TELECOM Digest     Sun, 4 Feb 2007 21:36:00 EST    Volume 26 : Issue 36

Inside This Issue:                           Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Justice Department Uneasy About Rules to Stop 'Pretext' Calls (Reuters)
    Government Balks at Phone Privacy Provision (Associated Press)
    511 Traffic Phone Lines May Raise Crash Risk (Marie Skelton, USA Today)
    Historical Rules About Private Line Services? (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com)
    Free International Calls (was 712 858 8094?) (Mr Joseph Singer)
    Re: Beware of the Dot (Gene S. Berkowitz)
    Re: Western Union Desk-Fax -- Discontinued? (Jim Haynes)

====== 25 years of TELECOM Digest -- Founded August 21, 1981 ======
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet.  All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote.  By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.

               ===========================

Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent.  Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.

We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime.   Geoffrey Welsh

               ===========================

See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest, and why not
support Net Freedom Now http://www.freepress.net/netfreedom . 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:20:09 -0600
From: Reuters News Wire <reuters@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Justice Department Uneasy About FCC Rules to Stop 'Pretext' Calls



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Two reports on phone pretexting today.
This first one from Reuters, then a report from Associated Press will
follow.  PAT]

Federal regulators working on rules to secure the calling records and
other private information of telephone customers are running into
resistance from phone companies and law enforcement agencies.

The rules, an effort by the Federal Communications Commission to
combat "pretexting," are circulating among the commissioners for
comment and may be voted on this month.

Pretexting is the practice of impersonating a phone customer to gain
access to his phone records. President Bush signed a law last month
criminalizing the practice and imposing penalties including up to 10
years in prison.

The issue gained prominence last year when executives of the
Hewlett-Packard Co. were charged with hiring private detectives who
used the technique to investigate board members.

The new law gives police a weapon to punish perpetrators. But it
leaves out any requirements for how phone companies should protect
their customers' private data. Cell phone bills, for example, can
reveal who a person has called and, in some cases, even the caller's
location.

The FCC chairman, Kevin Martin, told reporters recently that the new
rules will require that customers use a password to access their
account information.

While that might protect calling data, telephone companies are wary.
They fear a password requirement might upset customers.

AT&T Inc. spokesman Michael Balmoris said the company has to be
careful to balance security against customers' wishes for easy access
to their information.

The rules also are expected to require that phone companies get a
customer's permission before they can release information that may be
used for telemarketing.

Phone companies contend this requirement would violate their First
Amendment right to communicate with customers -- a position that was
backed by a federal court in 1999.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center, called that court decision "probably one of the
oddest First Amendment cases in many, many years." Since that case, he
said courts have been more inclined to support privacy rules.

Phone companies say there is no evidence that information shared with
business partners falls into the wrong hands, making the proposed
requirement unnecessary.

The departments of Justice and Homeland Security have taken issue with
two other possible provisions in the emerging rules, both of which
have privacy advocates concerned.

The first would tell phone companies to destroy customer records as
soon as the records no longer are needed for legitimate business
purposes.  The government wants the records preserved for possible use
in criminal investigations.

Secondly, the two departments want phone companies to notify law
enforcement officials first, before customers, when customers' private
billing information has been disclosed improperly.

In written comments to the FCC, Deputy Attorney General Paul
J. McNulty said immediately alerting customers in such cases may tip
off investigative targets and lead them to destroy evidence, change
their behavior or slip away.

He proposed that companies not tell customers for at least seven
business days after notifying the FBI or the Secret Service.

For companies, this would mean they would have to determine, without
the benefit of input from their own customers, whether an unauthorized
breach had occurred. Companies also have raised questions about how
such a notification system would work.

Consumer advocates are concerned a delay may result in more harm than
good.

Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst with Consumers Union, said
customers should learn immediately when someone is delving into their
personal information.

"In fact, failing to notify a customer of a breach could impede
prevention of actual harm or the commission of another crime," she
said.

