Subject: TELECOM Digest V16 #17
From: [email-masked] (Patrick A. Townson)
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 20:04:34 -0500 (EST)

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 Jan 96 20:04:00 EST    Volume 16 : Issue 17

Inside This Issue:                          Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 800 Number Abuse Question (Robert Wolf)
    Re: Reserving 888 Numbers ([email-masked])
    888 Pre-Reservation (Gary Bouwkamp)
    800 Replication - It's Now or Never (Judith Oppenheimer)
    Re: Area Code Overlays in Texas Delayed (Lee Winson)
    Re: Area Code Overlays in Texas Delayed (Joe Isham)
    Re: Area Code Overlays in Texas Delayed (Tim Hogard)
    Re: Illegal Cloning Alleged (Pat Martin)
    Re: Illegal Cloning Alleged (Robert A. Rosenberg)
    Re: Fridays Are Free With Sprint (Jonathan Edelson)
    Re: Snow, Snow, Go Away! (Tom Watson)

TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not
exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere
there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of
public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America
On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. 

Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:

                 * [email-masked] *

The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick
Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax 
or phone at:
                      Post Office Box 4621
                     Skokie, IL USA   60076
                       Phone: 500-677-1616
                        Fax: 847-329-0572
  ** Article submission address: [email-masked]

Our archives are located at ftp.lcs.mit.edu and are available by using
anonymous ftp. The archives can also be accessed using our email
information service. For a copy of a helpful file explaining how to
use the information service, just ask.

*************************************************************************
*   TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the              *
* International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland    * 
* under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES)   * 
* project.  Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-*
* ing views of the ITU.                                                 *
*************************************************************************

     In addition, TELECOM Digest receives a grant from Microsoft
     to assist with publication expenses. Editorial content in 
     the Digest is totally independent, and does not necessarily
     represent the views of Microsoft. 
     ------------------------------------------------------------

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 twenty dollars
per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above.

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Wolf <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 800 Number Abuse Question
Date: 15 Jan 1996 17:40:39 GMT
Organization: Millennium Telecom

Allen Kass <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I am trying to find out more about the 800 number abuse I have read
> about. 

The 800 number abuse you referred to is commonly called Toll Fraud,
and is a common, but serious problem for American businesses.  Toll
Fraud is defined as 'The illegal use of telecommunication services
by someone outside an organization.' This definition includes calls
placed with stolen calling card numbers, the 800 number abuse you
described, using voice mail systems to place unauthorized
international calls, and stolen cellular service.  In 1993 there were
35,000 reported cases of toll fraud, costing industry $5 Billion.

How much of a risk does a business face from toll fraud?  Consider a
small business office that is open 8 AM to 6 PM Monday to Friday.  If
that office only has ten trunks and they are used for stolen
international calls during the 62 weekend hours, the business could be
billed $62,000 for that one weekend's activity.  Companies with
more trunks face a larger potential loss.

You may wonder who is responsible for the cost of those illegally
placed phone calls.  The basic rule that applies to telephone service
is that whoever has control of the system that placed the call is
liable for the cost of the call.  Calls placed with telephone calling
cards originate in the network, which is controlled by the company
issuing the calling card.  That company has the ability to monitor
calling card usage, and prevent the card from being used.  Therefore,
the holder of the calling card is not liable for unauthorized calls
billed to the card.  However, calls that are placed from a
company's PBX are billable to that company, even if the call was
originated at a pay phone and merely transferred or forwarded by the
PBX to some other location.  The major long distance carriers all have
clauses in their tariffs stipulating that the company owning or
leasing the PBX can monitor its usage and take steps to prevent
illegal calls from being placed.  In some cases where toll fraud bills
have exceeded $100,000 and the billed company has contested the
invoice, long distance carriers have sued their own customers to
collect the contested bills.  The carriers always win those lawsuits.

Currently, about 80% of the illegal calls are believed to originate in
New York City, although that figure is hard to substantiate.  To avoid
detection call thieves (commonly called phone phreakers) will place a
call to an 800 number in some remote city (like St. Louis), use that
telephone system to place a call to some other business in another
city (say Seattle).  Using that phone system they place a call to a
business in Los Angeles, and from that phone system place a call to
their ultimate destination in some international location.  The most
commonly called locations are the Caribbean (809 and 441 area codes),
Mexico, Colombia, El Salvador, Russia, China, Egypt, Pakistan, and
India.

