 (which I also noticed in phone book listings for Governors Island). Both prefixes are in (old) New York City zone 1. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #566 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26045; 18 Jul 92 16:34 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12256 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 18 Jul 1992 13:36:34 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31217 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 18 Jul 1992 13:36:22 -0500 Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 13:36:22 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207181836.AA31217@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #567 TELECOM Digest Sat, 18 Jul 92 13:36:20 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 567 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Rochester Tel to Cut Rates (Phillip Dampier) DMS-100 Peculiarity - HELP!!! (Ehud Gavron) My 800 Number (Kenton A. Hoover) Answering Machine Ringbacks (Michael Glowacki) Going UP (John Higdon) St.Pierre and Miquelon (Clive Feather) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Reply-To: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 12:14:43 -0500 Subject: Rochester Tel to Cut Rates ROCHESTER TELEPHONE ASKS FOR RATE CUT Rochester Telephone Corporation Thursday filed a petition with the New York State Public Service Commission to cut the cost of long distance calls within its service territory. In addition, Rochester Tel wants to expand the local calling areas for several communities receiving its services, the company said. The PSC must grant approval for the change, which would not affect rates on long distance calls made out of Rochester Tel's territory. A PSC spokeswoman declined to comment about Rochester Tel's plan, but she did say it would be reviewed thoroughly. Rochester Tel is seeking to change the way long distance toll rates are calculated, said spokeswoman Diana Melville. Currently, toll rates are set through a formula that pools the revenues of larger telephone companies such as Rochester Tel and smaller ones such as Ogden Telephone and Seneca Gorham Telephone. The formula was created so that all telephone companies charge the same rates, regardless of the size of their customer base or how efficiently they operate. However, Rochester Telephone believes the system forces it to charge higher rates, which means it contributes too much to the pool, Melville said. "We want to charge our customers the rates closer to what it costs for the company to provide the service," Melville said. Business customers would be billed the same rate for local service and long distance calls to exchanges within the Rochester Tel service territory (the Rochester LATA). Businesses would be charged 7.1 cents for the first three minutes of a call and two cents each additional minute, regardless of the time of day or distance of the call. Businesses now pay monthly rates for local measured service that are based on the time of day and duration of the call. Long distance calls within Rochester Tel's service territory are billed on distance, time of day, and duration. For some residential customers, local calling areas would be expanded to eliminate billing based on the distance, time or day, and duration of the call. Under the proposed plan, calls made between 8 am and 9 pm will be billed at 17 cents per minute. Calls made between 9:01 pm and 7:59 am and on weekends/holidays will be billed at 7.65 cents per minute -- a 55% discount over day rates. Rochester Tel also plans to offer residential customers two optional service plans to expand their local calling areas even further. Under one plan, customers can pay $5.95 per month to call communities that up until now have been long distance. Customers receive 60 minutes of calls after 5 pm and before 8 am weekdays, weekends, and holidays (9.9 cents per minute). If customers make more than 60 minutes of calls to those areas during off peak hours, they will be billed at 5.9 cents per minute. The second plan would cost customers $3.95 per month for 30 minutes of calls (13.2 cents per minute). If customers make over 30 minutes per calls, they will be billed at 7.65 cents per minute. Other proposals: Geneseo will now be able to call Avon numbers for free. For $5.95 per month, Geneseo customers will be able to make 60 minutes of calls at certain times to such places as Caledonia, Hemlock, Pavilion, and Perry. Leicester residents will now be able to call Perry residents for free. Using the above $5.95 plan, Leicester customers will be able to call Avon, Castile, Livonia, and Pavilion for less. ------------------------------ From: gavron@spades.aces.com (Ehud Gavron 602-570-2000 x. 2546) Subject: DMS-100 Peculiarity - HELP!!! Date: 18 Jul 92 20:20:00 GMT Reply-To: gavron@Spades.ACES.COM Organization: ACES Consulting Inc. I'm in the process of moving to a new location in rural Tucson AZ outskirts. US West was kind enough to give me two lines without realizing that they only had one pair going to the pole. 1/2 mile of "C-cable"* is on its way. Here's what really ticks me off though. I used to be on a 1AESS and now I'm on a DMS-100. My custom calling features are call-waiting** and speed-dial 30. HOWEVER, I find the following peculiarities: 1. If there is no call waiting call coming in and I flash the switchhook, I get a SECOND dialtone. However, I am unable to dial any number on it since at the 4th digit I get a fast busy signal. (It won't dial 2-digit speed-dialed calls either). 2. If I attempt to program speed dial via: [dial tone] 75# [confirm tone + dial tone] nnNPA-NXXX, wait then it fails (fast busy). If I do the same but leave off the pound: [dial tone] 75 and wait [confirm tone + dial tone] nnNPA-NXXX, wait then it works! (Number programmed) Number 2 is a nuisance, but as I rarely _program_ speed calling numbers, I could live with it. However, number 1 is a big hassle since I'm used to tapping the switchhook and redialing a number very rapidly. Now I have to hold it down and count One-Ringy-Dingy. Does anyone know: 1. WHY 2. WHY 3. WHY? * Does anyone know what C-cable is? What is it used for? What do I have now that is not a C-cable? **This feature ought to be mandatory for everyone I ever call ... Ehud Gavron (EG76) gavron@vesta.sunquest.com ------------------------------ From: shibumi@turbo.bio.net (Kenton A. Hoover) Subject: My 800 Number Date: 18 Jul 92 00:28:25 GMT Reply-To: shibumi@turbo.bio.net Organization: GenBank Computing Resource for Mol. Biology PacBell sent me an mailing for 'open collar' workers in May. I guess they figured out from my having four phone lines that I was a work-at-home. In fact, I'm not, but the mailing promised me a free book if I would take a telemarketing call. Not being the type to pass up an offer like this, I called from work, not home (can't be too complacient) and they promptly connected me to a telemarketer. She took my address for the book (just got the book "The Work-At-Home Book", full of useful tips on how to use your cat as stapler, make extra filing space out of pots and pans, and making a postage meter a decorative item, but I digress), and went thru my past few months bills looking for services to pitch to me. She did sell me a local area calling plan for an unnamed area, but the thing I was really intrigued by was that I could have my very own PacBell sales person assigned to me. I think this is a win -- I get pretty tired of explaining to whoever I end up ordering from why I need 24 voice circuits delivered on T1 to a residence. But the best part was that I found out that you can now get 'Custom 800' on a residential line. Custom 800 is 800 service delivered 'on top' of an exiting line, rather than having a special '800' line. This sounded great, but it had to cost a mint, right (I'd costed out 800 service at previous employers to lower datacomm costs)? Nope -- I was informed that I could have it for $5/month, plus costs, and it could cover whatever service areas PacBell covered (I just got it for service area 1, since I don't know anyone in LA). Well, I thought, I must at least have to use a business line for it, right? Wrong -- this was specifically for residential service. I had to have it. For $60/year, I could impress the babes by saying "My number? 1-800-BIG-STUD" But it got better. One, I did get to pick my own number (and no, I'm not going to mention it here) and two, it was instant gratification, since the number was activated within about 15 minutes of my order. Well, I've had the number since May, and its been great. Why has it been great, you might ask? Well, its because I call my home answering machine alot from pay phones. I don't always have change, so I tend to use my calling card. And as most of us know, PacBell whacks you for $0.35 every time you do that. But with my 800 number, I just pay $0.185/minute prime time (less at night, when I do most of my calling), and they don't have a call setup charge. So, if I make 14 calls home a month from pay phones (and I do), its a wash versus my calling card costs. Of course, if I'm calling from downtown, I lose, but most of my calls would be about $0.25/minute milage (south bay to home). There are a few problems: they don't break down the 800 billing by call, just total minutes in a certain calling period. So, I don't get the numbers that called me. Thats a little irritating, since I can't dispute a bill. Also, you pay in advance for the service, but since that's only $5/month, its nothing on top of my total phone bill. So, if you want to impress the babes (or the dudes, depending on your polarity and preferences) or you call home alot, you might want to look into 800 service. Kenton A. Hoover BIOSCI Network Administrator (bionet newsgroups) | shibumi@presto.ig.com GenBank/IntelliGenetics, Inc. 415 962 7300 | shibumi@genbank.bio.net ------------------------------ From: glowacki@calshp.cals.wisc.edu Subject: Answering Machine Ringbacks Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 2:09:57 CDT Two stories came to me tonight about answering machines and strange hehavior on the network. Both involved puzzling ringing either on the recording or to another phone. They didn't involve crazy conference calling or human intervention. First off, tonight a friend called us from the airport. No one was home to take the call, and he wanted to save his quarter to speak with a live person. So he hung up after the usual four rings, before the answering machine picked it up. Then he tried again later, just getting a busy signal for 45 minutes. He got through later when someone was home and learned why he couldn't get through. The connection wasn't broken. Instead the answering machine recorded about 45 minutes of a phone ringing on the other end. The pay phone didn't ring, just somewhere a phone was ringing and the answering machine recorded it. We couldn't figure it out. Then I started to think the switch in the central office was messed up somehow. I have no idea what kind of switch it is. The company is TDS - Waunakee Telephone Company in Wisconsin. Perhaps some reader is aware of this small telco and what equipment they use. I only read this Digest to learn about this sort of thing. So I ask you what could have been going on? By no means is this answering machine sophisticated, so it couldn't have dialed anyone. (Nor did the cat! :) Apparently this has happened once before recently. The second story involves a Centrex system at the university. My friend from the airport reported that in his office, he or his office mate would call someone and get their answering machine. If they hung up before the OGM was finished, the phone would ring soon to give them the answering machine and the last of the outgoing message. He offered this as a clue to the last mystery. It seemed to me to be unrelated, but it might be. The friend said the Centrex system was responsible for the ringbacks (not in those words). He thought it was too slow in detecting the fact he had hung up and would call him back to complete the connection. I think that's plausible, but I want to know what the readers of TELECOM Digest think about this mystery. What could or should explain the things we've observed? Michael Glowacki University of Wisconsin -- Madison glowacki@calshp.cals.wisc.edu mjglowacki@wiscmacc.bitnet AOL: MichaelG1 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 19:08 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Going UP Federal regulators are about to make yet another decision that will almost guarantee that your phone bills will go up even more: approval for phone companies to get into the video delivery business. Every new venture that phone companies are allowed to pursue means that old reliable finance cash cow, the regulated ratepayer, will have to fork over even more. And what will be the ultimate result? Your telephone dollars will buy even more of the drek and waste that litters every cable company in the land. How many more shopping channels can we support? How many more news operations? How many more movie channels? My local cable company (considered one of the best in the country) has over 50 "basic" channels and more often than not, there is nothing worthwhile to watch. This is a case where competition can actually have deleterious effects on an industry. The plethora of program producers are chasing after a limited number of dollars and spreading them thinly among themselves. This means that no one producer has the necessary funds to produce really quality entertainment. The result is mediocrity that makes former FCC Chairman, Newton Minnow's "Vast Wasteland" look like entertainment and information heaven. I have no love for any cable company, including mine. This is an industry crying for comeuppins. But the answer is not to water it down even more and to finance the project with your utility dollars. We are giving the green light to our nation's telcos to provide everything that has to do with information. Telco's will own the cable plant, switching centers, and microwave towers. They will provide the audiotex product (and control the content). They will provide the news. They will (with this decision) provide the video entertainment. After having just reviewed "The President's Analyst", I can just imagine what our society -- owned and operated by "TPC" -- will look like. Here it comes: The United Bell States of America. And I thought we were "breaking up" the telephone company. What a laugh. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) Subject: St.Pierre and Miquelon Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 15:43:44 BST A few weeks ago there was some discussion about St.Pierre & Miquelon. It turns out that our local library has all the French phone books, including that for St.Pierre & Miquelon, so I went and looked. If I understand the French correctly, the telephone system works like this. France is divided into 100 "departments". For telephone purposes, these split into: Paris/Ile de France: departments 75, 77, 78, 91-95 Provincial: departments 01-19, 2A, 2B, 21-74, 76, 79-90 DOMs: departments 971 (Guadelope - country code 590), 972 (Guyana - country code 594), 973 (Martinique - country code 596), 974 (Reunion - country code 292). In addition, there are five TOMs: Mayotte (country code 269) New Caledonia (country code 687) Polynesia (country code 689) St.Pierre & Miquelon (country code 508) Wallis & Futuna (country code 681) [I don't know what DOM and TOM mean.] Paris and Provincial numbers are eight digits, and DOM and TOM numbers are 6 digits, not beginning with a 1 (I don't know about 0). Provincial numbers beginning with 93 are in Monaco, and 628 in Andorra. All numbers on St.Pierre begin 412, 413, 414, or 415, and on Miquelon 416. Dialling instructions depend on where you are calling from and to. A tilde indicates a second dialtone, a # indicates a digit. Within mainland France, you dial ######## for the same system (Paris or Provincial, or 16~######## for the other). To dial a DOM or a TOM, you dial 19~CCC######, and to dial a foreign country you dial 19~CCCAAA#######, where CCC is the country code, and AAA the area code (if any). To get operator assistance or directory enquiries, you dial 19~33CCC, except that the country codes 1 and 7 need to be followed by an additional 1. From a DOM or a TOM, the codes are: Same DOM/TOM: ###### Paris 16~1######## Provincial 16~######## DOM/TOM 19~CCC###### Foreign 19~CCCAAA####### except that since all Guadelope numbers begin 2, 8, or 9, and all Martinique numbers being 5, 6, or 7, there is interdialing between the two (i.e. just dial the 6 figure number). Operator assistance for foreign countries from DOMs and from St.Pierre and Miquelon (the library didn't have the other four books) varies: Guadelope 10 Guyana 19~594CCC Martinique 19~596CCC Reunion 19~262CCC for operator 19~26212CCC for directory St.Pierre & Miquelon 10 Finally, there are two special dialing instructions. From Guadelope, numbers in St.Barthelems and St.Martin (both French and Dutch parts) of the form 3##### can be dialled direct. From St.Pierre and Miquelon to Canada (*not* the USA or Caribbean), dial 00~NPA#######. Clive D.W. Feather | IXI Limited clive@x.co.uk | 62-74 Burleigh St. Phone: +44 223 462 131 | Cambridge CB1 1OJ Fax: +44 223 462 132 | United Kingdom ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #567 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02948; 19 Jul 92 21:36 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09916 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Jul 1992 14:44:42 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06911 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Jul 1992 14:44:34 -0500 Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 14:44:34 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207191944.AA06911@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #570 TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 Jul 92 14:44:35 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 570 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Godwin Speaks Out ... (Jim Thomas) Re: Godwin Speaks Out ... Not! (Mike Godwin) Re: Going UP (David Sternlight) Re: Going UP (Jayson Raymond) Re: Do ESS Systems Keep Detailed Call Records? (Kevin W. Williams) Re: Do ESS Systems Keep Detailed Call Records? (Jon Baker) Re: 1-800-ATF-GUNS and Anonymity (Andy Sherman) 800 Number For Help With Personal Problems (was Abuse of ANI?) (Jim Haynes) Re: Use (Abuse) of ANI? (David Lesher) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 11:14:47 -0500 From: jim thomas Subject: Re: Godwin Speaks Out ... Organization: Northern Illinois University In article sami@scic.intel.com (Sam Israelit) writes: > In TELECOM #552, Mike Godwin chastised PAT with the paragraph: >> I doubt anyone at EFF is capable of being as shrill as Townson. >> And I am certain that we have higher regard for the truth than he >> does. > Well Mike, you had me leaning towards your side until I read the 13 > July edition of {ComputerWorld}, specifically the article "Wiretap > snares alleged hackers". In that article, you state: > "This whole indictment could very well be an attempt to frame some > people who the authorities believe glorify hacking." > This sounds like a sensationalist defense strategy to me Mike. Why > does it have to be a conspiracy on the part of the government to frame > these people? Maybe the government just bungled another investigation, > since they do have a pretty fair track record of doing that. Considering that EFF took a blind-side broadside from oudda-da-bloo, I think Mike Godwin's return salvo was both justified and, under the circumstances, restrained. Nor do I see anything in Mike Godwin's comment from CW cited above that is shrill. Those who have followed federal actions over the past two years have every reason to be suspicious of LE's motives and methods. The initially highly-publicized Sun Devil produced little of significance and resulted in litigation against federal and civil participants for their efforts against Steve Jackson Games; The prosecution dropped its case against Craig Neidorf before it had even concluded its opening arguments; and regardless of what one thinks of Len Rose's actions, there is considerable room for the judgment that he was treated unjustly and unfairly. One need only read Bill Cook's published work and read the transcripts in the Neidorf trial (avail- able in CuD archives at ftp.eff.org) to realize that Mike's above- cited comment should be taken seriously. The indictment of the five MOD people, while alleging some serious charges, also raises some issues that justify Mike's statement. There is also strong justification for objecting to the sentences given "hackers," for questioning the competency of some law enforcement officials in the 1990 cases, and for concern over the implications of the investigative and prosecutorial methods used against alleged "hackers." Expressing such concerns is an attempt to preserve truth and accurracy and hardly strikes me as "shrill" or "sensationalist." It certainly is both more honorable and more honest than to attack the messenger with ad hominems rather than address the message. Jim Thomas Co-editor, Cu Digest [Moderator's Note: The current issue of CuD (distributed Sunday via email and newsgroup) covers the indictment in detail and includes some commentary on the topic. Readers who have not seen it should request a copy from Jim at the address shown above. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) Subject: Re: Godwin Speaks Out ... Not! Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 11:12:40 GMT In article sami@scic.intel.com (Sam Israelit) writes: > Well Mike, you had me leaning towards your side until I read the 13 > July edition of {ComputerWorld}, specifically the article "Wiretap > snares alleged hackers". In that article, you state: > "This whole indictment could very well be an attempt to frame some > people who the authorities believe glorify hacking." > This sounds like a sensationalist defense strategy to me Mike. Why > does it have to be a conspiracy on the part of the government to frame > these people? This is the first time I've seen this quotation. I said no such thing. I will now contact {Computerworld} and seek a retraction. I do not for a moment believe that the government has set out to frame anyone. What I told {Computerworld} was that, with regard to the erasure of data at Learning Link, in which individuals purporting to be two of the defendants called up and claimed credit for the vandalism, it was possible that someone other than the named defendants had made the call. I explicitly stated to *every* member of the press that we had no reason to believe at this time that the government had done anything wrong in pursuing these indictments. Other press reports, so far, have been accurate. This make me furious. It should be noted that we are not handling these individuals' defense, so attributing their defense strategy to us is a mistake. I ask Sam Israelit and all others who read the {Computerworld} article to accept my statement that at no time did I suggest, to {Computerworld} or anyone else, that the government had framed anyone. This sounds very much as if the {Computerworld} reporter, like Pat Townson, is so certain that EFF is going to say something patently shrill, that he invented the comment. Mike Godwin, mnemonic@eff.org (617) 864-0665 EFF, Cambridge [Moderator's Note: How would the late Senator McCarthy (R-WI) phrase it if he was the moderator here? Old Joe would probably wave a copy of {Computerworld} in the air and ask, "Do you deny ever saying anything to this magazine in the way they quoted you?" But seriously, it was the magazine article which ticked me off also. If you say you did not say it, then I believe you. PAT] ------------------------------ From: analyst@netcom.com (David Sternlight) Subject: Re: Going UP Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 19:30:49 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) Higdon's message contains much more heat than light, and sounds like it was written by a cable company or data service provider other than the phone companies. First of all, it is simply untrue that there is no quality on cable, though by use of the word "entertainment" it's not clear what Higdon wants. Just a few examples: C-SPAN C-SPAN 2 Bravo Arts and Entertainment HBO original movies CNN CNN Headline news. Second, dial-up access to video services means that far more niche markets can be satisfied, since there are far more channels available on a fiber optic pipe into one's home, than on a cable with fixed frequency allocations. Moreover, one doesn't have to modify the subscriber equipment to add channels; just dial another number. Third, fiber optic pipes into our homes will make data services, highly sophisticated telephone services, interactive ordering and many other thing available at low cost. Some who want to grab some of these dollars, such as newspapers and others, also oppose phone company entry for naked economic reasons. But such opposition is not in the public interest since they aren't as technologically ready, nor have they the market base or cost structure to provide such services as cheaply as the phone companies can. Finally, cross subsidization can be trivially handled by the state PUCs with proper rules and accounting procedures. There's evidence this works -- look at the very low cost of Long Distance calls compared to local calls in many cases, due to the removal of cross-subsidization by the regulatory process. Thus the opponents' biggest propaganda objection is just plain silly, and only the gullible will fall for it. David Sternlight David Sternlight Inc. email:analyst@netcom.COM ------------------------------ From: Jayson Raymond Subject: Re: Going UP Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 20:14:50 PDT While I too share Mr. Higdon's concern for the increase we the regular customer will have to fund for telco provided video, I'm excited by the prospect of the phone company finally having a 'reason' to bring high bandwidth home. Afterall Mr. Higdon, weren't you recently complaining about not being able to receive ISDN at home? However, this exacerbates the problems opened up with the previous ruling allowing RBOCs to provide content. Let the telco's compete with the cableco's and eliminate the "natural monopoly", make them fight for our dollars by competing with each other in quality and services in delivery (medium). But by god, keep both of them out of creating the message, for it is far too easy and tempting to use one to gain control of the other. And I agree with Higdon here, without regulating this, the US will certainly become the U.B.S.A (or U.C.S.A). As for the "Vast Wasteland" of media sub-mediocrity coming out of even more choices, I think the real point to keep in mind is that video on demand is an existing market that makes it very clear, even to those who have no vision, of the potential that can come from bringing high bandwidth home. It's only the tip of the iceberg, as Gibson, et al have popularized. Now that McGowan is gone, who'll slay the reawoken Goliath? Jayson Raymond ------------------------------ From: williamsk@gtephx.UUCP (Kevin W. Williams) Subject: Re: Do ESS Systems Keep Detailed Call Records? Organization: gte Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 07:46:18 GMT In article , Matt Simpson writes: > Does anyone out there know if local exchanges keep any kind of call > detail records? Specifically, I'm interested to know if a > law-enforcement agency would be able to obtain a record of all local > calls made to a specific number for some period in the past, without > having requested a trace in advance. > [Moderator's Note: Yes, the new switches do keep very detailed calling > records. Getting them examined may be a hassle, but they do exist. Now > of course if you had that nasty old Caller-ID, or even 'return last > call', you could invade the caller's privacy by noting the calling > number and act on it from that direction. Not only do hackerphreaks > not care for Caller-ID, I suppose most burglars who call ahead to > scope things out don't like it very well either. PAT] Pat, The keyword here is 'keep'. Most machines can maintain very detailed STATUS, and can report them via Special Study reports. If Usage Sensitive Service is applied, the switch will bill each call, so it could be researched via billing checks. If the line is not on Special Study, and USS Billing is not being applied, no record is kept of a local call. If requested in advance, the line can be placed on special study, Hot Number status, or Annoyance Call Monitor. Then the information desired could be retrieved later. Disclaimer: I speak GTD-5ese. People speaking 5ESSese or DMSese would call these things different names, but the functionality is equivalent. Kevin Wayne Williams UUCP : ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!williamsk ------------------------------ From: gtephx!bakerj@enuucp.eas.asu.edu (Jon Baker) Subject: Re: Do ESS Systems Keep Detailed Call Records? Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 15:12:07 GMT In article , john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes: > Matt Simpson writes: >> Does anyone out there know if local exchanges keep any kind of call >> detail records? Specifically, I'm interested to know if a >> law-enforcement agency would be able to obtain a record of all local >> calls made to a specific number for some period in the past, without >> having requested a trace in advance. > You are probably out of luck for several reasons. The level of > detail on calls is "settable" by the telco. If the purpose is to > bill count and duration of local calls FROM a telephone (telcos do > not keep any kind of records concerning calls TO a telephone), then > a "peg count" is used and carries little detail. In the case of > unmeasured service, the telco typically keeps no local records at > all. I know Pac*Bell does not (although some telcos evidently do > when they go after the customer for "excessive" use). Entirely correct; there is probably no way to trace the calls that were placed to your home in the past, if they were local calls. However, you still have an alternative. On a line-by-line basis, the telco can keep records of all calls going TO your telephone. Most modern switches will have some form of 'annoyance call' trace, such that when your CO receives a call for your line, it can generate a record of where that call came from. If it came in on a trunk, that may be all that they know. However, if they set up an annoyance call trace for any call going TO your line in all the CO's in your area, then any time anyone calls you from one of those CO's, it will generate a record. If you expect this pattern of robbery to continue, I would suggest that you push this matter with the sheriff and telephone company. If, as you claim, they have a modern switching system, then they can perform this sort of trace. It's a bit of trouble for them, but that's why the trace feature is there. J.Baker enuucp!gtephx!bakerj [Moderator's Note: Well I know that in 1974 when I caught Illinois Bell ripping me off, it was after I called the Business Office to complain about the excessive number of message units on my account and the service rep told me in a snotty way I must have made all those calls. Since that CO (Chicago-Wabash) went ESS earlier that year, I told her to send me the print out. I got pages of local call detail in the mail which I reviewed. I assumed responsibility for any number I recognized as well as those I did not recognize from times of day when I was likely in my office and could have used the phone. I did a name and address check on those I did not recognize from times I knew I could not have been on the phone. *Lots* of calls had been made to such places as 'IBT Company Vehicle Repair Depot' and 'IBT Co., 65 East Congress Parkway' (the CO building itself!). I called back and pointed out that obviously some technicians were using my pair to make all their calls and I would not pay. The service rep wrote off all the message units on my bill that month to get me to shut up. And on a couple occassions since I have requested the local call detail from the month before to audit. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 04:54:01 EDT From: andys@flatline.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: 1-800-ATF-GUNS and Anonymity In article 8@eecs.nwu.edu, vk2bea!michael@arinc.com (Michael G. Katzmann) writes (description of government run tip hotline deleted) > It says call 1-800-ATF-GUNS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE YOUR NAME. > This is, at the least, misleading since it implies anonymity for the > caller. Since as astute comp.dcom.telecom readers know, ANI is > available to 800 service subscribers, the caller's number would surely > be recorded by ATF. > [Moderator's Note: I've often had the same thoughts about the numerous > signs I see on the subways here urging people to call and seek help > for a problem with cocaine, abusing your children, etc. They all use > 800 numbers also, with ANI, I'm sure. PAT] Do remember that *can have* ANI delivery is not the same as *has* ANI delivery. Unfortunately, you can't know for sure. If you really want to be anonymous, use a pay phone. Andy Sherman (one and the same) Salomon, Inc. - Unix Systems Support - Rutherford, NJ (201) 896-7018 - andys@flatline.sbi.com "These opinions are mine, all *MINE*. My employer can't have them." ------------------------------ From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) Subject: 800 Number For Help With Personal Problems (was Abuse of ANI?) Date: 19 Jul 1992 09:29:01 GMT Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz In article sami@scic.intel.com (Sam Israelit) writes: > A number of those organizations are out there doing legitimate work > and they have 800 numbers so that you can call them free of charge > (ie, too large a number of the population are indigent). And even if > that isn't the reason, it doesn't mean Then there was a expose' here a while back about a man in Aptos who handled incoming 1-800 numbers for various drug abuse programs. He was essentially a front for a for-profit rehabilitation hospital. It was alleged that the callers were asked first about their medical insurance. If they had no insurance then the answerer was to get rid of the caller as quickly as possible. But if the caller had insurance the answerer was to decide the person needed in-patient treatment, and arrange for a plane ticket to Los Angeles where the hospital was located, and proceed to admit the person to the hospital. haynes@cats.ucsc.edu haynes@cats.bitnet [Moderator's Note: There should be extra-special, very severe punishments for abusing the trust of people who call on the phone seeking help. It is distressing to think that people get up the courage to admit they have a problem, finally trust someone enough to ask for help and wind up getting betrayed. This makes the legitimate counselors' job even harder. I'd personally like to yank the service out on some of those jerks. PAT] ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Use (Abuse) of ANI? Date: Wed, 15 Jul 92 18:34:57 EDT Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex Today's [Ides of July] {Washington Post} had a story on this in of all places, the food section! It was really about how Betty Crocker and Friends solicit and collect marketing data from your call, but it did discuss the ANI aspects. With the sole exception of calling the ANI 'Caller-ID' (Just cuz we here in c.d.t. are pedantic does not mean everyone is ...) they got all the fine print correct, including the fact that you can't block it as you might do with CID, and it always shows up on bills. wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #570 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03091; 19 Jul 92 21:40 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09594 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Jul 1992 13:26:09 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28754 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Jul 1992 13:26:02 -0500 Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 13:26:02 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207191826.AA28754@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #569 TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 Jul 92 13:26:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 569 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Felix Finch) Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (Nigel Roberts) Re: Cellular Phone Hacking (David Sternlight) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (James Hartman) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Richard Nash) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Bill Walker) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Jeffrey Jonas) Re: Locating Cellular Information (John Nagle) Re: 3W vs 0.6W (Steve Forrette) Re: 3W vs 0.6W (Jeff Sicherman) Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor (Peter da Silva) Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor (Ed Ravin) Re: Perot Compuserve Account (Larry Johnson) Re: Perot Compuserve Account (Ronald Elliott) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: felix@crowfix.com (Felix Finch) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking Organization: Scarecrow Repair, Dutch Flat. Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 04:04:46 GMT Bill Squire writes: >> [Moderator's Note: What you suggest is highly illegal in the USA and >> probably everywhere else in the world except possibly the Netherlands >> where it seems that everything is okay where defrauding the telco is >> concerned. > C'mon Pat be nice. Using the bluebox is one thing, but somebody's > account is quite another matter. See the difference? Pat, is this guy for real? By this logic, it's a no no to rob a person, but ok to rob a bank. Dang, Pat, I'm in the wrong business! Felix Finch, scarecrow repairer / felix@crowfix.com / uunet!crowfix!felix ------------------------------ From: nigel@frsbfs.enet.dec.com (Nigel Roberts) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking Organization: IC Software AG (on contract at DEC) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 01:28:06 GMT In article (by Rop Gonggrijp) our Esteemed Moderator notes ... > help by telling us who called you?") they pry for details. Far too > many mothers, grandmothers and air-headed friends, lovers, etc are > very naive about this and run their mouth willingly. PAT] What do you mean "Far too many?". I'd have thought you'd be pleased when the Good Guys catch the Bad Guys. Nigel Roberts | nigel@frsbfs.enet.dec.com | Tel. +44 206 396610 | European Engineer | roberts@frais.enet.dec.com | & +49 6103 383489 | Fax +44 206 393148 [Moderator's Note: Well generally I am ... but I was trying to speak from his perspective in that example. PAT] ------------------------------ From: analyst@netcom.com (David Sternlight) Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Hacking Date: Thu, 16 Jul 92 17:57:15 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) In a discussion of telephone fraud, the Moderator says phone companies call recipients of such calls, and try to find out who called. He then says: > Far too many mothers, grandmothers and air-headed friends, lovers, > etc are very naive about this and run their mouth willingly. Am I reading too much into this, or is the moderator on the side of the crooks, and opposed to catching them? David Sternlight David Sternlight Inc. email:analyst@netcom.COM [Moderator's Note: I was trying to explain why calling private phones on a regular basis -- establishing calling patterns -- is a bad idea where people who are into phone fraud are concerned. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) From: unkaphaed!phaedrus@cs.utexas.edu (James Hartman, Sysop) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 13:35:15 GMT Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > It makes me wonder why the issuing telcos couldn't detect and possibly > block calls made on the same CC but made too far apart in distance and > too close together in time to have been made by the same person. What if, for example, my wife and I are both traveling at the same time, and I only have one Sprint card? I write down the number on a piece of paper, take it with me, and give the card to my wife, who happens to be going to New York while I go to L.A. Then we just happen to call home to check the answering machine within minutes of each other -- but, since I gave her the card, and since we're married, we both have the use of the same card number. Or, would this be illegal use of the card in the first place? Note: As, I'm not married, this is a hypothetical (but possible) example. :-) phaedrus@unkaphaed.UUCP (James Hartman, Sysop) Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 07:19:44 +0100 From: rickie@trickie.uucp (Richard Nash) Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) > sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > Then my wife at home and myself on a business trip couldn't use the same > card number to charge calls. No problem! Joint credit cards could be issued with unique PINS that identify each user. Thus, only a simultaneous use of the credit card could be from a fraudulent source. This scheme has the added benefit of assisting both users of the account to identify and reconcile their own transactions. (The billing system records the entire credit card including the PIN). Richard Nash Edmonton, Alberta Canada T6K 0E8 UUCP: trickie!rickie@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca Amatuer Radio Packet: VE6BON @ VE6MC.AB.CAN.NA VE6BON.ampr.org [44.135.147.206] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 09:59:51 -0700 From: wwalker@qualcomm.com (Bill Walker) Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) Organization: Qualcomm, Inc. What if the two calls were made by two members of the same family? And even if one of the calls was fraudulent, which call would you block? Whoever got in second would lose, whether it was the owner or the thief. Bill Walker - WWalker@qualcomm.com - QUALCOMM, Inc., San Diego, CA All opinions expressed are mine, and do not reflect those of my employer. [Moderator's Note: See one explanation or work-around mentione elsewhere in this issue. Separate PINS if not separate cards. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 11:00:16 -0400 From: krfiny!jeffj@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) Ooooh! Ooooh! Ooooh! Ooooh! Teacher, call on me! I know the answer! There are several valid reasons for a single calling card to have calls from distant origins: 1) the calling card is shared by several people, such as a family. Just as the home phone number is shared by the family, the calling card is used by the husband at the office, the kids at college, etc. Or a small business has its people in the field using the main number to bill back calls. Perhaps accounts can be flagged as shared/not shared. 2) the origin of the phone calls is not always accurate. As explained previously in TELECOM in great detail, many alternate carriers have a POP (Point of Presence) that may not be in your same county, or state. Calls from a few miles away may appear to have originated from different states. There are commercials for various credit cards where the card holder gets a call from security verifying some unusual activity on their account and preventing fraud. Similarly, I think that calling card fraud can be detected not by origin but usage pattern analysys. Sudden changes such as many overseas calls or very long calls should warrant verification from the account owner. I do not agree to service denial/shutoff based on this information because there are too many cases of TELECOM readers having valid accounts terminated due to misinterpretation of account use. jeffrey jonas jeffj@synsys.uucp ------------------------------ From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Locating Cellular Information Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 19:29:30 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) pwan@skidmore.EDU (peter wan) writes: > I am looking for general and technical information regarding cellular > systems and cellular technology. Are there any FTP archives which have > such information, and can anyone suggest any printed books which cover > the topic? Are there any vendors out there that will provide info on > their products? Any suggestions are welcomed via email. I suggest "Digital Cellular Radio" (the book) for an unique view of the current problems and future directions of cellular technology. Don't have the author's name handy, though. Check Books In Print. This is a fun book to read, and it focuses on the issues of scaling up cellular systems to large numbers of users. Propagation of UHF signals in cities in covered in detail. The advantages of spread-spectrum are explored. Compression is discussed. Power control is analyzed. How the designers of the existing system screwed up by choosing Chicago as a testbed is explained. Reading this book convinced me that cellular systems have to go spread spectrum eventually. So I bought some Qualicomm stock. (I think, though, the existing cellular providers are a little afraid of spread spectrum, because there's no fundamental reason that there has to be only one cellular company in a band with spread spectrum systems. It could break the duopoly. Eventually it probably will.) John Nagle ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: 3W vs 0.6W Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 22:19:50 GMT In article dbrillha@dave.mis.semi. harris.com (Dave Brillhart) writes: >1.) Are 3.0W units really going to buy me alot more compared to the > compact 0.6W phones -- in regards to TX (and RX?) sound quality, > battery life, max distance from the closest transceiver, or other > issues I haven't thought of? This reminds me of a feature on some of the Motorola bag phones that I consider to be just a marketing gimmick: a .6W/3W switch. The sales people will tell you that when you are running the bag phone off of batteries, it is a good idea to switch it to .6W to extend the battery life; when you have it plugged into the cigarette lighter in your car, switch it to 3W for best reception. Of course, astute TELECOM Digest readers will note that the phone doesn't always transmit at the maximum power level, but is instead commanded by the base station to transmit at the lowest level that's necessary for a good signal. So, if you're near a cell, and only need 200mW to get a good signal, your phone only transmits with 200mW, regardless of whether you have a 600mW or 3W model (this is primarily so that the cell size can be scaled -- not to conserve battery capacity, although that is a nice side effect). In any event, the only thing that the 600mW setting of the bag-phone switch accomplishes is cutting off your calls when they need more than 600mW to get through -- they don't save any battery capacity otherwise. Since I can't imagine that even under battery power you'd rather have your calls cut off when they need more than 600mW just so you can 'save your batteries,' I conclude that this is just a marketing gimmick. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 16:29:16 -0700 From: Jeff Sicherman Subject: Re: 3W vs 0.6W Organization: Cal State Long Beach In article TELECOM Moderater explains what went wrong a long time ago: > And yes, regulations say you can't have a three watt handheld since > there is a risk with the antenna so close to your head that you might > irradiate your brain cells, and become goofy like your Esteemed > Moderator, whose battery hasn't taken a full charge in many years. And here, all this time, I thought it was a short circuit ... :-) Jeff Sicherman ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 11:48:46 GMT In article mmaster@parnasus.dell.com (Michael Masterson) writes: > Well, it's about 100 times the power levels of a laser that says > "AVOID EXPOSURE TO BEAM" on the warning label, and that's just talking > about dead surface skin cells ... heck, .5 watts is about what the > cutting lasers run that are used to cut master disks for CDs. There's a little difference in the concentration. .5 watts over a skillionth of a square centimeter is not the same as .5 watts over the detectable field volume of a typical radio transmitter. Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032 ------------------------------ From: elr%trintex@uunet.UU.NET (Unix Guru-in-Training) Subject: Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor Organization: Prodigy Services Co. Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 01:03:40 GMT In MCMANGPH@NUSVM.BITNET (Ang Peng Hwa) writes: > Redrawing her subjects, she found that virtually all lived within > 100 yards of either a substation or a high voltage line. One of the early studies which found a correlation between childhood leukemia and electromagnetic field emissions was done on some suburban development -- nearly all the leukemia cases happened in houses that were immediately near the step-down transformer on the utility poles in the area. For that neighborhood, the step-down transformers were located on the corners of street intersection. Hence it's not a case of different income classes or any of the other factors suggested by other posters. One testimony I heard (all in well-reasoned tones by various scientists who were discussing EMF at a public hearing about a water-supply construction project in my neighborhood) is that it's clear that EMF can cause cell damage -- the question is what frequencies and what power levels cause the problems. There may be "windows", similiar to the atmospheric window which allows visible light to penetrate but blocks out (well, it used to anyway, before the ozone hole) ultraviolet rays and other stuff outside the frequency range between infrared and ultraviolet. One theory is that EMF exposure within the "windows", i.e. of a certain frequency for at least a certain time, can cause damage to the body but other frequencies (or the same frequencies but without sufficient exposure) will not cause problems. The microwave industry (remember, microwaves are non-ionizing radiation too) has a goodly amount of occupational diseases, especially glaucoma in people who have to work on antennas (the name Samuel Yannon comes to mind, who had to sue his employers heavily in order to have his glaucoma recognized as work-related). Of course, we're talking huge differences between the power levels at a TV repeater station or a long distance phone link and the piddling 600 milliwatts of a cellular phone. > There is an extremely well-written (truly delightful to read despite > the subject matter) book on this subject by Paul Brodeur. One of the topics examined by Brodeur was a street in Connecticut where single family homes were located next to a high-powered electrical substation (we're talking complete with giant transformers and the like). Leukemia and brain tumors seemed to be the order of the day for the residents on that street, as well as the residents along the lines feeding the substation. Again, we're talking EMF levels orders of magnitude higher than cellular phone output. I've read parts of Brodeur's series in the {New Yorker}, (the book is called "Currents of Death") and he does document all his sources well enough for any other interested parties to verify his conclusions. Alas, he does run on and on and on in his writing, almost as bad as my posting here. :-) Ed Ravin- elr@trintex.uucp elr%trintex@uunet.uu.net +1-914-993-4737 my opinions, nobody else's ------------------------------ From: dprmpt!larry@uunet.UU.NET (Larry) Subject: Re: Perot Compuserve Account Date: 19 Jul 92 09:56:47 GMT Reply-To: dprmpt!larry@uunet.UU.NET (Larry) Organization: Data-Prompt In article peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 559, Message 12 of 14 > In article TELECOM Moderator notes: >> [Moderator's Note: This brings up the original question: Does Perot >> have an email address for the proposed electronic forum for the >> candidates? Should we use 'campaign@perot.com' instead? PAT] > perot.com, eh? So if he gets elected we might actually see something > like "perot@whitehouse.com"? Nah! He'll probably use "perot@whitehouse.gov". Of course, it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the government started running itself like most .com sites (i.e. in the black). Larry Johnson UUCP: ...!uunet!dprmpt!larry ------------------------------ From: caron!ronell@apple.com (Ronald Elliott) Subject: Re: Perot Compuserve Account Date: 19 Jul 92 01:11:53 GMT Reply-To: caron!ronell@mojave.ati.com Organization: Science and Technology Center, Apple Valley Ca. In article , Peter da Silva writes: > perot.com, eh? So if he gets elected we might actually see something > like "perot@whitehouse.com"? I would think more like perot@whitehouse.gov but its a moot point anymore! Ronald Elliott Science and Technology Center caron!ronell@mojave.ati.com P.O. Box 2968 Apple Valley, Ca 92307 Serving Education throughout the High Desert Area [Moderator's Note: Moot point you say? You want to know how far behind I am in posting articles here sent to me? How far behind am I? How about I run some messages giving Harry Truman's email address! Talk about moot points! PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #569 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03104; 19 Jul 92 21:41 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22629 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Jul 1992 12:19:40 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28019 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Jul 1992 12:19:31 -0500 Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 12:19:31 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207191719.AA28019@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #568 TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 Jul 92 12:19:35 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 568 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson CompuServe: FCC May Reconsider Modem Fee (Curtis E. Reid) FCC Modem Tax Rumor on Compu$erve (Michael Harpe) Need Help With Gandalf Modems (Kipp Cannon) Calling Cards For Married Couples (Nigel Allen) AT&T Mail vs. MCI Mail: Which is Better? (Leonard Wan) Wanted: VME Based Tel Interface Board (Marc E. Fiucznski) Advice Needed: Dialback Management (Peter Alexander Merel) Information Wanted on Westel (David Dodell) Any Cordless Phones With Calling Number ID? (Henry W. Troup) Wireless Phones That Work With Computers Around (Lance Ellinghouse) Looking For TTD Specifications (John A. Hammond) Statement by NCTA President on FCC Video Dialtone Proceeding (Nigel Allen) x.25 Packet Rates - Sample Rates Wanted (Steve Cavrak) Wanted: Two-line Controller (Timothy Stark) Caller*ID Device: Name Delivery System (Timothy Stark) Caution: Men at Retirement (David Leibold) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Jul 1992 16:41:49 -0500 (EST) From: "Curtis E. Reid" Subject: CompuServe: FCC May Reconsider Modem Fee Here is a blurb I found on CompuServe. I hope this is not another urban legend but CompuServe seemed very serious about it. I called their 800 line and they said it must be true if it's posted in "What's New." ####### MEMBERS URGED TO FIGHT "MODEM FEE" (16-Jul-92) A commissioner with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently stated that the FCC may again examine the possibility of imposing "modem fees" for information service companies. Observers have said the fees could drive up telephone line costs to information services companies by as much as 300 percent, some or all of which online service members would likely bear. CompuServe again needs your help in fighting any proposed cost increase so that online services can grow and remain affordable. The ramifications of the FCC's possible action is explained online (GO FCC). This area is free of connect charges. CompuServe asks that you send a letter to the FCC in opposition to modem fees and also to write to certain U.S.Senators to encourage legislation that would require the FCC to allow CompuServe and other information services companies to use new and more efficient technologies without being subjected to higher telephone line access charges. Also, please copy Congressman Edward Markey of Massachusetts, Chairman of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee. In 1987, a similar letter writing campaign by online services users helped prevent increased access charges from being implemented. The GO FCC area lists the names and address of FCC commissioners and U.S. Senators to whom you should write. Or, CompuServe will soon make available an FCCgram you can send electronically for 29 cents to the FCC and Senators. (Composing online is free.) A sample message is provided. CompuServe is subsidizing this low 29-cent rate. GO TELECOM to read more about this issue in the Regulatory Affairs section of the Telecommunications Forum. Your support of affordable information services is deeply appreciated. Curtis E. Reid CER2520@ritvax.isc.rit.edu Rochester Institute of Technology/NTID REID@DECUS.org (DECUS) P.O. Box 9887 716.475.6089 TDD/TT 475.6895 Voice Rochester, NY 14623-0887 716.475.6500 Fax ------------------------------ From: meharp01@vlsi.ct.louisville.edu (Michael Harpe) Subject: FCC Modem Tax Rumor on Compu$erve Organization: University of Louisville Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 14:50:39 GMT I captured this from Compu$erve this morning. No permission at all, but I don't think they'll mind. Here goes another round of modem tax rumors ... [Moderator's Note: Mr. Harpe sent a copy of the same thing supplied by Curtis Reid. No need to repeat it here. PAT] --- End forwarded material --- Mike Harpe University of Louisville Disclaimer: I am acting for myself, U of L isn't involved. [Moderator's Note: Well, here we go again. Someone had better get on the phone to CIS and ask them if they realize the problems caused by the spreading of this report and their request for help ... unless it really is true this time around. I strongly urge everyone to sit tight on this until/unless there is some independent verification. Fred, you seem to know about these things ... what can you tell us? And whatever you have to say, can you see to it CIS gets the message also? PAT] ------------------------------ From: kipp@sgl.ists.ca (Kipp Cannon) Subject: Need Help With Gandalf Modems Date: 16 Jul 92 03:14:08 GMT I would like information on the use of Gandalf MODEMS. I have two model LDS309's, but they are significantly different internally. There are various jumpers for setting all sorts of modes, but some are either different in layout or completely missing in one of them. I would like to know how to hook them up and configure them. One is labelled revision C5 and I think the other is revision A, but it isn't labelled externally. Please send me information. Thanks in advance. Kipp kipp@sgl.ists.ca ------------------------------ From: Nigel.Allen@lambada.oit.unc.edu Subject: Calling Cards For Married Couples Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 1:24:51 EDT Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Some people have mentioned that a married couple might share the same calling card number. They don't have to share the same number. One of them could be assigned a special calling card number (sometimes called a fictitious number) that would be billed on the same account. Some telephone companies and long distance carriers may be reluctant to do this because there are a limited number of possible fictitious numbers, and some residential service representatives may not have been trained how to set up this kind of calling card. Similarly, another family member (such as a child away at university) could be given his or her own calling card with a separate number, but billed to the family telephone account. If you have problems requesting a separate calling card number for yourself or your spouse, explain that Nigel Allen told you that the separate number would be a good idea, and that he said to mention his name in case the business office was reluctant to process the request. (This may not necessarily work, but it's worth a try. :-) ) Nigel Allen nigel.allen@canrem.com nigel.allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 08:07 GMT From: Leonard Wan <0005113873@mcimail.com> Subject: AT&T Mail vs. MCI Mail: Which is Better? Does anybody know which offers better service? AT&T Mail or MCI Mail? AT&T seems to provide a more professional service, is that true? And, does any body know of any software that can be used with AT&T mail? (Alternatives to the expensive ACCESS PLUS), just like Norton Commander and others availalbe to MCI Mail, substituing Lotus Express? [Moderator's Note: Both have good service. It really comes down to your individual preference. Many people select the email carrier which also serves as their LD carrier. MCI Mail offers Dow Jones News as part of their package; AT&T Mail offers the FYI service which was part of the old EasyLink (Western Union email) system. PAT] ------------------------------ From: mef@ehsl.mitre.org (Marc E. Fiucznski) Subject: Wanted: VME Based Tel Interface Board Organization: Electronic Hardware Standards Laboratory, MITRE Corporation, Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 19:01:06 GMT We are currently working on a project that is attempting to implement a PBX on a LAN (fddi or ethernet). We have a UniVoice UV-4 Voice/Telephone Interface Board for the VME bus. It works ok, but we would like to look at other boards. If anyone can help me with this, or point me in the right direction please! Vendor contact or addresses would also be fine. Sincerely, Marc E. Fiuczynski mef@ehsl.mitre.org 703-883-1221 ------------------------------ From: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Peter Alexander Merel) Subject: Advice Needed: Dialback Management Organization: Customised Software Solutions Centres, AOTC Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 06:04:00 GMT I'm working at a site running an ethernet of Suns, and we have a requirement for a sort of virtual dialback manager. The idea as I understand it is: You ring into one modem on one machine. That machine accepts your details, and then hangs up the modem and tells a completely different machine to call you back on another modem which is in a modem pool of outgoing only modems. We know about dialback modems, but it seems they are not as secure as we'd like. I'm sure something like I describe must exist, but we don't know what it is called or where to get it. Please help. Internet: pete@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!cssc-syd!pete Snail: 1/18-20 Orion Road, Lane Cove NSW 2066 Australia Phone: +61 2 911 3130 [Moderator's Note: A very secure (I suggest entirely foolproof) method for using callback modems would include the use of three-way calling on the lines. We all know that if the same modem is used to accept incoming calls and then dial back to the user there is always the possibility a hacker will simply sit on the line after the modem disconnects, wait until it goes off hook, simulate dial tone and seize the connection, thus defeating the security of calling back to only registered numbers. Likewise, hackers have gone so far as to find out the bank of numbers used for outcalls, dialed into them and sat there waiting for a modem to go off hook to make a call then fraudulently seized the line in the same way. The same line can be used in both directions in a secure and effective way to defeat hackers: simply have the line equipped with three-way calling from telco (not call waiting!) and make a hook flash the first part of any outgoing dialing string. Here is what will happen: The modem goes off hook and does ADTD! (or whatever is used to flash the hook) followed by a pause and the number to be dialed. If no one is holding the line on the other end waiting for the modem to go off hook, then the switch hook will be ignored and a fresh dial tone brought up -- there is no basis for a three way call. On the other hand, if someone *is* sitting there waiting to play tricks, then the hook flash will put that person on hold and provide fresh dial tone for a 'three-way' call ... of course, the calls will never get conferenced together, much to the hacker's chagrin ... and he can sit there on hold as long as he wants while the modem scoots around him on the three-way side to reach the registered user at the authorized number, using the 'consultation' feature of three-way calling rather than the 'conference' feature. Without three-way calling from telco on the line, flashing the hook will do nothing but put the call back where it was; but with three-way and a hook flash as the first command in every dialing string, never the hacker and outcalling modem shall meet. So forget about the two modems, one machine telling the other one what to do, etc. It isn't necessary. Just use existing features in the CO to hustle your hacker nemesis out of the way should he be parked there waiting for you. Can anyone tell me precisely why this would not be foolproof? PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 21:26:18 mst From: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org (David Dodell) Subject: Information Wanted on Westel I am considering signing up with a company called "Westel" based out of Texas as my business long distance carrier. Anyone with any experience with this company? David Internet: ddodell@stjhmc.fidonet.org FAX: +1 (602) 451-1165 Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD FidoNet=> 1:114/15 Amateur Packet ax25: wb7tpy@wb7tpy.az.usa.na ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 10:07:00 +0000 From: Henry (H.W.) Troup Subject: Any Cordless Phones With Calling Number ID? I'd like to have a cordless phone with calling number ID for when I'm out in the garden, etc. Are there any yet? I expect it'd be expensive. Henry Troup - HWT@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions ------------------------------ From: Lance Ellinghouse Subject: Wireless Phones That Work With Computers Around Organization: Mark V Systems Limited, Encino, Ca. Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 14:54:16 GMT Does anyone know of any good quality wireless phones that will work reliably around 40+ PC's and Workstations??? I have been told that there are NONE that will do this. Please tell me I am wrong. Thank you, Lance Ellinghouse lance@markv.com ------------------------------ From: johnh@countach.telcom.tek.com (John A. Hammond) Subject: Looking For TTD Specifications Date: 18 Jul 92 23:44:32 GMT Reply-To: johnh@countach.telcom.tek.com (John A. Hammond) Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Hi, I am looking for the specifications for TTD, the (no flames please) Baudot code format for terminals used by deaf people. In particular, I need the mark/space frequencies and bit timing. Please e-mail replies. Thanks in advance, John Hammond ------------------------------ From: Nigel.Allen@lambada.oit.unc.edu Subject: Statement by NCTA President on FCC Video Dialtone Proceeding Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 22:53:28 EDT Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto Here is a press release from the National Cable Television Association. I pass it on without any additional comment. Statement by NCTA President on FCC Video Dialtone Proceeding Contact: Peggy Laramie of the National Cable Television Association, 202-775-3629 WASHINGTON, July 16 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement by National Cable Television Association President and CEO James P. Mooney on the FCC video dialtone proceeding: "When you cut through all the technical ballyhoo, this is a kind of half-step toward encouraging phone companies to build a lot of hugely expensive TV plant, with telephone customers financing the investment. The other half-step belongs to Congress; whether they'll take it remains to be seen." ------------------------------ From: cavrak@emba-news.uvm.edu (Steve Cavrak) Subject: x.25 Packet Rates - Sample Rates Wanted Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 10:37:00 GMT The local phone company would like us to begin using x.25 service for some of our telecom services (including an educator "bbs") and quotes a packet charge ($0.70 / kilopacket) that seems "uneconomical." What are rates for kilopackets elsewhere in the country? Are there any experiences with using x.25 service for BBS support? Please reply to me directly and I'll post a summary in a week or so. Thanks, Steve ------------------------------ From: tstark@netcom.com (Timothy Stark) Subject: Wanted: Two-Line Controller Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 18:29:25 PDT I am looking for a two-line controller because I have two lines and one single-line TDD machine. I prefer that the device handle incoming calls from either of two lines and out-going calls on desired line. Does anyone have information about it? If so, please include company name and phone number (order phone number). Thanks! Timothy Stark Internet: tstark@netcom.com 837 North Van Dorn St GENIE: T.STARK1 Alexandria, Va. 22304-2723 TDD Phone Number: (703) 212-9731 [Moderator's Note: Is Radio Shack still producing/selling theirs? PAT] ------------------------------ From: tstark@netcom.com (Timothy Stark) Subject: Caller*ID Device: Name Delivery System Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 18:35:44 PDT Last week I went to a Sears store and I found the Caller*ID 370 system that allows name display instead of number or both. I called C&P Telephone Company; they have no information about that but said that it is illegal in the area. Then, I called the Bell Altantic Catalog Department and found out information. They told me that they know about the service and C&P Telephone anticipates they will have it in two years. It is being tested in California but all phone companies have not set date for it. What do you think? Any suggestions? I need that because I want to keep myself from getting prank calls, unknown random numbers, etc. Thanks! Timothy Stark Internet: tstark@netcom.com 837 North Van Dorn St GENIE: T.STARK1 Alexandria, Va. 22304-2723 TDD Phone Number: (703) 212-9731 [Moderator's Note: A Caller-ID device which said John Doe was calling would be of less value than one which gave a specific number if you have no idea who John Doe is. At least with the number displayed, you have some recourse to the telephone subscriber. People keep talking about Caller-ID as a way to screen or avoid answering unwanted calls, and they base their complaints about Caller-ID on the shortcomings they find in their perception of the purpose of number delivery. If they would realize the primary purpose is to identify and provide recourse to the subscriber of the calling telephone -- the person who legally remains responsible for the uses made of the instrument -- and only secondarily as a way to avoid unwanted calls, I suspect there would be fewer complaints. Clue: you continue answering all calls as you do now (or diverting to answering machine, etc) ... and if you don't like what you hear, the caller no longer has the comfort of hiding behind the phone. That's Caller-ID, period: the inability of callers to remain anonymous. Names are okay; numbers much better. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 02:27:52 EDT From: David Leibold Subject: Caution: Men at Retirement A story that probably came from the {Boston Globe} and as reported in {The Globe and Mail} told the story of a sign warning motorists of "Fat Telephone Workers Ahead". The sign was made by a telephone crew member named Mike Koczat to send off a retiring co-worker in style. However, the sign tends to get motorists slowing down out of curiosity whenever it is used. Perhaps there is safety in humours ... dleibold@vm1.yorku.ca dleibold1@attmail.com ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #568 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07531; 20 Jul 92 0:12 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00686 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 19 Jul 1992 22:26:51 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25958 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 19 Jul 1992 22:26:43 -0500 Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 22:26:43 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207200326.AA25958@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #571 TELECOM Digest Sun, 19 Jul 92 22:26:35 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 571 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telephone Keypad Question (Tony Harminc) Re: Telephone Keypad Question (Steve Forrette) Re: Telephone Keypad Question (Gordon Burditt) Re: Leap Seconds and Telco Time-of-Day Accuracy (Bruce Albrecht) Re: Leap Seconds and Telco Time-of-Day Accuracy (Jon Baker) Re: SWBell Marketing Voice Mail (Peter da Silva) Re: 911 Circuitry Can Detect 91 (Carl Moore) Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach (Steve Forrette) Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach (Carl Moore) Re: Detroit Area 313 to Split (Carl Moore) Re: Overseas AT&T Calling Card (David M. Miller) Re: AT&T Voicemark (Jeffrey J. Carpenter) Re: Fixed Call Forwarding (Dave Levenson) Re: Telephone Vanity Plates? (Bob Blackshaw) Re: Godwin Speaks Out ... (John R. Levine) Re: European Phone in Canada? (Herman R. Silbiger) Re: "Telephone Scrambler" Plans Available (Bruce Ferrell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 16:46:05 EDT From: Tony Harminc Subject: Re: Telephone Keypad Question dcheenne@unlinfo.unl.edu (Dominique J. Cheenne) wrote: > Why are the letters "Q" and "Z" missing from the telephone keypad? > [Moderator's Note: Telephone numbers do not usually begin with '1', > and having the letters /ABC/ there would have effectively precluded > them from being the starting letter in an exchange name, back when > telco officially used words to identify central offices. In order to > keep the zero available as a single digit way to reach the operator, > letters were not used there either. Imagine life with no AVEnue, > AUStin, BIShop, BOUlevard, CIRcle, CAThedral or COLumbus ... Since > only eight digits are left, two letters had to be elimininated, with > /QZ/ least likely to be needed. Imagine life without QUAyle ... PAT] I have several Northern Electric (now Northern Telecom) 300 series sets (made under licence from Western Electric in the US in the 1940s) with QZ (and "Operator") on the zero hole. Tony H. ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: Telephone Keypad Question Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1992 22:24:55 GMT I've noticed that some phone manufacturers (seen mostly on cheaper models and COCOTS) now label the 1 key with "QZ". However, many voice processing applications, such as Octel voicemail, tell you to "use 7 for Q, and 9 for Z." Considering that there are differing opinions as to where Q and Z should be mapped for those applications that need them, it seems unwise to label them at all on the keys. Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ From: gordon@sneaky.lonestar.org (Gordon Burditt) Subject: Re: Telephone Keypad Question Organization: Gordon Burditt Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 06:01:37 GMT > /QZ/ least likely to be needed. Imagine life without QUAyle ... PAT] That's 'QUAyl'. Dan Quayl donated his 'e' to the potatoe. Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 10:13:40 CST From: bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht) Subject: Re: Leap Seconds and Telco Time-of-Day Accuracy In , Paul Eggert writes: > In comp.protocols.time.ntp <208@visicom.com>, Jeff Makey reports that > Pacific Bell's time-of-day service in San Diego adjusted for the June > 30 leap second sometime between 28 and 53 minutes late. (Since they > hang up after reporting the time, it was impractical for him to > determine the exact moment of switchover.) This suggests that PacBell > adjusts their time-of-day clock manually rather than relying on an > automated system linked to WWV. And it brings up more general > questions: > How accurate is the time-of-day reported by PacBell, GTE, etc.? When I was in college (Grinnell, IA, 1975-1979), GTE's time of day was off by two minutes(!!!) for the entire daylights savings time season. bruce@zuhause.mn.org ------------------------------ From: bakerj@gtephx.UUCP (Jon Baker) Subject: Re: Leap Seconds and Telco Time-of-Day Accuracy Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 15:01:15 GMT In article , eggert@farside.twinsun.com (Paul Eggert) writes: > Surely accurate timekeeping is important within the telco switches for > performance and accounting reasons. Surely it is ... > How are times within the switches synchronized to the times reported > to the public? I suspect not at all. The time-of-day reporting system you describe is an outboard box, completely independent of the telephone switching system. You call a number, you're connected to this box, it states the time, and that's it. In the GTD5, the time-of-day is synchronized to the network clocking signal. This signal, which is used to clock all PCM traffic through the switch, is typically obtained from an External Clock Synchronization Source (a T1 span to an adjacent higher-order office). All the CO's in a network are, in theory, synchronized to each other, with the master timing source coming from the Grand Master Of Clocks in Hillsboro (?), Missouri. If anyone knows more about this Grandaddy of clocks, I'd be interested to hear about it. I believe that MCI and the US Navy also operate similar 'Master Clocks'. The time-of-day, as you state, is used for billing and other purposes. It is accurate to within +/- 15 seconds per day. But, it has no relation to the recorded announcement. Jon Baker (bakerj@gtephx) UUCP: !enuucp!gtephx!bakerj ------------------------------ From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: SWBell Marketing Voice Mail Organization: Taronga Park BBS Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 01:56:18 GMT In article GHADSAL@AMERICAN.EDU writes: > We may thank Judge Harold Greene for this and *more*. In his last > year's decision (forced decision) Judge Greene finally is allowing the > RBOCs to participate in the National Information Services Industries. God help us all, because nobody on the ground will. This will put existing non-RBOC service providers out of business, and (based on the quality of service Southwestern Bell has come up with in the past ... a Minitel based information services system that makes Prodigy look like Usenet) reduce the available quality and variety of services available to the public. The RBOCs should be restricted to providing services for which they can demonstrate are a natural monopoly and for which no third party alternative can be expected, like Caller-ID, instead of crap like "Voice Mail" which has been available from third parties for years. Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 9:58:39 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 911 Circuitry Can Detect 91 Some phone books do list non-emergency numbers, and I take them to be for matters which should get police attention but are not as urgent. ------------------------------ From: stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) Subject: Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 08:50:40 GMT In article peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article hpa@nwu.edu (H. Peter Anvin) > writes: >> A dedicated country code would probably be the best, especially from >> an international standpoint. Otherwise, maybe we have found a use for >> the 600 area code. > No, the best would be to abandon the fixed-length phone number. Other > countries don't have them, having benefited from the U.S. being the > pioneers in this instance. The problem with this solution is that the modifications to telco switches, private PBXs, etc., would be non-trivial. I mean, it would take at least a couple of years, right folks? :-) Steve Forrette, stevef@wrq.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 10:11:30 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: 700 Easyreach Service Should be Called Hard to Reach 500 and 600 are among the N00 listed as available as last resort if needed before 1995 as geographical area codes. Relief to area code shortage is to come in 1995 when area codes generalize to NXX; the delay is due to the need to reprogram all switches to accept such area codes. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 11:01:14 EDT From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: Detroit Area 313 to Split The 10 August 1994 date is only about five months before the deadline for being ready for area codes of form NXX. That deadline had been July 1, 1995 but was moved to six months earlier (Jan. 1, 1995). Of the N0X/N1X area codes (excluding 610,710,N00,N11), now only 910 is not either in use or announced for future use. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Overseas AT&T Calling Card Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 03:35:46 -0500 From: dmiller@elli.une.edu.au The Australian OTC ("Overseas Telecommunications Commission") offers what it calls "OTC CallCard" in conjunction with AT&T. Works as normal in the States, while callers from Australia or any other country offering the USA Direct service may dial an international toll-free number for connection to an AT&T operator. Charge is approximatly A$2.20/minute if I remember correctly. To obtain information, you can ring OTC Sydney on (US) 800-332-2682. Best regards, David M Miller Internet: dmiller@loki.une.edu.au PO Box 695 CompuServe: 100032,341 Hornsby NSW 2077 GEnie: D.MILLER3@GENIE Australia ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 14:05:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeffrey J. Carpenter Subject: Re: AT&T Voicemark Excerpts from netnews.comp.dcom.telecom: 15-Jul-92 AT&T Voicemark Ken Jongsma@esseye.si.co: > I had an occasion to use AT&T Voicemark (The store and forward message > service) the other morning. First, a kudo ... > Please add the ability to send the same message to multiple numbers. > it's a drag having to rerecord the same message. This can be done, but you cannot do it automatically. You need to enter the sequence in to bring an operator on the line to assist you (I can't remember the sequence off the top of my head), but they can add additional numbers on for you. jeff ------------------------------ From: dave@westmark.com (Dave Levenson) Subject: Re: Fixed Call Forwarding Organization: Westmark, Inc. Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 16:51:20 GMT In article , francois%tollys.UUCP% bnrmtl.UUCP@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU (F Truchon) writes: > Concerning telco voice mail: > The one advantage that I get from subscribing to my telco's voice mail > service rather then forwarding to my voice mail at work (if I could) > is that the dial tone changes on my phone when I have messages. This > is like the flashing LED on answering machines. You can quickly check > if you have messages by listening to the dial tone rather than having > to dial the voice mail number and to log in. But don't forget the infinite series that results: You go off-hook to listen for dial-tone. You hear steady tone for a second or two, indicating that at the time you went off-hook, there were no messages waiting. You go back on-hook, secure in the knowlege that you don't have to call anybody back right now ... But while you were off-hook checking, somebody called, and by the time you were finished checking, and back on-hook, they had been forwarded to the telco voice mail system (because your line was busy). They leave a message, but you were finished checking by the time they were finished recording it. You must pick up again, after a minute or so, to see if anybody left a message while you were checking for messages. And of course, the same thing could happen during your next check-for-messages! The light on your answering machine, or on your telephone if it could be activated by the telco's voice mail service, would seem to be a better idea. You can check it (by looking at it) without missing another call in the process. To use their service correctly, you must go off-hook at least once after every conversation, to see if a call arrived while your were busy. This means that for every call you place or receive, you must go off-hook at least two times -- once to make the call itself, and a second time, to see if you missed a call while you were busy. This approximately doubles the number of dial-tone registers required to serve your community. That expense, of course, is partially offset by the service charge imposed on the users of their voice mail service. It is also partially imposed on all users of their basic telephone service. I don't consider that an advantage. Dave Levenson Internet: dave@westmark.com Westmark, Inc. UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908 647 6857 ------------------------------ From: cos!bob1@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Blackshaw) Subject: Re: Telephone Vanity Plates? Organization: Corporation for Open Systems Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 20:38:47 GMT In Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe. COM> writes: > Did you know that the State of New Jersey issues special vanity > license plates for "Telephone Pioneers?" Am I the only one that > didn't? I spotted one on a car in a Mahwah, New Jersey, parking lot > today. The plates have a "PA" prefix and sport a Telephone Pioneers > of America logo with the familiar bell in the middle. > What'll they think of next? First Bell-Shaped-Heads, now Bell-Shaped > license plates. ;) Maryland does this also, except it is TPAnnnn, with telephone pioneers of America across the bottom. As a life member, I thought about it, but why spend the money. Bob ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Godwin Speaks Out ... Organization: I.E.C.C. Date: 19 Jul 92 17:26:02 EDT (Sun) From: johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) > Well Mike, you had me leaning towards your side until I read the 13 > July edition of {ComputerWorld}, specifically the article "Wiretap > snares alleged hackers". In that article, you state: > "This whole indictment could very well be an attempt to frame some > people who the authorities believe glorify hacking." > This sounds like a sensationalist defense strategy to me Mike. Mike isn't the only one who thinks so. The current issue of the RISKS Digest contains a long piece quoted (legally) from {Newsbytes} and written by two people familiar with the case and with the individuals involved. While they agree that there are straighforward charges that the people involved commited calling card fraud and other crimes, they are very concerned about a large and vague conspiracy charge which seems to be very poorly supported. The authors contend that the conspiracy charge appears politically motivated, in particular to support the FBI's current campaign to make phone systems easy to tap. Anyone interested should read the original. Now can we stop calling each other names and get back to phone phun? Perhaps we can encourage our hard-working Moderator to set an example by in the future not posting personal attacks either from others or from himself. I've found this policy quite successful in comp.compilers, the group that I moderate. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl [Moderator's Note: Mike Godwin has since complained that he did NOT say the thing attributed to him ... and in fact he repudiated it. But you say you *do* feel that way? An LDM (Latter-Day McCarthyite) will take your statement to the Committee shortly. :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 19:39:24 EDT From: hsilbiger@attmail.att.com (Herman R Silbiger) Subject: Re: European Phone in Canada? Organization: AT&T In article , lancelot@Mais.Hydro.Qc.CA (Christian Doucet) writes: > My sister bought a phone in Amsterdam and it somewhat looks like a > 2500 set. She want's to use it here in Canada because it has this > "oldish European look" :). It has a DTMF keypad on it. > Will this phone work in Canada? > Will the DTMF keypad work in Canada? > How to wire it? The phone will work in Canada. I am not sure about the connections, but I would get a modular cord with spade lugs at one end (Radio Shack has them, and try a and b, a and EB, and b and EB in turn, using the red and green from the modular cord. I was in one of the Primafoon stores in the Netherlands, which are operated by Netherlands PTT Telecom. They had more than 30 different models on display, including some candy apple colors. All the phones on display had RJ-11 connectors. Herman Silbiger ------------------------------ From: rbf@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Bruce Ferrell) Subject: Re: "Telephone Scrambler" Plans Available Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix, Sacramento, Ca. Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 04:02:49 GMT You're partially right ... IF the cellular industry had engineers there might be the kind of advances you want. Right now what passes for an engineer in cellular (and most alternative long distance) is really a project engineer. AT&T seems to be the exception as they do engage in research and development. The rest only test and evaluate the products of the equipment manufacturers to be sure they can use it AND still make a profit. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #571 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27324; 20 Jul 92 9:12 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19143 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 20 Jul 1992 07:10:03 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24897 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 20 Jul 1992 07:09:55 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 07:09:55 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207201209.AA24897@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #572 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jul 92 07:10:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 572 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: What is ESN? (Vance Shipley) Re: What is ESN? (Alan L. Varney) Re: Airfone System Overload (Gordon Hlavenka) Re: Way Cool MCI Mail Binary File Handling (Bruce Ferrell) Re: Payphones With Bogus DTMF Tones? (Alan Boritz) Re: Surprise Calling Card Fraud: Followup (Scott Colbath) Re: AT&T Automated Rate Information (Rudolph T. Maceyko) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Phil Wherry) Re: Cracker Running Rampant! (Roger Gonzalez) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: vances@xenitec.on.ca (Vance Shipley) Subject: Re: What is ESN? Organization: SwitchView Inc., Waterloo, Ontario Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 03:34:41 GMT In article cmoore@BRL.MIL (VLD/VMB) writes: > I noticed a listing for Bell-Northern Research in Richardson, Texas > (near Dallas) on the 214-684 prefix, and followed by a 7D number > prefixed with "ESN". What is ESN? "Electronic Switched Network", both a Meridian PBX feature package name and the name used to describe the Northern Telecom/BNR private switched telephone network. Typically each PBX has a three digit location code. A seven digit ESN number would be LOC-XXXX where LOC is the location code specifying which PBX and XXXX is the directory number on that switch. It is only valid within the ESN network. Vance Shipley vances@xenitec.on.ca vances@ltg.uucp ..uunet.ca!xenitec!vances ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 20:51:52 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: What is ESN? Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL In article francois%tollys.UUCP% bnrmtl.UUCP@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU (F Truchon) writes: > ESN is an acronym for "Electronic Switched Network". In this context, > it simply refers to NT/BNR's corporate voice network. Basically, a > telephone network is implemented by leasing voice trunks between the > Meridian 1 (SL1) PBX's at various locations. I believe that the first > two or three digits of an ESN telephone number refer to a particular > PBX (same as for public networks). > Is ESN a standard name for corporate voice networks or is it only used > with NT's Meridian 1 PBX? Don't know, but if it's just BNR's, won't the lawyers be upset that you didn't use the (trademark/servicemark) symbol? For years, AT&T had several "corporate" networks, each with it's own purpose, funding and connectivity. On the manufacturing/research side, there was "CORNET", a "Hardware-defined network" using seven-digit access numbers to reach almost anywhere. The "NXX" digits usually defined a location, and the last four digits typically matched the extension. In some cases, an off-premises extension would be used to extend a number to a remote location. This was often used to provide CORNET lines to Western Electric CO installations, since installers were not allowed to use the CO telephones (One Bell System, ya' know?). Most TELCos also had their own "network", and so did the Operations part of the Long Distance service. But you couldn't call between them. Several other large companies used versions of CORNET long before 1984 changed the business. I don't believe any are left, since things like SDN (Software Defined Network) are more flexible, and have better real-time controls and data collection. Why, you might wonder, would "The Phone Company" want a private network when they OWNED the network? It's simple -- CORNET allowed AT&T to easily restrict most telephones from making non-business calls. This prevented (they say) lots of abuse, at least by the non-management employees. Having "9" unblocked on your telephone was a "power" symbol at many factories. Since most telephones factory telephones were black, dial-pulse beauties, a common "lock" was a physical lock in the "9" hole of the dial, preventing "9" or "0" calls. "8" usually got you to CORNET, others were internal. As usual, the legal/regulatory area also made itself felt. CORNET could be justified because it prevented those abuses that might have otherwise required lots of record-keeping and justification of every call made by AT&T -- just to be sure AT&T wasn't "giving away" personal calls as a benefit. And, of course, it also allowed AT&T to concentrate on providing GREAT service to it's paying customers, and fixing the CORNET problems when there was time available ... Al Varney -- just MY memories ... and opinions. ------------------------------ From: cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (gordon hlavenka) Subject: Re: Airfone System Overload Organization: Vpnet Public Access Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 22:19:50 GMT > during the delay, I reached for the GTE Airfone built into the seat in > front of me. I waited for the green LED to come on before proceeding. > It wasn't coming on. Eventually it did illuminate, but it was gone > again before I could get my credit card through the magnetic reader. I > assume with all those planes grounded on the runway in addition to > those in the air that could not land, the call traffic was more than > the system could handle. One lady who managed to get her card through > the reader and dial a number heard a message stating that all circuits > were busy and to please wait. This message repeated at regular > intervals. She waited about half an hour before finally giving up. As the guy who designed that seatback phone for GTE, I think I can answer this for you. (GTE "restructured" me out of the company a few years ago, and I'm now employed by "the other" ATG phone carrier, In-Flight Phone Corp. Look for us on USAir 757s.) (But I'm on the General Aviation side, not Commercial, so if it eats your dime, don't flame _me_ :-) The aircraft itself has a maximum capacity of (4) phone calls. This is a limitation imposed by the amount of radio equipment carried onboard. It takes about two lineal feet of shelf space in the equipment bay to handle those four calls. They may decide to double-install some high volume aircraft, but they didn't do so while I was there. Real estate in the equipment bay is SCARCE. There are four cabin trunks available to connect handsets to the onboard switching computer (called the ACU). If all these trunks are in use, the green LED on your handset will not illuminate -- in fact the handset is not even powered up at this point. (The cordless GTE system can have as many as eight phones in the cabin, and they can all connect to the ACU. But you can still only have four radios -- four calls per aircraft.) When the green LED comes on, this indicates that a cabin trunk is available. You can seize this trunk by running your credit card through the handset. If 20 people all pick up their handsets at the same time, they will all get green lights. The first four to swipe their cards through will connect to the ACU, and everybody else's LEDs will go out. When one of the four hangs up (in the holder, not just by pressing NEWCALL) all 16 of those LEDs come back on and you can all race for the trunk. If you listen to the handset while waiting for the LED to come on, you'll hear a "beep-beep-beep-beep" signal. When the beeps stop, your LED is on! Once you are connected to the ACU your credit card is checked and (if it's a valid card) you are issued either a dialtone or a message indicating "all lines busy." The ALB message means that your ACU is unable to open a channel to the ground station. This could be because the ground station's 31 (max) channels are all in use, or because your aircraft has fewer than four radios installed, and those that are installed are in use. Three years ago, very few ground stations were fully stuffed out to 31 channels. > On a side note, I'd be interested in seeing a study showing > how much extra Airfone revenue is generated for the airlines when > there are delays versus flights that are on time (why be on time when > you can make extra money by being late?). I only know that call volume went up a _lot_ when there was a weather problem. I'm sure that made (makes!) certain non-travelling people very happy! :-) And yes, the airline gets a cut of the call revenue. But I doubt it's enough to make up for the aggravation caused by a delay. ********** Important note ********** I hold no grudge against GTE for canning me on five seconds notice. (Well, maybe a little ;-) I will not respond to requests for details on the operation of their system. Besides, it will all be obsolete in a couple of months when they deploy Genstar. Right. Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us ------------------------------ From: rbf@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Bruce Ferrell) Subject: Re: Way Cool MCI Mail Binary File Handling Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix, Sacramento, Ca. Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 03:56:42 GMT In article 72446.461@CompuServe.COM (Alan Boritz) writes: > johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: >> MCI Mail has recently upgraded their support for binary files in >> messages. They have long allowed you to send and receive binary >> message segments, but only through the batch X.PC interface used by >> programs like Lotus Express and Norton Desktop. > "x.pc" is not a batch interface. It's a link-level protocol that > supports multiple logical sessions and only works with Tymnet's x.pc > servers. Chuck Forsberg, author of Professional Yam, and DSZ, wrote a > special version of ProYam that will talk to Tymnet's x.pc. The only > implication of using x.pc is multiple connect time charges (when > connected to more than one port on a host that charges for connect > time), but it has no binary file transfer cabability by itself. The protocol that MCI Mail uses for batching is called MEP2. That's all I've ever been able to find out about it. If any one knows more ... I'm all ears. The times I've tried to contact MCI Mail for information, I've gotten the equivelent of a blank stare. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 92 07:30:12 EDT From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Payphones With Bogus DTMF Tones? 