Copyright 2007 Reuters.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:24:50 -0600
From: Associated Press News Wire <ap@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Government Balks at Phone Privacy Provision



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Here is a second version of the same 
story, on pretexting and customer privacy. The first report today
was from Reuters; this second one from Associated Press.  PAT]
 
WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal regulators working on rules to secure the
calling records and other private information of telephone customers
are running into resistance from phone companies and law enforcement
agencies.

The rules, an effort by the Federal Communications Commission to
combat "pretexting," are circulating among the commissioners for
comment and may be voted on this month.

Pretexting is the practice of impersonating a phone customer to gain
access to his phone records. President Bush signed a law last month
criminalizing the practice and imposing penalties including up to 10
years in prison.

The issue gained prominence last year when executives of the
Hewlett-Packard Co. were charged with hiring private detectives who
used the technique to investigate board members.

The new law gives police a weapon to punish perpetrators. But it
leaves out any requirements for how phone companies should protect
their customers' private data. Cell phone bills, for example, can
reveal who a person has called and, in some cases, even the caller's
location.

The FCC chairman, Kevin Martin, told reporters recently that the new
rules will require that customers use a password to access their
account information.

While that might protect calling data, telephone companies are wary. 
They fear a password requirement might upset customers.

AT&T Inc. spokesman Michael Balmoris said the company has to be
careful to balance security against customers' wishes for easy access
to their information.

The rules also are expected to require that phone companies get a 
customer's permission before they can release information that may be 
used for telemarketing.

Phone companies contend this requirement would violate their First 
Amendment right to communicate with customers -- a position that was 
backed by a federal court in 1999.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center, called that court decision "probably one of the
oddest First Amendment cases in many, many years." Since that case, he
said courts have been more inclined to support privacy rules.

Phone companies say there is no evidence that information shared with
business partners falls into the wrong hands, making the proposed
requirement unnecessary.

The departments of Justice and Homeland Security have taken issue with 
two other possible provisions in the emerging rules, both of which have 
privacy advocates concerned.

The first would tell phone companies to destroy customer records as soon 
as the records no longer are needed for legitimate business purposes. 
The government wants the records preserved for possible use in criminal 
investigations.

Secondly, the two departments want phone companies to notify law
enforcement officials first, before customers, when customers' private
billing information has been disclosed improperly.

In written comments to the FCC, Deputy Attorney General Paul
J. McNulty said immediately alerting customers in such cases may tip
off investigative targets and lead them to destroy evidence, change
their behavior or slip away.

He proposed that companies not tell customers for at least seven
business days after notifying the FBI or the Secret Service.

For companies, this would mean they would have to determine, without
the benefit of input from their own customers, whether an unauthorized
breach had occurred. Companies also have raised questions about how
such a notification system would work.

Consumer advocates are concerned a delay may result in more harm than
good.

Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst with Consumers Union, said
customers should learn immediately when someone is delving into their
personal information.

"In fact, failing to notify a customer of a breach could impede
prevention of actual harm or the commission of another crime," she
said.

On the Net:

Federal Communications Commission: http://www.fcc.gov

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For more news and headlines, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/AP.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 19:29:38 -0600
From: Marie Skelton, USA Today <usatoday@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: 511 Traffic Phone Lines May Raise Crash Risk


By Marie Skelton, USA TODAY

Safe-driving advocates are criticizing the spread of 511 traffic
information systems, saying they increase the risk that an inattentive
driver will have an accident.

The Federal Highway Administration is promoting a state-based program
in which drivers calling 511 can use voice-recognition technology or a
touch-tone system to get real-time traffic information and avoid
delays caused by accidents, weather or other factors.

In 2000, the Federal Communications Commission designated 511 as the 
single travel information telephone number to be made available to 
states and local jurisdictions. In December, Louisiana became the 28th 
state to implement the system, which is accessible to 36% of the U.S. 
population.

Though the traffic information service is also available online, some
safety advocates say drivers will most likely use the phone service
while driving. "The biggest irony about calling the traffic report
while driving is that the majority of traffic delays are caused by
crashes, so in the course of calling to check traffic, drivers will
crash and cause more traffic delays," says Lisa Lewis, executive
director of the Washington, D.C.-based Partnership for Safe Driving.