These calls are stolen for two reasons.  First, there is the profit
motive.  International calls that normally cost an average of $1.50
per minute are sold for a cost of $10 for 20 minutes.  Buyers line up
a many public phone booths to call the family back home.  Second, for
a variety of reasons, callers want to place calls that can not be
traced back to them.  Calls placed from someone else's phone system
fill that need very nicely.

Historically, calling cards were the first method used to place
unauthorized calls.  Calling card numbers and pins are stolen by
scavenging through trash bins (referred to as dumpster diving) or by
watching and listening as someone places a call at a pay phone (called
shoulder surfing).  After losing hundreds of millions of dollars, the
carriers began monitoring card usage, and canceling cards when the
usage appeared suspicious.

When it became more difficult to use stolen calling card numbers,
phreakers turned to the PBX as an alternate means of stealing phone
service.  In this case, the manufacturers of the PBXs had implemented
several phone system features that made this task easy.  First,
Trunk-to-Trunk Transfer was implemented to enable three party calling
with two people outside of the system and also to allow people to
forward their phones to a remote number.  This feature is at the core
of all phone system toll fraud.  Without trunk-to-trunk transfer, a
phreaker must be on the premises to steal phone service (not too
useful).

Second, Direct Inward System Access (DISA) was implemented to enable
traveling executives and sales people to place calls from remote
locations and have them billed to the company PBX at the lower PBX
rate.  This feature often was safeguarded by an access code and a
password.  These protections are preinstalled by the system
manufacturer and often remain unchanged.  Even if they are changed, a
phreaker with a war dialer can determine the new password and use DISA
to place outbound calls that are billed to the PBX owner.

Third, many PBXs select which trunk group to connect to an outbound
call by means of a Least Cost Routing table.  However, some systems
allow a caller to bypass the least cost routing algorithm and manually
select a trunk by means of a trunk access code.  Similar to DISA trunk
access codes are preinstalled and seldom changed.  When calling
restrictions are embedded in Least Cost Routing tabled, phreakers
bypass these restrictions by using trunk access codes.

Finally, to simplify the task of performing system maintenance, phone
system manufacturers provided remote modem access to the phone system
maintenance ports.  This allowed their technicians to remotely
diagnose system problems and turn system features (such as DISA and
trunk-to-trunk transfer) on and off remotely.  The system's
technician ID and password are almost never changed.  Phreakers know
these passwords and like the technician can access the system remotely
to activate DISA and change the DISA password.

Phone mail systems expose businesses to two additional threats of toll
fraud.  First, if a phreaker learns a mailbox password or finds a
mailbox without a password, he can record a greeting that says hello,
pauses for 10 to 15 seconds and then says 'Yes, operator, I will
accept all third party charges.' Later, the caller can place an
operator-assisted third party call billed to that number.  When the
operator calls the billed number to verify, the pre-recorded message
accepts the charge for the call.

Second, voice mail systems often come with automated attendant
capabilities that instruct the caller to enter the called party's
extension.  The voice mail system then connects to the phone system to
transfer the call.  If the caller enters extension 900 the phone
system interprets the 9 as a request for 'outside' dial tone and
connects the call to the public network.  The 00 is a request for an
operator assisted call.  The caller is able to place an operator
assisted international call.

The major long distance carriers offer toll fraud protection plans
under a variety of names.  These plans are all insurance policies that
will reimburse a company for some losses.  They provide protection
under specific circumstances.  But, like all insurance policies they
define which losses are covered and which are not covered.  Before you
sign up for any plan, be sure you understand the exclusions.

Call accounting programs track each outbound call and record the time
the call was placed, its duration, and the trunk used to place the
call.  Some of these programs also provide toll fraud detection
capabilities.  If you specify your company's typical calling
patterns, it will identify exceptions to the pattern and take some
predetermined action such as sounding an alarm or paging someone.
Early detection combined with quick action will keep toll fraud loss
to a minimum, but will not protect you completely.