72446.461@CompuServe.COM (Alan Boritz) writes: > Don't bet on it. I couldn't complete an AT&T calling card call to a > number in Missouri from a LEC's pay phone at a service plaza on I-80 > in Indiana (ITC was grabbing the 0+ and 1+ calls). > I guess some parts of the country are not as important as others, > as far as AT&T's potential calling card business is concerned. (I > finally completed the call using MCI with MCI's ENFIA access.) > [Moderator Banging Head Against the Wall: Now I have heard everything! > Did you get the name or title of this so-called 'marketing person'? I > would have immediatly tried to reach the office manager wherever she > was located and urge that she be pulled off the phones until she had > been through some sort of training class. Oh, I'm used to this kind of nonsense from AT&T people. The last time I took the trouble of memorializing a bell-shaped person's name was when I was doing a market survey in preparation for a new switch at the Empire State Building, to replace an old tired Horizon-advanced. When I explained to our marketing person that I wanted switch diagnostics, including trunk group busy peg counts (we were grossly over-trunked, typical for a NY Tel-engineered leased PBX), she replied, "What's a peg count?" She was lost by the time we got to "busy studies." I never got specs on whatever small-to-medium size switch AT&T was trying to push on (presumably) inexperienced business customers. However, after they later left us with no service for three days (power supply failure, and they hadn't backed up the configuration tapes in over three years) I wouldn't have specified AT&T product anyway. > Let me ask, do any of the AT&T readers here become embarrassed by > some of the stupid things their co-workers say to or pass off on the > public? PAT] What about when AT&T announced that they were discontinuing the System 85, and then followed it up with a denial that that would ever happen? One of my former City of New York co-workers has copies of both releases, right from the source. The trade media has been suggesting for some time (when they don't fall for phony press releases) that AT&T is getting out of the interconnect business. Could the horrendous service and inevitable hostile escalation be because they're already accepted that fate, or is it a symptom of incompetent management? Perhaps it may be more topical instead of trading "stupid AT&T jokes" to ask, "what smart business does AT&T conduct that makes their incompetence at least tolerable?" Alan Boritz 72446.461@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: scol@scottsdale.az.stratus.com (Scott Colbath) Subject: Re: Surprise Calling Card Fraud: Followup Date: 19 Jul 92 20:35:58 GMT In article schuldy@progress.COM (Mark Schuldenfrei) writes: > Best of luck to AT&T's stockholders, however, it seems that the > fraud unit is willing to write off $1000 dollars at a time. So if the bill was one thousand dollars, what would the actual cost be to AT&T for the services they provided? Just curious :) Scott Colbath Stratus Computer Phoenix, Az. (602) 852-3106 Internet:scott_colbath@az.stratus.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 02:38:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Rudolph T Maceyko Organization: University of Pittsburgh Subject: Re: AT&T Automated Rate Information In article jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma) writes: > I was in the Little Rock airport the other day and noticed something > interesting: The AT&T Darth Vader phones (old CRT style) had a small > sticker on them that said "For free AT&T rate info, Dial 0 + AC + > number + 0". > Well, you can't do that. These phones capture the number and kill the > dial after 0 + AC + number. They then outpulse the number with the > receiver muted. When the "bong" occurs, you can dial 0, but that just > gets you the AT&T operator. I expected something more automated. > Anyone know why these phones are stickered this way? I was recently at the University of Maryland and had the fortunate experience of using one of their dorm phones. It was an AT&T 2500-ish black set, and had probably the same sticker on the bottom, and it was wrong, too. But the weirdest thing about the U of Md telephone system is ... "Dial 34567 for an AT&T Operator." They suggested using 800 numbers to access other IXC's. Rudy Maceyko or Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA ------------------------------ From: psw@vibes.mitre.org (Phil Wherry) Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) Reply-To: psw@vibes.mitre.org (Phil Wherry) Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 12:51:28 GMT For whatever it's worth, GTE Sprint _does_ do the sort of geographic checking that has been discussed here: a call originating from point "A" closely followed by one from point "B" (where A and B are physically distant) will send up a red flag. An associate had three or four people sharing a single account from locations across the country; Sprint kept cutting their access off because of this geographic checking. Despite his best efforts, he was unable to get Sprint to prevent this from happening automatically. (In this case, I have to side with Sprint; he had too many people using the same number to have any real control over the account.) He eventually bit the bullet and got a bunch of separate cards. Phillip Wherry Member of the Technical Staff The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA psw@mitre.org ------------------------------ From: rg@msel.unh.edu (Roger Gonzalez) Subject: Re: Cracker Running Rampant! Organization: UNH Marine Systems Engineering Lab Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 04:26:57 GMT Sounds like this system needs a complete wipe to me. There are too many dark corners in Unix and SunOS in which to hide back doors. Trying to chase down each separate hole will take (literally) forever, as he will open them as quickly as you close them. And that's probably what he wants. All the suid programs are him arming himself for a piecewise war. Pull the network, reinstall the OS, change every password, recompile every source-distributed binary. Its a serious hassle, but your friend's site screwed itself from the start by not enforcing security, and not responding on the first breakin. Roger Gonzalez - rg@msel.unh.edu Division of Bit Banging and Reluctant Robotics UNH Marine Systems Engineering Laboratory, Durham, NH 03824-3525 (603) 862-4600 -4399 (fax) ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #572 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29306; 20 Jul 92 10:02 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26872 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 20 Jul 1992 07:57:07 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07199 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 20 Jul 1992 07:57:00 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 07:57:00 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207201257.AA07199@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #573 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jul 92 07:57:00 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 573 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Going UP (John Higdon) Re: Going UP (John R. Levine) Re: St.Pierre and Miquelon (Charlie Mingo) Re: St.Pierre and Miquelon (Tom Hofmann) Re: St.Pierre and Miquelon (Mark Brader) Re: House Voice/Data Wiring Question (Andrew Klossner) Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor (Marc T. Kaufman) Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor (Ang Peng Hwa) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 17:26 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: Going UP analyst@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes: > First of all, it is simply untrue that there is no quality on cable, > though by use of the word "entertainment" it's not clear what Higdon > wants. Just a few examples: > C-SPAN C-SPAN 2 Bravo Arts and Entertainment > HBO original movies CNN CNN Headline news. HIGDON responds: If you feel that twenty-four hours a day of legislative antics (C-SPAN), [Bravo: unfamiliar], the decline and fall of A&E, the very occasional HBO original offering (for an exhorbitant monthly fee), and twenty-four hours a day of sensationalist news coverage constitutes quality programming, then we have a matter over which honest men may differ. But the only reasons I respond to your post: > Third, fiber optic pipes into our homes will make data services, > highly sophisticated telephone services, interactive ordering and many > other thing available at low cost. Ah, yes. The promise of fiber. This is, of course, what the telcos wave in front of the bright-eyed masses when it wants to monopolize and control potentially money making businesses. Cable companies already have interactive ordering if you are willing to pay. If and when telcos find it advantageous to "wire" neighborhoods with fiber, it will be because they have a definite profitable motive. "Other" uses that may interest you will probably be priced out of existence. Please try to keep your feet on the ground and remember that if the telcos set up broadband data highways it will be for the purpose of selling you their own data services (which they alone control and originate), not so that you may communicate with others of your own choosing. > But such opposition is not in the public interest since they aren't > as technologically ready, nor have they the market base or cost > structure to provide such services as cheaply as the phone companies > can. And why can the phone companies do this so cheaply? There is no magic here; there is no "in place" plant (regarding fiber) that could be efficiently utilized. This is the old shell game regarding the telcos' vast capital reservoir: the regulated ratebase. But apparently you don't believe this: > Finally, cross subsidization can be trivially handled by the state > PUCs with proper rules and accounting procedures. There's evidence > this works -- look at the very low cost of Long Distance calls > compared to local calls in many cases, due to the removal of > cross-subsidization by the regulatory process. Thus the opponents' > biggest propaganda objection is just plain silly, and only the > gullible will fall for it. It would seem that you have not looked very deeply into this topic. Such naivete and simplification could only be the result of ignorance. The cost of long distance calls has nothing to do with anything; they are handled by separate companies from the telcos. In the case of LD handled by the telcos themselves, I invite you to examine California's intraLATA pricing structure. But as to other matters, telcos REGULARLY cross subsidize services to the detriment of competition. How do you suppose that Pac*Bell, for instance, can offer "The Message Center" for less than the cost of the special features alone required to support it? Magic? Voodoo? You bet it is. And it appears that you have fallen for the old "Arms Length" eyewash all the way. Perhaps before you continue to dismiss my diatribes with a wave of the hand, you might (as I have) dig a little into the industry and speak to some of the independent providers. And then you might look at some of the real figures and tariffs rather than parroting the RBOC handouts. If you are really interested in facts rather than fluff and propaganda, you might find out what some of the independents are REALLY worried about. So perhaps you can tell us just exactly how the telcos will install new equipment and technolgy over the next several decades so much more cheaply than anyone else? Perhaps you can tell us how the telcos pull money out of thin air without tapping the ratebase? Perhaps you can tell us about all the advantages of having major amounts of information originate from one source? Inquiring minds do indeed want to know. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Going UP Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 1:16:37 EDT From: John R. Levine > I don't fear telco monopolies as much as some seem to, and despite > your refutation of the LD carrier example, the principle is > unchanged -- PUCs can easily prevent cross-subsidisation. I fear you have an exaggerated idea of both the technical skill and the political muscle of most state PUCs. Preventing cross-subsidy is a very tricky business. For example, how do you allocate costs when a regulated and non-regulated operation share a facility? By floor space? Business volume? What if the two operations share a power system, the supply is very expensive because it's super reliable and non-interruptable, the non-regulated part doesn't really need that fancy a supply, but telco says it was easier (due to floor space limits or economies of scale) to get one big supply than two smaller ones. Or when they share repairmen? Or any of a thousand other things. A skilled team of accountants could eventually sort all this stuff out, but in nearly all cases regulation seems to consist of the PUC saying "Are you guys cross-subsidizing?" and telco saying "Nope, not us." The PUC in principle needs to audit every shared facility and every sale or transfer between the regulated and non-regulated side, and that is a tremendous amount of work. There's also the issue of whether regulated facilities are offered in a non-discriminatory way to all competitors, a separate and in some cases more important issue than cross-subsidy. For an example, voice mail is supposed to be a competitive business. Everyone agrees that Pac Bell's offering is junk. So where are the higher quality competitive offerings? According to lots of previous telecom messages, Pac Bell has made it extremely hard to get forward on no answer and stutter dialtone control, the two features that competitive voicemail needs. Somehow, they're only available in the COs where Pac Bell voicemail is needed, or they need special expensive interoffice trunks into every CO where there is a subscriber, or some such thing. And this doesn't even begin to address the question of whether the features are overpriced to kill the competition. Here in Massachusetts, telco offers voice mail (at $83/year, not exactly cheap) and you can't even order the separate features yet. This is competition? Local phone companies should be in the phone business. They should be busy providing CLASS* and nationally interoperable ISDN and inexpensive intra-lata packet nets. Instead they're doing cruddy voicemail and cruddier Minitel because they think there's more money in unregulated businesses where they can jack their prices up without limit, once they get rid of those pesky competitors. > Finally, cross subsidization can be trivially handled by the state > PUCs with proper rules and accounting procedures. There's evidence > this works -- look at the very low cost of Long Distance calls > compared to local calls in many cases, due to the removal of > cross-subsidization by the regulatory process. That's not a very good analogy -- there's a lot more than two long distance companies, and a long distance company doesn't have to run a wire to your house to sign you up as a customer. Furthermore, you'll note that local telcos are completely forbidden from competing in the long distance market so the subsidy issue is moot -- any subsidy would subsidize all long distance companies equally. If you look at the actual experience of local telcos in competitive markets, the experience is pretty awful. In places where telcos offer voice mail, for example, they do their best to bundle features and make them hard to order so that competitive voice mail systems don't stand a chance. Around here, you can't even order forward on no answer and remotely controlled stutter dialtone, so there's no competition at all for telco's voice mail other than to note that for what they charge you could buy and throw away an answering machine every 10 months or so (and it wouldn't mysteriously lose a week's worth of messages every now and then, either.) The local telco here is also offering a relabelled and rather expensive Minitel product with their "added value" being a yellow pages data base. Probably it'll lose money and fail like their earlier overpriced and underperforming on line service front end did (it ran at 1200 bps, no matter how fast your modem was,) the ratepayers will eat the loss, and telco will once again whine that the problem was overregulation, and they won't face up to the fact that the product was junk. In reality, I expect that what will really happen with cable is that the telcos will end up buying the cable companies in order to kill the only plausible source of dial tone competition. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.cambridge.ma.us, {spdcc|ima|world}!iecc!johnl * - well, all of the CLASS features except one, but let's not go into that. ------------------------------ From: Charlie.Mingo@p4218.f70.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 16:10:20 -0500 Subject: Re: St.Pierre and Miquelon On 7/18/92, clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) wrote: > [I don't know what DOM and TOM mean.] Mail, c'est tres simple: DOM = Department d'Outre-Mer, TOM = Territoire d'Outre-Mer. In France, a DOM is a regular department in the national system, but not attached to the 'hexagone' (just as Hawaii is a regular US state not attached to the 'Lower 48'). A TOM is an overseas possession, not unlike Puerto Rico or American Samoa. I think St. Pierre & Miquelon has been upgraded recently from TOM to DOM, as part of a fishing dispute with Canada over the Grand banks. ------------------------------ From: wtho@ciba-geigy.ch (Tom Hofmann) Subject: Re: St.Pierre and Miquelon Organization: Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Basel, Switzerland Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 07:02:47 GMT In article clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) writes: >[I don't know what DOM and TOM mean.] DOM = Departement outre mer (being considered part of the French republic) TOM = Territoire outre mer (not being considered part of the French republic) > Within mainland France, you dial ######## for the same system (Paris > or Provincial, or 16~######## for the other). From Provincial to Paris you dial 16~1########. From abroad you dial +331######## for Paris and +33######## for the rest of France. That's why the notation for Paris phone numbers is "(1) ##.##.##.##". > From Guadelope, numbers in St.Barthelems and St.Martin (both French > and Dutch parts) of the form 3##### can be dialed direct. The Information that I have says that Guadeloupe, St. Barthelemy, and St. Martin have the same country code +590. To call St. Maarten (Dutch part, country code +599-5) from +590 land you simply dial 3. Tom Hofmann wtho@ciba-geigy.ch ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 00:53 EDT Subject: Re: St.Pierre and Miquelon From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Reply-To: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader) Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada In volume 12 issue 567, Clive Feather (clive@x.co.uk) writes: > [I don't know what DOM and TOM mean.] Overseas Department and Overseas Territory, respectively. Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com [Moderator's Note: Thanks to Dave Albert (albert@das.harvard.edu) and Nigel Roberts (nigel@frsbfs.enet.dec.com) for providing the same answer in almost exactly the same words. PAT] ------------------------------ From: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) Subject: Re: House Voice/Data Wiring Question Date: 20 Jul 92 02:00:46 GMT Reply-To: andrew@frip.wv.tek.com Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon > "I'm having a house built and am going to put in extra wiring." I recently did the same. > "If my goal is to have some pairs connected to the BOC network > and others connected to my 10BASE-T network ..." STOP. 10BASE-T is not suitable for residential use, because it emits a boatload of EMI. (10BASE-T systems don't meet FCC class B.) If you operate a 10BASE-T network, there's a good chance your TV will be useless, and your neighbors' sets might also be impacted. FCC rules say that it's your responsibility to limit EMI, so you could find yourself forbidden to operate this network. I addressed this problem by running a 10BASE-2 COAX cable throughout my house. I also ran three-pair cable to each of 52 boxes, where I'm mounting two-jack outlets. All cables are "home-runned", i.e., everything connects directly to the wire closet where I have a panel of punchdown blocks. I figure you can't have too much copper in a house. Andrew Klossner (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew) ------------------------------ From: kaufman@xenon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) Subject: Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA Date: 20 Jul 92 03:06:36 GMT elr%trintex@uunet.UU.NET (Unix Guru-in-Training) writes: > One of the early studies which found a correlation between childhood > leukemia and electromagnetic field emissions was done on some suburban > development -- nearly all the leukemia cases happened in houses that > were immediately near the step-down transformer on the utility poles > in the area. For that neighborhood, the step-down transformers were > located on the corners of street intersection. Hence it's not a case > of different income classes or any of the other factors suggested by > other posters. I suppose it's too much to suggest that the other common factor of pole transformers in the 60's and earlier was PCB transformer oil. PCBs are a known carcinogen. > One testimony I heard (all in well-reasoned tones by various > scientists who were discussing EMF at a public hearing about a > water-supply construction project in my neighborhood) is that it's > clear that EMF can cause cell damage -- the question is what > frequencies and what power levels cause the problems. And its so much more exciting to blame cancer on things you can't see. > One of the topics examined by Brodeur was a street in Connecticut > where single family homes were located next to a high-powered > electrical substation (we're talking complete with giant transformers > and the like). Leukemia and brain tumors seemed to be the order of > the day for the residents on that street, as well as the residents > along the lines feeding the substation. Again, we're talking EMF > levels orders of magnitude higher than cellular phone output. And of course, this well controlled study took into account the fact that giant transformers are designed to keep their magnetic fields INSIDE the core, to minimize loss. And they probably also had PCBs in them. > I've read parts of Brodeur's series in the {New Yorker}, (the book is > called "Currents of Death") and he does document all his sources well > enough for any other interested parties to verify his conclusions. > Alas, he does run on and on and on in his writing, almost as bad as my > posting here. :-) True, true. I respectfully suggest that those people really concerned with powerline induced cancers move out to the country and disconnect from the electric utility. It is also known that EMF levels INSIDE houses is higher than EMF levels due to powerlines, primarily because you are so much closer to the radiator. I hope your next television is kerosene powered. Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 17:49:04 SST From: Ang Peng Hwa Subject: Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor Ed Ravin, after giving more details that support my earlier statement writes: > One testimony I had heard ... is that it's clear that EMF can cause cell > damage -- the question is what frequencies and what power levels cause > the problems. A distant relative of mine working at the US FDA says he conducted an experiment in which he found that small amounts of non-ionizing radiation was actually *good* for the body. 'Sort of like stress -- good in small amounts, bad in large. He said he presented a finding at some conference in New Orleans in 1990 or 1991. I've not heard anything about that from any other source. If that is true, it does complicate the issue further than Ravin points. It's what frequency, what level, what effect. ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #573 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02282; 20 Jul 92 23:40 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01445 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 20 Jul 1992 21:12:13 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10675 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 20 Jul 1992 21:12:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 21:12:05 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207210212.AA10675@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #574 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jul 92 21:12:07 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 574 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: FCC Modem Tax Rumor on Compu$erve (John Higdon) Re: FCC Modem Tax Rumor on Compu$erve (Adrienne Voorhis) Re: FCC Modem Tax Rumor on Compu$erve (Phil Howard) Re: Personal Identification (was The Depths of Sliminess) (Alan L. Varney) Re: DMS-100 Peculiarity - HELP!!! (Alan L. Varney) Re: KTLA 45th Anniversary Broadcast (Mike Morris) Re: Ground Wire on Network Interface? (Hans Ridder) Re: Phone Tap in Murder Case Ruled Illegal (Robert J. Woodhead) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 12:38 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: FCC Modem Tax Rumor on Compu$erve On Jul 19 at 12:19, TELECOM Moderator writes: > [Moderator's Note: Well, here we go again. Someone had better get on > the phone to CIS and ask them if they realize the problems caused by > the spreading of this report and their request for help ... unless it > really is true this time around. Hear! Hear! However, consider this: in today's climate of screwy regulation and de-regulation it would not be surprising at all to see the government on the one hand allowing the telcos entry into the information providing business and on the other allowing them to jack up rates to competitors. The telcos (RBOCs and independents) have always had a hand-in-glove relationship with the Feds and all those BBSes from Compu$erve on down make them just a little nervous. What better way to "institutionalize" the information that the public receives than to concentrate it in the hands of a highly-controllable monopoly? IMHO, the Bells are not the only ones that would like to see the BBSes bite the dust. I am sure the FBI for one is just a little tired of the chatter that goes on UNCONTROLLED every day on the thousands upon thousands of maverick computer systems. Look what damage just a few FAX machines did to the PR of the Chinese government. The Federal government has a serious "problem" here, and juggling the rate structure of the means of transmission could be a most effective tool in keeping the citizens in line. During a recent investigation to which I was a party, an FBI agent, after being told about USENET and the Internet, exclaimed, "You mean anyone can say anything he wants and there is no one controlling what goes out?" Without minimizing or excusing any crimes that might have been committed in the recent "MOD hacker" case, it is useful to note what a big deal the government has made about the fact that the investigation depended heavily upon "wiretaps" and that, fortunately in this case, all of the circuits monitored were analog. In other words, it appears that the inordinate hoopla surrounding this matter is designed to drum up support for the FBI-proposed legislation governing the tapability of digital networks. As telecom-knowledgable citizens we need to be aware not only of the "facts" of regulation or proposed regulation, but also of some of the motivation. On one of the "modem tax" go-rounds of times past, many on this and other forums offered a lot of justification why the telcos could and should charge users of modems more for telephone service than voice users. It was all bunk and those making such assertions were probably naive. But this is what we need to guard against: the playing into the hands of the manipulators. If there are massive changes to rate structures proposed, examine every aspect. Who will pay? Why? Who will benefit? Why? Who will be hurt the most? WHY? Social manipulation and (I really hate to use the word) oppression come gradually and with stealth. No one says, "We are now going to control the information you have access to." It is done through "well-meaning", but carefully plotted, relatively minor changes. You can bet that when and if there ever really IS a "modem tax", the public will have been pre-sold on its "necessity". Those not affected will not care; those affected will have been indoctrinated with all of the justifications. BTW, anyone out there still want to call me a "right-wing" radical? :-) John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: Adrienne Voorhis Subject: Re: FCC Modem Tax Rumor on Compu$erve Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 13:54:16 EDT In response to the latest modem tax rumor, Pat notes: > [Moderator's Note: Well, here we go again. Someone had better get on > the phone to CIS and ask them if they realize the problems caused by > the spreading of this report and their request for help ... unless it Gee, maybe the government really does have a long term plan to sneak in a modem tax by repeatedly issuing modem tax rumors until no one believes them anymore, then instituting one. ;-) Best Regards, Adrienne Voorhis (voorhis@aecom.yu.edu) Albert Einstein College of Medicine Bronx, New York (New home to 718) Disclaimer: Speaking personally; not for the school. ------------------------------ From: pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard) Subject: Re: FCC Modem Tax Rumor on Compu$erve Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 04:52:36 GMT Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) > [Moderator's Note: Well, here we go again. Someone had better get on > the phone to CIS and ask them if they realize the problems caused by > the spreading of this report and their request for help ... unless it > really is true this time around. Given the repetition this rumor has already had for so long, I would think the FCC probably would not be able to withstand the political fallout of actually trying to (finally) sneak it by. Phil Howard --- KA9WGN --- pdh@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jul 92 20:18:46 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: Personal Identification (was The Depths of Sliminess) Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL In article ggw@wolves.durham.nc.us writes: > Caller-ID will tell me if a caller from a properly equipped exchange > is at a particular number. It does not tell me *who* at that number > is calling. It helps, but not much. > It also does not cover situations where someone is calling from > somewhere else. It simply returns the number from wherever they are > calling. Once again, there is no way of knowing *who* is calling in > particular. > There are systems available that allow someone to give out special > codes so that "special" people can be identified by their dialing, but > these are not always available, .... About the only one that > works in any sort of universal fashion is the "distinctive ring" that > assigns multiple numbers to one pair and rings in different fashions, > but that is not universally available, and costs to bloody much for > most folks tastes. But then they call using BOTH numbers, ya' know ... There is one other thing that will work (for awhile), and is cheap and universally available. Just inform your selected callers (once you have Caller-ID available) that when calling from other than their normal telephone, they should call TWICE within a short period -- your short-term memory (or some device) will recognize the repeated number and answer the telephone. If that's too much trouble for the caller, then you probably didn't want to talk to them anyway; your time's valuable. You'll want to tell the local police, your bank, etc. as well. Of course, now that this has appeared in c.d.t, the Tele-slime know this, and will soon be calling you twice as often, even if you don't act on this suggestion ... > Saying that Caller-ID is the way to go is just to much of a "pat" > answer. Eeeuww, a PUN in c.d.t! Doesn't PJN have a copyright on them??? Al Varney -- just MY opinion [Moderator's Note: Nope, I hold the copyright on this. I license it to PJN and other moderators who pay my requested fee annually. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 22:37:41 CDT From: varney@ihlpf.att.com (Alan L Varney) Subject: Re: DMS-100 Peculiarity - HELP!!! Organization: AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL In article gavron@Spades.ACES.COM writes: > I'm in the process of moving to a new location in rural Tucson AZ > outskirts. ... > Here's what really ticks me off though. I used to be on a 1AESS and > now I'm on a DMS-100. My custom calling features are call-waiting** > and speed-dial 30. HOWEVER, I find the following peculiarities: > 1. If there is no call waiting call coming in > and I flash the switchhook, I get a SECOND > dialtone. However, I am unable to dial any > number on it since at the 4th digit I get a > fast busy signal. (It won't dial 2-digit > speed-dialed calls either). While I can't speak for BNR/NTI, I believe the DMS started life as a PBX -- at least that seems to explain a lot of non-obvious interactions. Anyway, a 1A ESS(tm) switch will only give dial tone when you are allowed to make a call -- if you aren't allowed to "flash" during a part of the call, you get non-flash timing and treatment. This saves switch resources (a concern back in the 60's and 70's), and allowed all lines without "features" to act (mostly) the way they did with X-bar/SXS switches. Like you, customers complained 20 years ago when that new-fangled #1 ESS acted differently than their "old" switch. On the other hand, the DMS always allows you to make a call (at least to 911, I believe), so it first handles the flash -- and then sends invalid calls to "Reorder (fast busy)". If you don't have three-way calling on the DMS, almost anything is invalid after a non-call-waiting flash. But almost any "bug" can be a feature -- you can dial "*70 - disable call waiting" on incoming calls, assuming you are allowed to dial it on outgoing calls. > 2. If I attempt to program speed dial via: > [dial tone] 75# [confirm tone + dial tone] nnNPA-NXXX, > wait then it fails (fast busy). > If I do the same but leave off the pound: > [dial tone] 75 and wait [confirm tone + dial tone] > nnNPA-NXXX, wait then it works! (Number programmed) You might try "*75" or "1175". The 1A ESS switch usually uses "#" to stop timing for more digits from a non-Centrex telephone. The DMS is somewhat more selective, but US West might be able to change "#" to an allowed digit after a "service code" like "75". In fact, only a few of the "7x" codes are grandfathered to operate without a leading "#" or "11" -- newer feature codes conflict with speed call digits, etc. > Number 2 is a nuisance, but as I rarely _program_ speed > calling numbers, I could live with it. However, number 1 > is a big hassle since I'm used to tapping the switchhook > and redialing a number very rapidly. Now I have to hold > it down and count One-Ringy-Dingy. ISDN phones don't use "flash", so you get immediate dial tone. Expensive, maybe, but we all have to trade-off cost vs. "hassles". You could always ask US West for the areas still served by your preferred switch ... > **This feature ought to be mandatory for everyone I ever call ... Maybe -- but I almost NEVER interrupt my current call to answer it. Do you really prefer "audible ring" to "busy tone"? Of course, the the 1A ESS "click" is a perfect excuse to end a bothersome call. With the DMS, callers just have to take your word that there's another call waiting. Al Varney -- just MY opinion ------------------------------ From: morris@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Mike Morris) Subject: Re: KTLA 45th Anniversary Broadcast Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 18:47:05 GMT barry@coyote.datalog.com (Barry Mishkind) writes: > A friend who comes from LA just asked about the 45th anniversary > program shown by KTLA ... > I'd like to acquire a dub of this tape to give him. He saw the writeup > in {Daily Variety} or {Hollywood Reporter}, and is drooling for a > chance to see it. > If anyone has access ... I remember seeing the 35th and 40th anniversary broadcasts on TV, but don't have them on tape. If anybody does, I'd be willing tp PAY for a set of the three. I've contacted a acquaintance at KTLA and he calims that they've had a number of queries, but have no plans on producing a tape, or letting anybody else do it. Mike Morris WA6ILQ PO Box 1130 Arcadia, CA. 91077 818-447-7052 evenings All opinions must be my own since nobody pays me enough to be their mouthpiece ... ------------------------------ From: Hans Ridder Subject: Re: Ground Wire on Network Interface? Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - DECwest Engineering Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1992 20:44:53 GMT In article Jim.Rees@umich.edu writes: > I assume that the protector block is now part of the network > interface. Yes. The network interface (NI) usually has a protector and a demarcation point ("demarc") in it. > What I don't understand is that there is no ground wire going in to the > network interface box. All my other protector blocks require a ground > for proper operation. There should be a ground wire going into the box somewhere. In the US, all "communications" type wires entering a building are required by "code" (NEC) to have lightning protection, and that requires a ground. Also, code requires that all these grounds, and your electrical service ground, *must* be electrically bonded together. It's the installers responsibility to intall the ground. They can't just drive a stake in somewhere handy and call that a ground. > There are two screw holes on the "customer" side of the box marked "G," > but these are just holes and don't have any conductors (or screws) in > them. There is no other obvious place to put a ground wire. > Should I connect up a ground wire somehow? I wouldn't. I'd get the phone company to do it. It's their responsibility. The ground wire usually connects to a lug or stud on the protector, which is hidden in the "telco" side of the NI. It's likely to be difficult to get at. > Should I install my own "old-fashioned" protector block in the > basement? I wouldn't. It isn't necessary, assuming the NI is properly wired. Hans-Gabriel Ridder Digital DECwest Engineering ridder@rust.zso.dec.com Bellevue, Washington, USA {pacbell,pyramid,uunet}!rust.zso.dec.com!ridder ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Phone Tap in Murder Case Ruled Illegal Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 01:51:20 GMT MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com writes: > [I can understand it being illegal to tap one's own phone, and also > that evidence received through government (police) misconduct should > be suppressed. It also makes sense to me that if you illegally tap > your phone, you shouldn't be able to profit from it, such as by using > the tapes in a civil suit. But if the government had no hand in > making the tape (didn't put you up to it, etc.), then the tape should > be usable in a criminal case. -- RCG] I believe the intent of the exclusion of such evidence is to prevent the old "Well, we (the government) can't tap the phone, but *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink* if someone else should happen to do so, well, that would *say no more* be a different story." How do you prove that the government didn't induce someone to tap? Yes, the exclusion may hinder justice in some cases (such as, perhaps, the above), but the question is, is the benefit worth the cost? Should I be allowed to tap all the phones at my office (and copy all the email), and give it to the police if I find evidence that one of my employees is a crook? What if he/she isn't stealing from me, but using my premises as a base for other crimes? Am I allowed to tell the cops "X is a crook, but I can't explain why ... go check it out"? Very difficult questions; how we decide to answer them will have great effect on the shaping of our society. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp [Moderator's Note: Yes, you are allowed to tell the police X is a crook. What do you think the various crime-stopper anonymous phone lines are about? And if X is doing something illegal on your premises or using your equipment (phone lines, computer, etc) you are perfectly within your rights to report it. You never are required to permit illegal acts to take place on (or using) property you control, and in fact may be considered an accessory if you make no effort to stop it. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #574 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07016; 21 Jul 92 1:19 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07424 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 20 Jul 1992 23:08:42 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17968 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 20 Jul 1992 23:08:31 -0500 Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 23:08:31 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207210408.AA17968@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #575 TELECOM Digest Mon, 20 Jul 92 23:08:28 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 575 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: Telephone Keypad Question (Erik Rauch) Re: Telephone Keypad Question (Jeffrey Jonas) Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor (David G. Lewis) Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor (Jon Mellott) Re: 3W vs 0.6W (Gregory Youngblood) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Kevin A. Mitchell) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (David G. Lewis) Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) (Alan Boritz) Re: Calling Cards For Married Couples (Andy Sherman) Re: Messages Were Overflowing Again (Linc Madison) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Erik Rauch Subject: Re: Telephone Keypad Question Date: Sun, 19 Jul 92 17:28:45 EDT > [Moderator's Note: Telephone numbers do not usually begin with '1', > and having the letters /ABC/ there would have effectively precluded > them from being the starting letter in an exchange name, back when > telco officially used words to identify central offices. In order to > keep the zero available as a single digit way to reach the operator, > letters were not used there either. Imagine life with no AVEnue, > AUStin, BIShop, BOUlevard, CIRcle, CAThedral or COLumbus ... Since > only eight digits are left, two letters had to be elimininated, with > /QZ/ least likely to be needed. Imagine life without QUAyle ... PAT] I have always considered phone numbers like "VIllage 2-3629" an anachronism. Two questions: I have always seen such phone numbers with only the first two digits serving as the mnemonic or CO identifier. When did the phone company use three digits? And when was this practice officially abolished? [Moderator's Note: Prior to automatic service, telephone exchanges were known by names, followed by one, two, three or four digits. In a few rare cases there were five digits. The exchange names were chosen based on several things: their geographic location, ie. Chicago's Wabash and Franklin were on those streets; a neighborhood (Hyde Park and Lakeview); a famous person ([Clarence] Buckingham, [Mayor Carter] Harrison); or other factors. In small towns with one exchange, the CO was frequently just the name of the town. The first exchange in Chicago in 1878 was simply 'central' (as in central office), and over the years it metamorphosed into Central, CENtral, CEntral-6, CE-6 and for the past 30 years or so, 236. As automatic dialing was phased in and manual service phased out (we here began converting to dial service in 1939; the war halted further conversion from 1942-46 and the conversion was completed in 1951), the old familiar names were kept when possible and when there would be no conflict in dialing (certain old exchange names collided numerically with other exchange names, ie. [Union Stock] Yards and Warren [Boulevard] -- we kept YARds (now 927) and Warren became Haymarket [riots, meeting place of strikers] (now 421). To standardize all numbers at seven digits (for many years 'Central 1' was a private line in the mayor's office), the first three letters of the exchange name were used and the existing four digits. If less than four digits, then zeros were prepended. In the above example, Central 1 became CENtral-0001 following conversion to automatic dialing. WGN Radio with its long time number Michigan 225 became MIChigan-0225, etc. (Don't try dialing 312-642-0225 now; WGN hasn't had that number for 30+ years!) After a few years, early 1950-ish it became obvious there were not enough *workable, easily speakable, spellable* combinations to go around so a conversion was made to two letters and five numbers, with the first digit merely being what had previously been the third letter. But this now allowed other digits to be used as well, so that cases like GRAceland [cemetery and surroundings set on land which belonged to Grace, the wife of an early citizen of fame] could expand to GRaceland-7 as well as the original GRaceland-2. The same rationale was used about 1960 in the decision to go ANC -- 'all number calling'; it allowed use of number combinations like 998, 559 and such which prior were unpronounceable non-words. When ANC started, existing customers were grandfathered, and new customers got all digits on the very same prefixes. For about ten years, the directory had a mix of both types, GR-2 and 472, ROgers Park-4 and 764, etc. In many/most communities across the USA where conversion to dial service occurred prior to about 1950, the original three digit exchange will map to the first three letters in the old name. After about 1960 it was dueces wild; no attempt was made to match numbers with names; any number combination unused at the time was considered with some universal exceptions: First and second digits always 2-9 (never 0 or 1) and third digit 1-9 (never a zero). A few were held aside on purpose as part of the long range planning at the time: 976, 555, etc. That's more than you wanted to know, I'm sure! :) PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 11:04:17 -0400 From: krfiny!jeffj@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Telephone Keypad Question Pat's explanation of the letter assignments makes a lot of sense, but recall that it used to be American Telephone and TELEGRAPH. Telegraph operators were super careful not to confuse '1' with 'I', '0' with 'O', so one could surmise that letters and numbers that look alike would have been avoided on the phone keypad since it's also a telecommunications device. If I'm not mistaken, touch tone (DTMF) pads were used internally to AT&T many years before it was available to the public. The human factors group obviously took precedent and eliminated letters that were rarely used in order to make easy to remember exchanges. It was common knowledge that only the first two letters were used (except for 'vanity' numbers), so there was apparently no confusion. I'm still pissed that AT&T discontinued the Teletype brand name. Kids today really don't know why serial ports are names 'tty'. Telegraphs are really in the far past. Jeffrey Jonas synsys!jeffj@uunet.uu.net .. ! uunet!synsys!jeffj ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 16:38:48 GMT In article elr%trintex@uunet.UU.NET (Unix Guru-in-Training) writes: > One of the early studies which found a correlation between childhood > leukemia and electromagnetic field emissions was done on some suburban > development -- nearly all the leukemia cases happened in houses that > were immediately near the step-down transformer on the utility poles > in the area. For that neighborhood, the step-down transformers were > located on the corners of street intersection. Hence it's not a case > of different income classes or any of the other factors suggested by > other posters. However, older-generation transformers often used PCBs for insulating and cooling material, thereby giving another possible explanation - environmental leakage of PCBs giving rise to dioxin (or whatever the chain of events is -- I don't know this chemical stuff that well ...) > One of the topics examined by Brodeur was a street in Connecticut > where single family homes were located next to a high-powered > electrical substation (we're talking complete with giant transformers > and the like). Leukemia and brain tumors seemed to be the order of > the day for the residents on that street, as well as the residents > along the lines feeding the substation. Again, we're talking EMF > levels orders of magnitude higher than cellular phone output. Again, we're talking transformers, possibly PCBs and other environmental causes other than EMF. I'm not saying that there is no possibility that EMF can be a cause of detrimental health effects, but rather (as has been said before) that a lot of times people tend to confuse causation with correlation. > I've read parts of Brodeur's series in the {New Yorker}, (the book is > called "Currents of Death") and he does document all his sources well > enough for any other interested parties to verify his conclusions. A researcher with whom I am acquainted who has done an exhaustive review of the research on EMF once referred to "Currents of Death" (in a private conversation we had) as "the worst possible thing that could have occurred in the field." (I'm not claiming that's an exact quote, which is why I'm not giving the individual's name ...) The last thing that a complex question of this nature needs is a sensational mass-media "expose'". I've diverged enough from telecom, sorry ... ------------------------------ From: jon@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jon Mellott) Subject: Re: Suit Alleges Cellular Caused Brain Tumor Organization: EE Dept at UF Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 17:00:20 GMT In article , kaufman@xenon.stanford.edu (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: elr%trintex@uunet.UU.NET (Unix Guru-in-Training) writes: >> One of the early studies which found a correlation between childhood >> leukemia and electromagnetic field emissions was done on some suburban >> development -- nearly all the leukemia cases happened in houses that >> were immediately near the step-down transformer on the utility poles >> in the area. For that neighborhood, the step-down transformers were >> located on the corners of street intersection. Hence it's not a case >> of different income classes or any of the other factors suggested by >> other posters. Besides PCBs from the transformer oil, there could be a problem with emissions from automobiles. Those homes located corners would (presumably) be adjacent to more traffic than those not on the corners. For example, the soil along many older roads is heavily contaminated with lead from leaded gasoline. > True, true. I respectfully suggest that those people really concerned > with powerline induced cancers move out to the country and disconnect > from the electric utility. It is also known that EMF levels INSIDE > houses is higher than EMF levels due to powerlines, primarily because > you are so much closer to the radiator. Recall that for inductive fields, the magnetic field falls off as 1/r^2 whereas for radiated fields the field falls off as 1/r. At low frequencies (such as those used in power systems) the radiated power is very low. On the other hand, the electric field from high voltage lines can be substantial. The moral of the story: don't worry too much about the magnetic field unless you are *real* close to the line (and it is carrying a substantial amount of current). Worry more if the line is a very high voltage because of the E field. > I hope your next television is kerosene powered. But then there is that field from the CRT :) Jon Mellott ------------------------------ Subject: Re: 3W vs 0.6W From: zeta@yngbld.gwinnett.COM (Gregory Youngblood) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 10:44:55 EST Organization: TCS Consulting Services, Peachtree City, GA stevef@wrq.com (Steve Forrette) writes: > In article dbrillha@dave.mis.semi. > harris.com (Dave Brillhart) writes: >>1.) Are 3.0W units really going to buy me alot more compared to the >> compact 0.6W phones -- in regards to TX (and RX?) sound quality, >> battery life, max distance from the closest transceiver, or other >> issues I haven't thought of? > This reminds me of a feature on some of the Motorola bag phones that I > consider to be just a marketing gimmick: a .6W/3W switch. The sales > people will tell you that when you are running the bag phone off of > batteries, it is a good idea to switch it to .6W to extend the battery > life; when you have it plugged into the cigarette lighter in your car, > switch it to 3W for best reception. > Of course, astute TELECOM Digest readers will note that the phone > doesn't always transmit at the maximum power level, but is instead > commanded by the base station to transmit at the lowest level that's > necessary for a good signal. So, if you're near a cell, and only need > 200mW to get a good signal, your phone only transmits with 200mW, > regardless of whether you have a 600mW or 3W model (this is primarily > so that the cell size can be scaled -- not to conserve battery > capacity, although that is a nice side effect). In any event, the > only thing that the 600mW setting of the bag-phone switch accomplishes > is cutting off your calls when they need more than 600mW to get > through -- they don't save any battery capacity otherwise. Since I > can't imagine that even under battery power you'd rather have your > calls cut off when they need more than 600mW just so you can 'save > your batteries,' I conclude that this is just a marketing gimmick. This technology is widely used. But not everywhere. Some systems, particularly in RSAs do not run with this feature enabled. I personally know of about six or eight systems that I myself worked in where the company wanted that disabled. Full power, no power stepping activated at all. As far as the 'gimmick', several phones have that, including OKIs I believe. At least the old OKI 410 series phones had that I think. It has its uses, but I almost always kept the thing on high no matter what. Gregory S. Youngblood The opinions expressed above are my own TCS Consulting Services and does not mean I'm right or that anyone else agrees with me. ------------------------------ From: kam@dlogics.com (Kevin A. Mitchell) Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) Organization: Datalogics, Inc. Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 15:27:20 GMT rickie@trickie.uucp (Richard Nash) writes: > No problem! Joint credit cards could be issued with unique PINS that > identify each user. Thus, only a simultaneous use of the credit card > could be from a fraudulent source. This scheme has the added benefit > of assisting both users of the account to identify and reconcile their > own transactions. (The billing system records the entire credit card > including the PIN). I have an AT&T no-AOS type calling card. I asked for another card for my wife and got a card with her name on it, and a _different number_ than the one on my card. Kevin A. Mitchell (312) 266-4485 Datalogics, Inc Internet: kam@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!kam Chicago, IL 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473 [Moderator's Note: You and your meaningless '266' phone number! I'd expect a telecom enthusiast in your neighborhood to be on the DElaware-7, SUPerior, MOHawk, or WHItehall exchange at the very least. :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 16:22:46 GMT In article rickie@trickie.uucp (Richard Nash) writes: > No problem! Joint credit cards could be issued with unique PINS that > identify each user. Not great from a security point of view, because it cuts the probability of randomly guessing a PIN given a known phone number in half. A subaccount code postpended to the PIN or some such would be preferable. (By extension, allowing each family member in an extended family of ten would cut security by an order of magnitude. Not good.) ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 92 17:12:55 EDT From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Telecom Fraud (was Cellular Phone Hacking) sbrack@jupiter.cse.UTOLEDO.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes: > It makes me wonder why the issuing telcos couldn't detect and possibly > block calls made on the same CC but made too far apart in distance and > too close together in time to have been made by the same person. ... but not for long. Your friend could have given his calling card number to a friend or relative. Cell-phone billing is generated long after the conversations are over, however it takes money and resources to do something with the questionable billing info after it's collected. It's much easier to just bill everyone for the pirate's activities, and hope that most people will just pay the bill without looking, rather than to go after the real cause of the problem. If these guys can't get their act together long enough to set up a stolen ESN clearinghouse, why do you think they'll take an active role to stop fraud before the customers discover it? Alan Boritz 72446.461@compuserve.com ------------------------------ From: andys@flatline.sbi.com (Andy Sherman) Subject: Re: Calling Cards For Married Couples Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 00:15:54 EDT On 19 Jul 92 05:24:51 GMT, Nigel.Allen@lambada.oit.unc.edu said: > They don't have to share the same number. One of them could be > assigned a special calling card number (sometimes called a fictitious > number) that would be billed on the same account. Some telephone > companies and long distance carriers may be reluctant to do this > because there are a limited number of possible fictitious numbers, and > some residential service representatives may not have been trained how > to set up this kind of calling card. I called AT&T to get two of the new CIID cards. They asked for my wife's full name. We got two cards, one with my name, one with hers. They have different numbers. I guess class tells. :^) > Similarly, another family member (such as a child away at university) > could be given his or her own calling card with a separate number, but > billed to the family telephone account. If you get the AT&T Custom Calling Card (restricted to up to ten numbers) it has its own number, too. And you don't even have to tell AT&T that Nigel says its' a good idea. And the net.cynics can't accuse me of blatent toadyism, as I don't work there anymore. :^) (But I ain't changing my PIC either). Andy Sherman (yes, the same one) Salomon Inc - Unix Systems Support - Rutherford, NJ (201) 896-7018 - andys@flatline.sbi.com or asherman@mhnj.sbi.com "These opinions are mine, all *MINE*. My employer can't have them." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 14:45:19 PDT From: linc@tongue1.Berkeley.EDU (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Messages Were Overflowing Again Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article PAT writes: > I am always gratified by the tremendous amount of traffic in this > group ... My, what funny things those little electrons are! I *swear* the first time I read that sentence, it said, "I am always GRAFFITIED by the tremendous amount of traffic ..." Linc Madison == Linc@Tongue1.Berkeley.EDU [Moderator's Note: Very clever ... but I don't consider any of my mail to be graffiti. I read it all; I only wish I could answer it all and use it all here in the Digest. About 150 went unused last week. :( PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #575 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12835; 21 Jul 92 3:27 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17669 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Jul 1992 00:46:38 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06031 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Jul 1992 00:46:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 00:46:27 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207210546.AA06031@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #576 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jul 92 00:46:28 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 576 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Re: GTE and CLASS/ISDN (John Higdon) Re: Democratic Convention (Including Telecom) (Robert J. Woodhead) Re: Going UP (Mike McNally) Re: Going UP (David G. Lewis) Re: Advice Needed: Dialback Management (Bill Berbenich) Re: Way Cool MCI Mail Binary File Handling (Bob Frankston) Re: My 800 Number (Dennis G. Rears) Re: Cracker Running Rampant! (Darren Griffiths) Re: Airfone System Overload (David Lesher) Re: House Voice/Data Wiring Question (Jonathan Edwards) Re: Leap Seconds and Telco Time-of-Day Accuracy (David Schachter) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 12:28 PDT From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Subject: Re: GTE and CLASS/ISDN MPA15AB!RANDY@TRENGA.tredydev.unisys.com writes: > The rep said CLID hadn't yet been approved by the PUC! When I pointed > out that the PUC had approved it weeks ago, and mentioned the > front-page articles in the {L.A. Times} and other papers, she said > they were flat wrong. This is typical GTE. I have found that one cannot expect to get anything resembling a straight answer on any matter (from your current bill on up to "proposed services") on the first call to the business office. All light and knowledge from GTE (if you can call it that) must come from Thousand Oaks. It is amusing to note that if you do happen to call GTE about a billing question, you are told that someone will call you back "within five working days". The people in the front-line business office are ALWAYS wrong and with an attitude. > A media rep called me back from the other number, and he seemed to > know what he was talking about, and to be quite reasonable. (Quite a > change from the business office types!). He said November was the > target date for CLASS features other than CLID, Call Trace, and Call > Return. Of course, Pac*Bell is offering those other services NOW. However, I still cannot get them. Why? I have been told that Priority Ringing, Selective Call Forwarding, and Repeat Dialing are not compatible with Commstar, Pac*Bell's mini Centrex system for small business and residence. If I remember correctly this has been the case in other areas until the local telco figured out what the hell it was doing. > He said I was the first person ever to ask him about ISDN :-( GTE also has a great deal of trouble providing simple T1 service. In fact, in order to discourage customers from requesting such service in conjuction with IECs, etc., GTE has priced T1 through the roof. I have a client who is moving out of GTE and into Pac*Bell territory. The savings on the T1 alone will more than justify the cost of the move. > Regarding SS7 links, he said GTE was working on them between their own > switches. Links to PacBell would come, but he didn't know when. When I have mentioned GTE's lack of SS7, I have been roundly taken to task and told that the company does indeed have such links in place. Thank you for confirming that this is the baloney that I suspected it was. > On other matters, he said he was bothered by the practice of IXCs > selling ANI data, especially when the customers turn around and use it > for marketing and other purposes. That surprised me, coming from a > phone company representative. Of course. GTE would rather be collecting some kind of revenue on this service. But given GTE's dismal lack of engineering acumen, what the company would really like is to collect the revenue WITHOUT providing the service! But then it already has a little of this in place: GTE's rates are MUCH higher than Pac*Bell's. Never let anyone tell you that in GTE territory you get what you pay for. > He said he wasn't aware of "block blocking" (Anonymous Call Reject). > Didn't the PUC order it as part of CLID in California? Not a surprise. GTE is never aware of anything outside of GTE. I am surprised he did not just tell you that it did not exist. Block blocking was not mentioned in the CPUC order. > Anyway, he promised to have someone call me back with more information > on SS7 links, CLASS availability, and ISDN. Hopefully you will have moved outside of GTE territory by then. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 john@zygot.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o ! ------------------------------ From: trebor@foretune.co.jp (Robert J Woodhead) Subject: Re: Democratic Convention (Including Telecom) Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd. Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 01:35:48 GMT TELECOM Moderator noted: > [Moderator's Note: The big news today of course is that Ross Perot has > pulled out of the campaign, and things are looking brighter for the > Democrats than anytime in the past twelve years. This may be their > year for victory, for only the fourth time in forty years (Kennedy, > Johnson, Carter, (??) Clinton (??). PAT] Ah, statistics. Four times in 40 years sounds awful, but fact is, it would be four out of ten or 40%, which isn't a statistically significant deviation from 50/50. Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs. trebor@foretune.co.jp [Moderator's Note: The catch is we've gone a full 40 years (11/52 through 11/92) with only *three* Democratic presidents. That really makes it three out of ten. If Clinton gets elected, the statistics will then be four out of eleven. But if you go back 64 years starting with 11/28, it evens out with Roosevelt and Truman getting five in a row. Dem = 1932,1936,1940,1944,1948,1960,1964,1976 = 8 Rep = 1928,1952,1956,1968,1972,1980,1984,1988 = 8 The Republicans stayed out longer (20 years) than the Democrats. Now they're getting even for the 13-year reign of King Roosevelt II! :) PAT] ------------------------------ From: mcnally@wsl.dec.com (Mike McNally) Subject: Re: Going UP Organization: DEC Palo Alto Date: 20 Jul 92 15:19:41 GMT analyst@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes: > Second, dial-up access to video services means that far more niche > markets can be satisfied, since there are far more channels available > on a fiber optic pipe into one's home... I was under the impression that the recent ruling specifically addressed issues raised by Bellcore's recent announcement that they could do 1.5megabit (i.e., MPEG) transmission over in-place twisted pair copper loops. Then again, I suppose that if the cheap experiment possible because of the aforementioned technology proves successful and profitable, TPC fiber-stringing crews would rapidly become common sights on neighborhood streets. I think that personally I hate cable companies more than phone companies, so I'm pleased by the ruling. I suspect that if John were in a situation to require service from his cable company comparable to what he needs for his telephonic endeavors, he would see that by comparison GTE be a glittering paragon of virtue. Mike + Software + Digital Equipment + Western Software + mcnally@ McNally + Laborer + Corporation + Laboratory + wsl.dec.com ------------------------------ From: deej@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (david.g.lewis) Subject: Re: Going UP Organization: AT&T Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 16:56:19 GMT In article analyst@netcom.com (David Sternlight) writes: > Finally, cross subsidization can be trivially handled by the state > PUCs with proper rules and accounting procedures. There's evidence > this works -- look at the very low cost of Long Distance calls > compared to local calls in many cases, due to the removal of > cross-subsidization by the regulatory process. Thus the opponents' > biggest propaganda objection is just plain silly, and only the > gullible will fall for it. 'scuse?? The fact that the regulatory process could *not* handle cross-subsidization between regulated and unregulated lines of business was one of the motivations behind the MFJ. As to the "very low cost of Long Distance calls compared to local calls due to the removal of cross-subsidization", A. cross-subsidization of local calls has not been removed; only the name has changed (from internal Bell System bookkeeping to the "subscriber line charge" and carrier access charges"); B. inasmuch as cross-subsidization has been relaxed, it is due to the corporate separation of the IXCs from the LECs; and C. where "the regulatory process" is trying to control cross-subsidies, e.g. costs for intra-LATA LD, the success has been, at best, questionable. Ask anyone in CA who reads c.d.t. about PacBell's intra-LATA LD costs compared to any IXC's inter-LATA prices for comparable - or longer - distances. (disclaimer - not speaking for AT&T, of course, just an occasional loose cannon ...) ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Advice Needed: Dialback Management Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 11:32:32 BST From: Bill Berbenich Reply-To: bill@eedsp.gatech.edu One reason that our Moderator's plan may not work is because the switch may take the initial hook-flash to be a rotary-dialed '1' if there is no hacker or anyone else waiting on the line. When I had three-way calling, that was what would happen if I did a hook-flash with nobody on the line yet. It may be that either my (cheapie) phone or my switch at that time did not adhere to the standards for hook-flash duration and rotary pulse sensing. Anyone know better? Bill [Moderator's Note: After the ADTD! pause, then you tell the modem to 'wait for new dial tone' and abandon the attempt if it doesn't hear one. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Bob_Frankston@frankston.com Subject: Re: Way Cool MCI Mail Binary File Handling Date: Mon 20 Jul 1992 11:51 -0400 Clarifications for those interested: X.PC is a Tymnet developed protocol that is like X.25 for dialup terminals. MCI does use X.PC to provide a reliable link. One problem with X.PC is that it does require 8 bit transparency which means it can run into difficulties through some paths. The newer MCI (9600bps) lines support MNP5 for compression and error correction but the reliability is only modem to modem and not end to end like X.PC, though that might not be a problem because ... MEP2 is a protocol for exchanging mail messages. It is symmetric with the two ends taking turns as master and slave. The master presents an envelope and then body parts (in the X.400 sense, not the medical sense!) which can be binary or ASCII. MEP2 encodes everything in printable ASCII so that it can run over essentially any link. It uses simple checksums for error checking. There is a retransmission protocol to recover from errors but I've always felt hanging up and retrying made a lot more sense. Since MEP2 does error checking and X.PC and MNP provide reliable links (end to end or modem to modem), MEP2 rarely gets stressed. Even without the lower level error correction, many phone lines themselves are quite reliable. One downside of MEP2 is that there is no header/envelope distinction which means you can't separate the routing information from the header and thus it is difficult to write a proper gateway between MCI and other systems. The new support for binary files in the INTERACTIVE sessions as well as the encoding of attachments exchanged with the Internet does strengthen MCI as a full mail service. Note that the Internet encoding is not really a function of MCI itself, but of the gateway that translates between MEP2 and SMTP (I assume). One advantage of MCI is that it does provide an email service for end users with national (and some international) support. Now, if they'd only deal with headers ... Disclaimer: Since I wrote much of Lotus Express, I'm not an entirely unbiased observer. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 16:25:25 EDT From: Dennis G. Rears Subject: Re: My 800 Number Kenton A. Hoover wrote about his 800 number service from Pac Bell. I thought I would write about the great deal that I have. I have a residential 800 number from Sprint. It is a real 800 number; not one with a PIN. I got free installation and a waiver of all service fees for 1992. After 1992 as long as I have $30.00 a quarter in usage charges they will waive the monthly fee. The charge is 18 cents a minute payable in 6 second increments. The number is good in all 50 states, Mexico, and Canada. As far as billing, I get a list of all calls, the number called from, and the duration of the call. I am able to change the number it terminates on with 24 hour notice. Overall, I am quite satified with it. Dennis G. Rears UUCP: ...!uunet!cor5.pica.army.mil!drears INTERNET: drears@pica.army.mil USPS: Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885 Phone(home): 201.927.8757 Phone(work): 201.724.2683/(DSN) 880.2683 Moderator: comp.society.privacy ------------------------------ From: dag@ossi.com (Darren Griffiths) Subject: Re: Cracker Running Rampant! Organization: Open Systems Solutions Inc. Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 19:36:29 GMT rg@msel.unh.edu (Roger Gonzalez) writes: > Sounds like this system needs a complete wipe to me. There are too > many dark corners in Unix and SunOS in which to hide back doors. > Trying to chase down each separate hole will take (literally) forever, > as he will open them as quickly as you close them. And that's probably > what he wants. All the suid programs are him arming himself for a > piecewise war. Pull the network, reinstall the OS, change every > password, recompile every source-distributed binary. You're correct of-course, this is a hassle, particularly if the site in question has incompetent system administrators, which sounds like it's the case. There is one other thing that must be done as well, and that's call the police. The 'cracker' has identified himself in the sample mail, so finding his real name should not be a problem. If he is out of state then call the FBI, past experience has shown me that with a little bit of hassle they will do something, and if he is in Australia call the CIA, they have also become involved in previous cases if you bug them enough. I know that it's a real pain and it should not be necessary, but unfortunately it is. Every user of the Internet has a responsibility to report these kind of abuses so that adolescent twits like this one will think twice before they touch anything more powerful than a pocket calculator. They do not perform any service whatsoever, in fact they waste a lot of valuable computer resources and lot of administrators time. Darren Alex Griffiths dag@nasty.ossi.com Open Systems Solutions, Inc (510) 652-6200 x139 Fujitsu Fax: (510) 652-5532 6121 Hollis Street Emeryville, CA 94608-2092 ------------------------------ From: David Lesher Subject: Re: Airfone System Overload Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 18:41:22 EDT Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex > (The cordless GTE system can have as many as eight phones in the > cabin, and they can all connect to the ACU. But you can still only > have four radios -- four calls per aircraft.) But WAIT! Can't I call my butler back in 48F from my seat here in first class? Why not? Before they started letting ANYONE fly, I could send the Stew^H^H^H^H sorry Flight Attendent, back. Now *I* have go back and summon him. How degrading to have to walk into, ahem, Economy ... Think! You could charge big money, and never use up any RF space at all. Then the next step will be on-board 976 service. Hey, those long flights across the pond are *boring* Folks ... ;_} wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu ------------------------------ From: edwards@world.std.com (Jonathan Edwards) Subject: Re: House Voice/Data Wiring Question Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 22:54:43 GMT In article andrew@frip.wv.tek.com writes: > STOP. 10BASE-T is not suitable for residential use, because it emits > a boatload of EMI. (10BASE-T systems don't meet FCC class B.) If you > operate a 10BASE-T network, there's a good chance your TV will be > useless, and your neighbors' sets might also be impacted. FCC rules > say that it's your responsibility to limit EMI, so you could find > yourself forbidden to operate this network. Gak! I am about to wire my new house under the assumption that 10BASE-T was the easiest and most flexible approach (just add some extra twisted pairs into each room). Can anyone comment on alternative approaches? Use shielded twisted pair? Add a thinwire loop (more complex install)? Add coax homeruns to the patch panel (in addition to the video cables)? ------------------------------ From: david@llustig.palo-alto.ca.us (David Schachter) Subject: Re: Leap Seconds and Telco Time-of-Day Accuracy Organization: Greenwire Consulting Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 23:21:39 GMT In article bakerj@gtephx.UUCP (Jon Baker) writes: > All the CO's in a network are, in theory, synchronized to each other, > with the master timing source coming from the Grand Master Of Clocks > in Hillsboro (?), Missouri. If anyone knows more about this Grandaddy > of clocks, I'd be interested to hear about it. I believe that MCI and > the US Navy also operate similar 'Master Clocks'. The Grand Master of Clocks is named Hubert Wollington III (it is one of the few hereditary positions in the USA) and he doubles as the official government standard for riboflavin. He is usually kept in a bell jar slightly to the left of the U.S. Consitution in Washington, D.C. The Wollington family is noted for its devotion to public service. Hubert's sister, Jane Barbe, was for many years the voice of time at WWV and WWVH (shortwave radio stations operated by the U.S. Government); his mother, Jessye Norman, sang the 1000 and 1200 Hz ticks and minute markers at the radio stations, and his aunt, Anne Jones, was the official Canadian censor until she married Henry Spencer and converted to Collyerism, a religion similar to Unitarian Universalist, but concerned more with the exact date of the Ascension. She devoted the rest of her life to correcting time header format errors in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Hubert has two sons, Ante Meridian and Postal Mail, and a daughter, Principia Mathematica. Like most men, he was briefly married to Elizabeth Taylor during the 1970's. He is currently single, cute, and available, but poorly-paid. Any facts in the above are unintentional and should be reported immediate to the Brain Tumor Marketing Council. Thank. David Schachter internet: david@llustig.palo-alto.ca.us uucp: ...!