The highway administration has defended the program and cites numerous
state-based 511 websites that warn motorists not to use the service
while driving. An agency spokeswoman said travelers are urged to use
511 before their trips.

Driver inattention is a factor in nearly 80% of crashes and 65% of
near-crashes, according to a study last year by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration and the Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute. The study also revealed that cellphone use is one of the
primary causes of driver inattention.

The traffic safety agency's policy on using cellphones while driving
states that "cellphone use can distract drivers risking harm to
themselves and others." Both highway safety agencies are part of the
U.S. Department of Transportation.

Despite the possibility that people will call the service while
driving, Jonathan Adkins of the Governors Highway Safety Association
says the 511 service is still a good idea. "Drivers have so many other
reasons that they are calling; we're never going to stop drivers from
using their cellphones while driving, but you have to use good common
sense," he says.

Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and the District of Columbia ban the
use of handheld phones while driving. California will bring the law
into effect in 2008. Many other states restrict young drivers or bus
drivers from using cellphones. And 19 legislative bills in 13 states
have been introduced in 2007 aiming to restrict the use of cellphones
while driving.

Copyright 2007  USA Today

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html

For more news and headlines, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org.td-extra/internet-news.html

------------------------------

From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Historical Rules About Private Line Services?
Date: 3 Feb 2007 21:13:18 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com


I was curious about the workings of private line service in the days
of regulation.

I understand back in the 1950s if one had private line service they
could put their own gear on it.  For example, IBM pioneered with some
modems in the 1950s and used them on some private line networks.
However, they stopped quite short of trying such modems on switched
lines because (1) it wasn't allowed (2) they didn't want to upset the
phone company who was a big customer.

Why was it ok to use private gear on private lines?

I assume for long hauls, a private line wasn't a continuous physical
piece of copper wire, but a path set aside on a carrier channel of
coax or microwave.  Obviously gear had to meet certain specs to avoid
harming the network.*

Also, Western Union provided private line services, including voice
and broadband, in competition with AT&T.  W.U. attempted to offer a
voice service but I don't think it had too many customers.

Could anyone set up a private line between two fixed destinations
under contract?  For example, suppose I somehow managed to have a wire
running 100 miles.  The Jones Co. wanted a line between its HQ and a
branch and my wire directly served both locations.  Could I offer that
service to Jones, or was that restricted to registered and regulated
common carriers (like AT&T and W.U.)?

When MCI broke into the Bell monopoly in the midwest, was it offering
a direct physical connection point to point, or was it demanding
interconnection via Bell System lines to the final destination?

Any information on the policies and workings of private line services
would be appreciated.  [public replies, please]

* As to the issue of harming the network, some of the things the
regulators and companies were concerned were a faulty gear constantly
requesting line service or causing disconnects which wouldn't be an
issue on a private line.  Also, regulators deliberated charged more
for equipment to offset the cost of very basic service so that more
people could afford entry level phone service.  In other words, an
intentional cross subsidy.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Although what you say is correct, telco
had very strict rules on things. For example, a pair of wires from
point A to point B which did not go near an 'actual phone line' but
was still used for communication purposes was regulated according to
Bell rules and defined as a 'private line' according to their
rules. The Harper Theatre in Chicago (legitimate playhouse), in
addition to its 'regular' phone line, BUTterfield-1717 had a totally
uninvolved wire pair loop which ran from one side of backstage to the
other side of backstage, then to the lighting and sound booth, and the
first floor ticket office. They installed it privately. The intent was
for those employees to be able to communicate with each other in the
course of a play in progress. No switching equipment on it, no telecom
gear in use except maybe a couple of operator headsets and a
speakerphone somewhere. It all ran with a little independent power
supply. Illinois Bell kept insisting they wanted in on it ... it was a
'private line' by their standards, and they (telco) were the only
people authorized to provide that communication service. Harper
Theatre finally gave in on it and started paying Bell some fee each
month (for nothing, except the right to not be blackmailed by
Bell).But the theatre insisted in return to be allowed to use a 'two
line, twist button' style phone with the 'private line' terminated on
one side of the twist in exchange for the money they were forced to
pay. Telco finally assigned it a 'Private Line Circuit Number.'  PAT]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:33:24 PST
From: Mr Joseph Singer <joeofseattle@yahoo.com>
Subject: Free International Calls (was 712 858 8094?)


Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:19:03 -0500 Michael Muderick <michael@muderick.com>
wrote:

> I have been given this number and told that it is a US-dial gateway
> for making free international calls -- all you have to do is call
> the Iowa based number.  It was suggested it to me as a way for me to
> call into conference calls at work for free.  Does anyone know
> anything about this?

Several of these Iowa numbers have been showing up.  Evidently they
use VoIP to make calls from the US for a negligible amount.  You can
only call regular numbers if it's calling into a country that has
caller pays mobile.  The numbers I have collected so far:

712-945-1111
712-945-0419
712-338-8849
712-858-8094

I'm not exactly sure why they're using Iowa but there it is.

712-945 Salix IA (Aventure Communication Technology LLC) 712-338
Milford IA (Great Lakes Comm) 712-858 Superior IA (Superior Telephone
Cooperative)

None of them appear to be the ILEC Qwest's CO codes.

------------------------------

From: Gene S. Berkowitz <first.last@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Beware of the Dot
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 00:42:43 -0500


In article <telecom26.35.9@telecom-digest.org>, ellis@no.spam says:

> In article <telecom26.29.5@telecom-digest.org>, Monty Solomon
> <monty@roscom.com> wrote:

>> Wireless companies and phone makers say water damage is a common
>> problem with cellphones 

> So why haven't the cellphone makers done something to fix the problem?
> It's not that hard to make a phone that'd take some water without
> breaking.

They have:

http://estore.vzwshop.com/gzone/

--Gene

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Western Union Desk-Fax -- Discontinued?
Reply-To: jhaynes@alumni.uark.edu
Organization: University of Arkansas Alumni
From: haynes@alumni.uark.edu (Jim Haynes)
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 21:08:21 GMT


In article <telecom26.35.7@telecom-digest.org>,
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com>  wrote:

> Jim Haynes wrote:

>> I don't know the termination date, but I know that in 1959 there was
>> some central office desk fax equipment for sale in Chicago surplus
>> stores.  Perhaps it had been replaced by equipment of more modern
>> design, or perhaps Desk Fax was being phased out in that area at that
>> time.

> 1959?  Could you mean 1969?

No, definitely 1959.  Now maybe they were replacing that old vacuum
tube type stuff with more modern electronics, but I picked up several
of the old regulator-inverters in 1959 at a surplus store.

jhhaynes at earthlink dot net

------------------------------


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm-
unications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in
addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as
Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums.  It is
also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.

TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational
service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents
of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.

Contact information:    Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
                        Post Office Box 50
                        Independence, KS 67301
                        Phone: 620-402-0134
                        Fax 1: 775-255-9970
                        Fax 2: 530-309-7234
                        Fax 3: 208-692-5145         
                        Email: editor@telecom-digest.org

Subscribe:  telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org

This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then.  Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!

URL information:        http://telecom-digest.org

Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
  (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)

RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
  For syndication examples see http://feeds.feedburner.com/telecomDigest

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from                  *
*   Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate  *
*   800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting.         *
*   http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com                    *
*   Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing      *
*   views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc.                             *
*************************************************************************

ICB Toll Free News.  Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.

One click a day feeds a person a meal.  Go to http://www.thehungersite.com

Copyright 2007 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.

              ************************

DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD!  REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM   SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !

              ************************

Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.

The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum.  Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.

Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu

              ************************

   In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
   have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
   enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order 
   telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
   been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
   inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
   a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.
Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing
your name to the mailing list. 

All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the
author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only
and messages should not be considered any official expression by the
organization.

End of TELECOM Digest V26 #36
*****************************