Although it is important to detect toll fraud quickly, it is even more
desirable to prevent it from occurring.  Prevention can take several
forms, but should include: (1) disabling DISA, (2) disabling
trunk-to-trunk transfer if business needs allow, (3) disabling use of
trunk access codes, (4) limiting access to the maintenance port.  This
last point is most important.  If phreakers can get into the phone
system through the maintenance port, they can undo steps 1, 2, and 3.

Toll Fraud is an extensive topic with many facets.  The above
description is generic and just scratches the surface.  A
telecommunications consultancy like Millennium Telecom can provide
specific information about your particular situation.

Robert Wolf        member: Society of Telecommunications Consultants
Millennium Telecom         http://www.keyconnect.com/millennium
818-790-7339               Fax 818-790-7309
Consulting in Voice, Video, and Data Communications

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

From: [email-masked] (Rweiss1954)
Subject: Re: Reserving 888 Numbers
Date: 15 Jan 1996 11:45:13 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)

Some IXC's are beginning to take reservations.  I heard LCI is
beginning to take reservations in February.  Reply to me if you need
specific information.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 15:49:11 EST
From: Gary Bouwkamp <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Reserving 888 Numbers

In TELECOM Digest V16 #13 Bob Schwartz asked:

> Has anyone got advice on how to reserve an 888 number and how to get
> the best chance at securing the *right* number?? Through an RBOC a
> Long Distance company or ...

> Is there a deadline? When will numbers be assigned and any other
> pertinant information?

Bob, 

Call your current Resp Org or long distance carrier.

The service providers have just finished submitting tapes to the SMS
with a list of the 800 "vanity" numbers that their customers have
requested replication in 888.  These numbers will be marked as
"unavailable" in SMS until the FCC has ruled on the legitimacy of
vanity numbers.

Pre-reservation of 888 numbers will be from 01/24/96 to 02/25/96.
This will allow service providers to reduce pent-up demand for toll
free numbers before the March 1st rush.  Keep in mind that it will be
first-come first-served.  The high visibility numbers like 888-flowers
or 888-the-card would have already been reserved by their owners and
marked as unavailable.

Of course, this schedule could abruptly change depending on when the
FCC issues its pending ruling.

Gary Bouwkamp
Frontier Communications

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 12:30:25 -0500
Subject: 800 Replication - It's Now or Never
From: [email-masked] (Judith Oppenheimer)

JANUARY 12, 1996  
CONTACT:  JUDITH OPPENHEIMER, 212 684-7210 
   
800 REPLICATION - IT'S NOW OR NEVER 
 
New York, NY - The deadline is quickly looming for 800 number
subscribers to have their 800 numbers replicated in the new 888 area
code.  Luckily for savvy businesses, while carriers are not
publicizing this information, there is one consulting firm that's
making sure its clients are protected.
 
According to Judith Oppenheimer, President of Interactive CallBrand,
"The telecom industry is offering business 800 users an unprecedented
opportunity to replicate -- mirror -- their 800 toll-free numbers in
the new toll-free 888 exchange, so that their customers don't reach
competitors instead.  For example, 1 800 FLOWERS wants to make sure
that it will be assigned 1 888 FLOWERS once the new system is in
effect."
 
"The problem," continued Oppenheimer, "is that businesses haven't been
informed about, or guided through the replication process by their
carriers.  It's the biggest secret in business communications today.
And it could have disasterous results for businesses who miss the
opportunity."
 
"1 800 YEARBOOK used to belong to the Baltimore Orioles, and we still
get calls, two years later, for the Baltimore Orioles yearbook!" says
Mitchell P. Davis, Editor and Publisher of The Yearbook of Experts
Authorities & Spokespersons.  "Just imagine if someone else got 888
YEARBOOK and put it on tv!  We'd have to pay for those calls - and we
don't want to delay customers when they're trying to reach the right
place.  They'll be confused."
 
It appears that only a few industry insiders have made themselves
privy to this information.  Interactive CallBrand, a consulting and
marketing firm specializing in toll-free services, has stayed on top
of the facts and ahead of the deadlines by participating at all
industry forums.
 
"ICB's given us critical information to protect our 800 numbers during
the 888 process", says Jay Carpenter, President of 1 800 SHOP AUTOS.
"Even if a non-competitor got the numeric version in the 888 exchange,
the cost in misdials and lost business to both companies could be
prohibitive.  It's a risk we can't afford to take."
 