{mips,decwrl,sgi}!llustig!david [Moderator's Note: Doctor Collyer was a well-known and highly-revered person here in Chicago in the last half of the nineteenth century. The {Chicago Tribune} published every word he had to say on Sunday in the Monday papers. All the upper crust of Chicago society went to Doctor Collyer's church. When he went out of business in 1903 he sold the church on North Dearborn Street to the Masons; today it is known as the Scottish Rite Cathedral. It is directly across the street from Washington Square Park (Bughouse Square) where in 1974 I addressed the annual convention of the Brain Tumor Marketing Council and convinced them that brain tumors are not a disease but merely a type of lifestyle, convincing them to remove it as a category in their list of diseases. In your discussion of the Wollington family, you neglected to mention Hubert's famous sister Nell and her husband, Void, which is another way of describing most of this issue of the Digest. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #576 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab14193; 21 Jul 92 4:15 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA18646 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Jul 1992 01:32:29 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11499 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Jul 1992 01:32:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 01:32:15 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207210632.AA11499@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #577 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jul 92 01:32:14 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 577 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson VDT Study Concerns CWA (Phillip Dampier) Caller*ID Device: Name Delivery System (Alan Boritz) Beating Hotel Calling-Card Surcharges (Stan Krieger) How to Use U.S. Modem in England? (John Chang) Don't Grab That Ladder ... (Lou Anschuetz) House Wiring (Steve Welch) ANI Information Included in Telephone Bill (Len E. Elam) Phone Records Are Public (David Gast) CDMA Technology and Multi-Media (Mitsutaka Ito) Help Needed Connecting With URUPAC, Uruguay (Robin Cheesman) FCC Email Address (Joshua Hosseinoff) Panasonic 12/32 - Any Experiences? Any Advice? (Irving Wolfe) Federal Case Against NYNEX (David Gast) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phillip.Dampier@f228.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Phillip Dampier) Reply-To: phil@rochgte.fidonet.org Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 15:13:39 -0500 Subject: VDT Study Concerns CWA VDT STUDY EXPANDS KNOWN CAUSES OF REPETITIVE MOTION ILLNESS WASHINGTON -- A major independent study of telecommunications workers who use video display terminals, released today by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, shows that work practices and organization as well as psychological factors are significant causes of ergonomic VDT injuries. Most prior studies have acknowledged only physical causes of repetitive motion disorders, which affect an estimated 50 to 70 million American workers. Three years in preperation at the joint request of the Communications Workers of America and US West, the study identifies 22 percent of 533 participants as victims of upper body repetitive motion disorders. This, despite the fact that NIOSH found US West in compliance with 80 percent of established physical standards for VDT workplaces, the best record of any telecommunications company whose workers are represented by CWA. "This study clearly shows that how workers are treated by management is at least as important in preventing repetitive motion injuries as the equipment they are expected to use," said CWA President Morton Bahr. The NIOSH study found that psychological considerations such as job insecurity, high productivity demands, surges in workload, lack of control over work methods and lack of support by co-workers all contribute to VDT illnesses. Its report also stated that work practice variables such as wearing bifocals or contact lenses, typing skill and frequency of arising from the chair play an important role in developing ergonomic disorders. It also found that work organization factors like overtime, task variation, and frequency of breaks are significant. With voluntary participation of 93 percent of selected employees in five occupations at three different locations, the study represents "the largest, most comprehensive scientific investigation of VDT ergonomic illnesses to date," said CWA Executive Vice President M.E. Nichols, who with David LeGrande of CWA's Office of Occupational Safety and Health, coordinated the union's participation. Conducted at US West's Phoenix, Denver, and Minneapolis locations, the study found that tendon-related disorders affected 15 percent of participants and that 12 percent manifested hand or wrist problems. Others had arm, shoulder, neck, or back disorders. The incidence of ergonomic VDT illness NIOSH found is broken down by job category: * Loop provisioning center workers -- 36% * Recent change memory admin center employees -- 25% * Directory assistance operators -- 22% * Centralized mail remittance workers -- 20% * Service representatives -- 6% Concurring with numerous studies conducted with CWA over the last decade by Dr. Michael Smith of the University of Wisconsin, the agency found that workers experienced additional stress because of electronic monitoring. Those who believed that it prevented socialization, brought on extra complaints from supervisors or increased workload were also more prone to ergonomic problems. NIOSH commended US West and CWA on their use of joint labor management committees on the regional and local levels, which led to the company's high compliance with physical VDT guidelines. The agency encouraged the committees to continue to address the physical, work design, and psychosocial causes of ergonomic VDT illnesses. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 92 17:13:12 EDT From: Alan Boritz <72446.461@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Caller*ID Device: Name Delivery System > [Moderator's Note:...People keep talking about Caller-ID as a way to > screen or avoid answering unwanted calls, and they base their > complaints about Caller-ID on the shortcomings they find in their > perception of the purpose of number delivery. If they would realize > the primary purpose is to identify and provide recourse to the > subscriber of the calling telephone -- the person who legally remains > responsible for the uses made of the instrument -- and only > secondarily as a way to avoid unwanted calls, I suspect there would be > fewer complaints. Also, don't forget that with the implementation of Caller-ID "privacy" the Caller-ID service subscriber is getting something of significantly less value than that advertised. And wouldn't the "privacy" feature appear to reflect the advertising campaigns, about reducing prank calls, as deceptive marketing practices? Alan Boritz 72446.461@compuserve.com [Moderator's Note: Not really, since blocked-ID calls are noted as such and the recipient can deal with them accordingly. Speaking of blocked ID, I received a neat device today from someone which goes in series with the phone to the wall-jack. Whenever the phone goes off hook to make a call, this gizmo dials *67 automatically. Kind of clever if you prefer to block your ID. I'll be reviewing it in detail here at a later date. PAT] ------------------------------ From: stank@cbnewsl.att.com Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 16:21:25 EDT Subject: Beating Hotel Calling-Card Surcharges Organization: Summit NJ I just returned from vacation, and in two of the hotels I stayed, there was no charge for 800 numbers but it cost 25 or 50 cents for placing a calling card call. To beat this charge, I simply placed my long distance calls through 800-CALL-ATT (and one of the hotel bills did show five long distance calls of cost $0.00). I'll see in a month if these were billed as "normal" calling card calls and if my Reach Out America discounts are handled properly. Stan Krieger All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even AT&T UNIX System Laboratories if related to my employment, are my own. Summit, NJ smk@usl.com ------------------------------ From: chang@sparc2.prime.com (John Chang) Subject: How to Use U.S. Modem in England? Date: 20 Jul 92 16:18:35 GMT Reply-To: chang@sparc2.prime.com (John Chang) Organization: Prime Computervision, Bedford MA How can I use a modem that's set up for U.S. modular jacks with phones in Britain (London in particular)? Are the line levels compatible? If so, what wires go where? In other words, how do you make a jack-to-jack adapter? Are the dialing tones the same, or do I need to pulse dial? What can I do to prepare here in the U.S. before I go, or do I need to take a soldering iron, multimeter, wire strippers, etc. (I wonder what airport security would have to say about *that*). Please reply via email and I will summarize. John Chang chang@premise.prime.com (617) 354-5861 114 Tremont St. Cambridge, MA 02139 ------------------------------ From: lou@nptn.org (Lou Anschuetz) Subject: Don't Grab That Ladder ... Organization: National Public Telecommunication Network Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 17:04:11 GMT Just in case your local Bell telephone repair guy isn't as much fun as one I just worked with, I thought you might enjoy this little episode. A company I'm associated (loosely) with has an office in an office building. Most of the building is owned by one company, which has a large PBX for the building in the telephone closet. The punchdown block is above the PBX. When this little company had a dedicated phone line brought in by Ohio Bell, the installer came in with a six foot ladder. Unfortunately, that ladder was a little too big, thus putting him too far away from the punchdown block. So, instead of going back to the truck for a shorter ladder, he figured he could manage ok if he could just find somewhere to put his foot while he worked. "Hmmm, top of the PBX looks just about right -- I'll put my foot there ..." Of course, as soon as his whole weight shifted to the PBX it ripped free of the wall and smashed to the concrete floor below ... At this point Ohio Bell is into the company who owns the PBX for $23,000 for repairs to the PBX. It may go higher. Ohio Bell, being a fair minded company, wanted to just take it off the companies monthly phone bill :-) For some reason the owner of the pbx didn't agree to that arrangement :-O I'd really love to have been a fly on the wall back at Ohio Bell when the repair person came in to explain how that darn PBX just jumped off the wall :-) :-) :-) Lou Anschuetz, lou@nptn.org lou@yfn.ysu.edu lou@ysu.edu and ten's of other places.... ------------------------------ From: smw@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Steve Welch) Subject: House Wiring Organization: National Center for Atmospheric Research Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 17:51:14 GMT > STOP. 10BASE-T is not suitable for residential use, because it emits > a boatload of EMI. (10BASE-T systems don't meet FCC class B.) If you > operate a 10BASE-T network, there's a good chance your TV will be > useless, and your neighbors' sets might also be impacted. FCC rules > say that it's your responsibility to limit EMI, so you could find > yourself forbidden to operate this network. I had U.S West put in six pair all over the house (cost about $1K), intending to use extra pairs for some random twisted pair network, but I chickened out, mostly because I was worried about phone inteference. So I put in a short (~30m) bit of thick Ethernet, and a bunch (eight planned) of transceiver cables. I have no EMI problems (my wife is a shortwave listener, so this is a pretty good test), except I get a small amount of RFI injected into my CATV coax at 50-70Mhz from some high-frequency electronic ballasts (!?). It figures that with a zillion computers in the house, I'd have problems from fluorescent lights... I also pulled some RG-61 coax, just in case, since I had a roll of it from an earlier project. When the phone guy did the wiring, I told him what I wanted to do, and he warned me I might not be happy. He said some people do Appletalk with no problems, but he had heard of inteference from 10 Mbit networks when using spare phone company copper. I had him go ahead and pull the six pair, figuring I could run RS-232 or some such over it in a pinch. One thing I did, which was smarter than I thought, was to buy a few hundred feet of spare wire off of him. It's come in very handy when I found out I had placed a few of the jacks in the wrong place, and when I finished an office in the basement for the wife. Oh, I ended up using four pair, anyway ... > I figure you can't have too much copper in a house. Amen to that. Steve Welch Voice: 303-530-2661 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO USA also: Complex Systems Research, Niwot, CO Fax: 303-581-9820 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 08:27:21 CDT From: lelam%kuwait@Sun.COM (Len E. Elam) Subject: ANI Information Included in Telephone Bill The following was included in my last phone bill: Southwestern Bell Account Number 817 XXX XXXX XXX Telephone July 9, 1991 Detail of Charges PAGE 4 AUTOMATIC NUMBER IDENTIFICATION When an 800 or 900 number is dialed from your telephone, your telephone number may be transmitted to the company you have called and may be available to that company's service representative before your call is answered. ------------- I have to wonder what prompted this. Maybe someone at Southwestern Bell reads this newsgroup. Maybe not. Could it be that someone at Southwestern Bell is making an attempt to address customer concerns about privacy? :) Who Am I?: Len E. Elam Email: central.sun.com!gdfwc3!lelam Disclamer: I speak only for myself. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 17:16:31 -0700 From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) Subject: Phone Records Are Public Whether you like or not, transactional records about phone usage can be disseminated to any private party according to the ECPA. According to FCC rules IXCs *must* share transactional data with other IXCs. And at least one user of an 800 number is upset that a certain IXC is selling lists of people who call this 800 number to competitors. Thus, PAT mistakenly misrepresents that calling CounseLink can be confidential when he states: (I presume he is just repeating the marketing blurb he saw). > The service, known as CounseLink, is intended for people too shy or > busy to go to an office, lie down and talk about themselves. To assure > confidentiality, fees will appear on your telephone bill under the > name Telelink Companies, Inc. of Des Plaines, IL. The fact that any individual calls CounseLink is not confidential in any way, shape or form. Some degree of doubt might be cast if Telelink has many different services all using the same number. Also, in regards to the comments about 1-800-ATF-GUNS and ANI, and then PATs comment that other organizations "all use 800 numbers also, with ANI, I'm sure." (BTW, I know of at least one organization that does not get ANI.) It is irrelevant whether or not the organization gets ANI, because the telco can sell the information to whomever it wants. Thus, even if organization goes to great length to make sure they don't know the number a person is calling from, other organizations can purchase this information. (I don't know how widespread the practice is, but it is not illegal). If you need confidentiality, do not call from home, do not use a telephone credit card, etc. David [Moderator's Note: I think telcos only have to share information on calls where *billing information* is required ... not for any other purpose. PAT] ------------------------------ Subject: CDMA Technology and Multi-Media Date: Fri, 17 Jul 92 10:27:14 +0900 From: Mitsutaka Ito Dear Sirs, I am interested in application of CDMA technology to radio multi-media communication. If anyone have any information on this topic, please inform me. Thank you in advance. Mitsutaka Ito E-mail: ito@nttslb.ntt.jp NTT Software Laboratories Tel/Fax: +81-3-3740-5715/+81-3-3740-5740 1-9-1 Kohnan Minato-ku Tokyo 108 Japan ------------------------------ From: robin@ruc.dk (Robin Cheesman) Subject: Trying to Connect With URUPAC, Uruguay Organization: Roskilde Universitetscenter, Danmark Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 13:39:21 GMT I am trying to connect to the Uruguayan PAD/PSI service URUPAC, but cannot find the country code. In the list I have at hand is e.g. Argentina with 7222, and plenty of other Latin American countries -- but not Uruguay. Can anyone help? Robin Cheesman Communication Studies Roskilde University * PO Box 260 * DK-4000 Roskilde * Denmark Phone: +45 46757711 Fax: +45 46755313 Internet: robin@ruc.dk [Moderator's Note: I assume you are asking about data network country codes, NOT telephone country codes. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: 19 Jul 1992 13:49:16 -0400 (EDT) From: JOSHUA HOSSEINOFF Subject: FCC Email Address Here it is, send all complains, questions, and assorted flames to: Name: Federal Communications Commission Organization: FEDERALCOMMCOMM City: Washington State: DC Country: US E-Mail: 442-6718@mcimail.com Source: mcimail Ident: 442-6718 Last Updated: unknown Just send it to 442-6718@mcimail.com Joshua Hosseinoff eaw7100@acfcluster.nyu.edu ------------------------------ From: irving@happy-man.com (Irving_Wolfe) Subject: Panasonic 12/32 - Any Experiences? Any Advice? Reply-To: Irving_Wolfe@happy-man.com Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 17:11:15 GMT We've had a Panasonic 12/32 phone system here for about three years and it is starting to fail. Incoming DISA callers have not been able to get back out on another line for some time, but we could live with that. Now, unfortunately, we're having intermittent problems with general incoming calls through DISA. Most of the time, it still works. But sometimes, callers don't get the outgoing voice message. Other times, the system won't respond to their attempts to tone-dial an extension. Still other times, it won't automatically transfer to operator if they fail to dial an extension. We're running six lines and about 26 extensions, over half of which are standard two-wire phones or devices. The only other thing I know of that's wrong with the system is that one or two of the extension jacks don't work properly, but that was no problem since we still have more than we are using. What's the best thing to do? Shall I invest in another DISA card for over $500? Is the system really badly designed, so I should avoid throwing good money after bad and replace it with something more robust (and if so, what)? Thanks! Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com Happy Man Corp. 206/463-9399 x101 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399 fax x108 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 17:00:25 -0700 From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) Subject: Federal Case Against NYNEX I saw in the paper a while back that the federal government's case against NYNEX had started. Has anyone heard if the case has finished and what the result was? David ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V12 #577 ******************************   Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14333; 21 Jul 92 4:19 EDT Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27545 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 21 Jul 1992 02:24:36 -0500 Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28676 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 21 Jul 1992 02:24:26 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 02:24:26 -0500 From: TELECOM Moderator Message-Id: <199207210724.AA28676@delta.eecs.nwu.edu> To: "\\telecom"@eecs.nwu.edu Subject: TELECOM Digest V12 #578 TELECOM Digest Tue, 21 Jul 92 02:24:21 CDT Volume 12 : Issue 578 Index To This Issue: Moderator: Patrick A. Townson Governor's Island Phones (Jack Winslade) Solve Three Problems (was Telecom Fraud) (David Gast) Cordless Headset Wanted (John Pettitt) Tropez Cordless - Second Thoughts (Irving Wolfe) Cordless Phone Not Charging (Ang Peng Hwa) Help Needed Expanding Cellular Phone Range (David Brightbill) Anyone Heard of "Remote Cable"? (Matt McConnell) Help With X.25; Help With UK (Paul Gauthier) Help Identifying Bell Systems Ringer (mts@wam.umd.edu) What Will ISDN Get Me? (Doug Sewell) Questions About the Motorola Bravo Pager (Marshal Perlman) 911 Run-Around (Dave Niebuhr) Re: 1-800-ATF-GUNS and Anonymity (Lawrence V. Cipriani) Re: Telephone Keypad Question (Liron Lightwood) Giving a PAT Answer to Questions (Robert S. Helfman) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 09:38:58 CST From: Jack.Winslade@ivgate.omahug.org (Jack Winslade) Subject: Governor's Island Phones Reply-To: jack.winslade%drbbs@ivgate.omahug.org Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha In a message dated 18-JUL-92, Carl Moore writes: > Earlier this year, I visited Ellis and Liberty Islands in the New York > harbor, and have the following information on the phone prefixes there > (pay phones only), in area 212: > Liberty Island, zipcode 10004; phone prefix 825 (which I also noticed > in phone book listings for Governors Island). Years ago, when I was in the Coast Guard (things may have changed since) the government phones on Governor's Island were on 212-264, which is/was a U.S. govt. prefix with all of the FTS stuff, etc. If I remember correctly, the residence phones were indeed on 212-825, which was some kind of a satellite crossbar switch of some kind at that time. Some of the civilian phones came out of lower Manhattan, with some of the familiar old ones such as WHItehall (212-944) and BOWling green (212-269) and I think Manufacturers Hanover (branch on GI) had some lines out of a mid Manhattan Centrex. (I remember at the time that the only touch-tone phones on the island were at the bank. Most of NYC still could not get touch-tone.) Good day. JSW Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.14 r.1 DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (just say 'NOE') 402-896-3537 (1:285/666.0) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 22:16:04 -0700 From: gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) Subject: Solve Three Problems (was Telecom Fraud) In my opinion, the best way to reduce fraud keep AOSes from overcharging provide a convenient means for calling without leaving a paper trail is to go to a stored value card as used by telco in most other places around the world. Of course, someone can manufacture counterfeit cards, but it's more difficult to do than peer over someone's s