For More Information Contact:  Judith Oppenheimer, 212-684-7210       

Judith Oppenheimer, President, Interactive CallBrand 
A leading source of information on 800 issues. 
[email-masked], (ph) 1 800 The Expert, (fx) 212 684-2714 
http://www.users.nyc.pipeline.com:80/~producer/

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

From: [email-masked] (Lee Winson)
Subject: Re: Area Code Overlays in Texas Delayed
Date: 15 Jan 1996 20:51:21 GMT
Organization: PACS IBM SIG BBS

Are there any places in the U.S./Canada at present that requires ten 
digit dialing?

How many places have overlay area codes right now?

I myself prefer splits to overlays, except perhaps for fax, cellular,
beeper, and computer lines -- for those I wouldn't mind always dialing
ten digits.

Per Edumund Hack's question -- I'd say most people do NOT read their
phone bills or their newspaper.  When my own area code was split,
there was tremendous advance notice in both the media, company
advertising (big posters on city buses), as well as inserts; as well
as a full one year dual-transition period.  But when the transition
expired, you'd think no one said a word about it!  (One thing did hurt
the Bell company -- the problems with PBXs and LD carriers not being
able to get through, as well as Bell's own DA giving out the old area
code.)

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

From: [email-masked] (Joe Isham)
Subject: Re: Area Code Overlays in Texas Delayed
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 96 16:27:46 GMT
Organization: Eurostation Charles de Gaulle

In article <[email-masked]>, Edmund C. Hack
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> The plan by Southwestern Bell to not split the 713 (Houston) and 214
> (Dallas) area codes, but to overlay them with new area codes has been
> delayed by the Texas PUC. A PUC vote had been scheduled to be taken on
> the plan today, January 11, 1996. The PUC staff and an administrative
> judge had recommended to the PUC that the overlay plan be approved.
> The delay is to allow additional public hearings in the suburbs of
> Dallas and Houston at the end of the month. 713 and 214 would be the
> first area codes to be overlaid.

Actually, the staff recommendation was to approve the 281 overlay for
Houston, but to geographically split 214 and 972. The geographic split
would take the Dallas Central Zone exchanges and place them in 214,
while the suburban exchanges and the rest of the 214 area would go to
972.

> The vote was delayed after several prominent lawmakers requested the
> PUC do so to allow more public input. There have been two public
> hearings on the matter. The first in late December, was in Austin and
> was mainly attended by lobbyists, although a few private citizens did
> speak. The notices for this meeting sparked a lot of coverage in the
> local press in Houston and fired the talk shows into high gear.

Same in Dallas.

Dallas mayor Ron Kirk has threatened to sue the PUC if a geographic
split is instituted in 214. He seems to want none of those "unglamorous" 
972 numbers in his city. But he doesn't seem to understand that with
an overlay, there will be 972 numbers assigned in the city of Dallas.

The problem, of course, is that the suburban exchanges cover parts of
the city of Dallas.

> Some civic leaders are opposed to the geographic split, since some of
> the suburban cities would be in two area codes. 

Hasn't The Woodlands has already been in two area codes since the
713/409 split?

> Commentary: The sudden furor over this is interesting, considering
> that SW Bell has been publicizing 10 digit dialing and the overlay in
> phone bill inserts for at least 6-10 months. You do read your phone
> bill insert don't you? Apparently, most Texans don't.  

Hmm. In Dallas, SWB has put nothing into our phone bills about any
impending area code split.

[email-masked] : Joe Isham, Dallas TX : http://rampages.onramp.net/~jisham/

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

From: [email-masked] (Tim Hogard)
Subject: Re: Area Code Overlays in Texas Delayed
Date: 14 Jan 1996 05:10:48 GMT
Organization: In Mind, Inc.

Edmund C. Hack ([email-masked]) wrote:

> {summarized from news reports here in Houston]

> The plan by Southwestern Bell to not split the 713 (Houston) and 214
> (Dallas) area codes, but to overlay them with new area codes has been
> delayed by the Texas PUC. A PUC vote had been scheduled to be taken on
> the plan today, January 11, 1996. The PUC staff and an administrative
> judge had recommended to the PUC that the overlay plan be approved.
> The delay is to allow additional public hearings in the suburbs of
> Dallas and Houston at the end of the month. 713 and 214 would be the
> first area codes to be overlaid.

SWB could not get the Missouri PUC to approve the St Louis overlay so
St Louis gets the old area code and the rest of the area gets a 537 or
735 or 573 area code.

The PUC's decisions was based on public complaints.  I thought it was
strange that the PUC decided against the phone company.  There is a
large electric company that even complained the PUC was owned by
SWBell.  You know its bad when other monopolies complain.

tim
http://www.abnormal.com/~thogard GPS, VW and Usenet topics.

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

From: [email-masked] (Pat Martin)
Subject: Re: Illegal Cloning Alleged
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 02:29:22 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, wes.leatherock@hotelcal.
com (Wes Leatherock) wrote:

>      A story in {The Daily Oklahoman} (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) for
> Jan. 9, 1996, reports that AT&T Wireless Services has asked for an
> injunction against an Oklahoma City firm for allegedly cloning a
> cellular telephone to create an extension.

>      The story, by Oklahoman staff writer Charles T. Jones, says AT&T
> Wireless Services asked in federal court for a temporary restraining
> order and permanent injunction against Johnny Meyers, doing business
> as Safari Communications and Safari Holdings, Inc.

>      According to the story, "The lawsuit alleges Meyers' company
> 'advertised and solicited' AT&T Wireless customers to have the secret
> electronic serial numbers of their activated cell phones 'cloned' onto
> other phones, thus giving them an 'extension' phone."

>      The story says the suit alleges that such unauthorized phones are
> illegal and deprive AT&T Wireless Services of income.

>      Besides the injunction, the story says, AT&T Wireless Services
> is asking for attorney fees and any other losses it can prove at
> trial.

>      The story says The Oklahoman was unable to reach Meyers for
> comment.

Ooooooh! ATT is up to their same old S*. Probably will cause damage to
the network?

Patrick L. Martin       [email-masked]

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: AT&T would like it if anything which 
deprived them of income (i.e. competitors of any sort) could be 
declared illegal. One report reaching me says this guy in Oklahoma
City is NOT taking it laying down; but rather is pushing hard in
return with a countersuit and his own attornies to make certain 
everyone knows *exactly* what the legalities are. AT&T sometimes
has to be reminded that they are just as good at cheating as everyone
else they accuse of doing it. 

Remember how in the early days of the international 'callback
services' (where USA dialtone is given to overseas customers after
they ring a number in the USA once and hang up) AT&T screamed about
being deprived of revenue on that. And truly, they were being deprived. 
I personally do not think any scheme which involves signalling over
the phone network without paying for it is legal. But the point is,
all the time AT&T was crying about how this was hurting them, they
were busy selling their own brand of 'toll-saver' answering machines;
the kind that wait until the fourth ring to answer if it is the first
call of the cycle, enabling the owner to hang up without getting
charged for a call just to find out he has no messages. Maybe they
thought all the people who bought their 'toll saver' answering machines
were using them via the MCI network ... and that it okay with AT&T! <g>

So if AT&T keeps on pushing this guy in Oklahoma City, someone please
ask them what their real problem is ....    PAT]

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

From: [email-masked] (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Subject: Re: Illegal Cloning Alleged
Organization: RockMug (Rockland County NY)
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 07:18:06 GMT

I hope that AT&T has a tariff for providing Extension Phones. In the
absence of such a tariff the "deprive AT&T Wireless Services of
income" claim is without basis (you can not deprived of income you
have no provision for earning). As to the "unauthorized phones are
illegal" claim, the same basis applies. Refusal of a request to
provide the service, makes the practice authorized and legal so long
as you are not doing anything that would not be allowed if such a
service DID exist. Both these points were decided in the case where
HBO was suing someone (who had no local cable company in his area) who
was using a dish to receive HBO Satellite Broadcasts (this was in the
days before they were scrambled). The guy has OFFERED to pay HBO for
reception privileges but HBO refused his request.  The Judge ruled
that he was not stealing anything from them since they did suffer any
loss of income (no service to steal/bypass -- no loss of income).

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 12:49:42 PST
From: Jonathan Edelson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Fridays Are Free With Sprint

I am not sure that this is such a crazy promotion.  Remember that much
of the cost of telephone service is the investment in equipment; it
costs almost nothing to carry a call if the capacity is there.  Sprint
will thus be taking business away from other companies, with little
cost to themselves.  My only question is how they deal with the local
access costs.

Jon

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You have a good point. In the very
early days of AT&T, but after the patent on the telephone ran out,
their goal was to acquire -- and thus control -- as many of the
small local phone exchanges as they could. AT&T tried everything
they could think of. They'd go into a small town and offer good
money to the proprietor of the local telephone exchange. Often
times that worked and the guy would sell out. But some of the
locals were stubborn; some were community-minded and on general
principle opposed to being part of the (then) new and rapidly
growing consortium called the 'Bell System'. Some, no matter what
the cash offer would refuse it, saying neither they nor the
people in their town wanted any part of 'The Bell' ... In fact
there were times the pressure became so intense on the small
independent telcos to sell out to 'The Bell' that the small guys
all formed an association called USITA (The United States
Independent Telephone Association). Today, AT&T and USITA are
good friends, but not back then.

So you were a proprietor of a small local phone exchange, and you
turned down the offers made to you by Ted Vail and his associates
repeatedly, even as the offering price got higher and higher. Vail's
response would be "well, then let's see how much your phone exchange
is worth when you can't interconnect with anyone else in the USA ..."
and he would cut their interconnection off. Some of the small locals
banded together and routed around Bell wherever they could, many
associating themselves with GTE's predecessor. (I am talking early
1900's now). Furious with this turn of events, Vail's response was
to go right into the same town and set up a competing phone company
and either give the service away for *free* or very close to it for
several months; as long as it took to put the original guy out of
business entirely. Then when the original guy, with all of his
customers stolen from him had to file bankruptcy and shut down the
phone company, here would come Vail's people again, this time to
offer him maybe ten cents on the dollar. This time the guy would
sell out, and Bell would let him walk away holding his trousers
up with one hand; everything else in his life gone. 

So indeed, Sprint may have more business saavy then we think. They
might think losing several million dollars in revenue over a year or
so won't matter since the other carriers will lose all that revenue
also every Friday as people pump everything out over Sprint.  You
are correct; the infrastructure is in place and most of whatever
happens from now on is just gravy. They may be hoping everyone
who has read this thread to date will come onboard with the same
idea in mind: 'Stick it to Sprint! Stick it to Sprint! ...' because
if you are busy sticking it to Sprint you can't very well be on
the phone via one of the other carriers. And, a certain number of
people who decide to stick it to Sprint will eventually decide to
stay with them. Remember Vail's game plan back almost a century
ago: he knew the locals would sign up with Bell and forget about
the other guy.   PAT] 
 
------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 14:05:37 -0800
From: [email-masked] (Tom Watson)
Subject: Re: Snow, Snow, Go Away!
Organization: The 3DO Corporation

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked].
edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) wrote:

> This is directed mostly at our east coast readers who in the past several
> days have seen the blizzard of their (hopefully) lifetimes ... with
> snowfall ranging from 'merely' 18-20 inches some places to as must as 
> two feet or more in other locales. Please let us know how it has affected
> phone service in terms of network traffic congestion, etc.

While everyone agrees that big snowy winter storms are a bummer, look
on the lighter side.  In 1961 here in the San Francisco Bay area (pre
Silicon Valley) the headlines for the {San Fransisco Chronicle} on 
January 15, 1961 (I think that's the date, I could be off a week) was:
_Chains Required San Francisco East_.

We don't get snow here in the winter much.  When we get three inches it is
a MAJOR event.  It was a nice Sunday, and everyone was out playing in the
stuff (including adults).  Film was SOLD OUT of every camera store known
to man.

And you wonder why people live in "earthquake" country ...

Tom Watson
[email-masked]         (Home: [email-masked])

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: By 'chains required' I believe they
were referring to snow chains for automobile tires, things which
are mostly forgotten. Is it legal anywhere to put those on your
tires now-days? Around here they have been forbidden for years due
to the damage they cause the roads. But it used to be many years
ago that snow chains were used to enable your automobile tires to
get the necessary traction on an icy highway. There were no inter-
state highways in those times; roads between communities were just
two lanes (one in each direction) and many were in miserable con-
dition under any circumstances, let alone a big winter storm.  PAT] 

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

End of TELECOM Digest V16 #17
*****************************