Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1981-86.volumes.1-5/vol4.iss119-140

Text File | 1990-12-09 | 169KB | 4,408 lines

Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #119
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 15-Nov-84 15:20:24 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 14 Nov 84 16:59:28 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 119

Today's Topics:
                       The LA BBS (Mog-ur) case
                          BBS responsibility
                    Two Sides to the Bulletin Board
                               TARIFFS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 84  02:07 EST (Tue)
From: _Bob <[e-mail]>
To:   mcb%lll-tis.arpa@lll-tis (Michael C. Berch)
Cc:   telecom@bbncca
Subject: The LA BBS (Mog-ur) case


    From: mcb%lll-tis.arpa at lll-tis (Michael C. Berch)

    The real question raised by the Mog-ur case  (regardless  of  its
    specific outcome) is whether we want, as a matter of public poli-
    cy, to hold BBS sysops (and others in similar situations, includ-
    ing,  for  example,  commercial services [The Source, CompuServe]
    and those who post and redistribute Internet/Usenet digest) CRIM-
    INALLY responsible for failing to detect and remove messages pro-
    posing illegal activities.

Simply proposing criminal activity probably cannot be sanctioned
unless the proposal is followed by an overt act.  The difficulty is
specific intent:  How to prove I meant it when I said "Let's steal
the Hope diamond."  Innocently (or even negligently) transmitting
such proposals can probably not be criminally punished either.

Mog-Ur is this kind of specific intent problem.  The substantive
crime (if any) is a species of theft.  As, I see the keys in your
parked Mercedes and, with the intent to deprive you of it, stop
random passersby and point out the opportunity.  Can I still be said
to be guilty if I simply allow the good news to be posted on the
communal bulletin board in my candy store?  Sure, if I had the
requisite intent.  And intent can be inferred from circumstances.
Suppose you had just won the car in a disputed lottery in which I was
the losing claimant, and I had said "Berch won't drive it far."

One problem with Mog-Ur is that the first version of the story was
innocent of any facts from which such an inference could be drawn.
Not so with later versions.  But, as you say, we don't have any way
of knowing what the real facts are.

    Very rarely do our laws impose standards of  affirmative  conduct
    that  result  in  criminal  sanctions  if  they are not performed
    faithfully.

Filed your 1983 income tax?

                These exceptions usually fall into  categories  where
    serious  and  immdiate harm to persons would result: operators of
    dangerous machinery or explosives; manufacturers/sellers of foods
    and  drugs, and so forth. I don't think anyone has a problem with
    holding a drug manufacturer criminally liable for failing to  in-
    spect a batch of product for dangerous impurities.

    Unfortunately, the L.A. prosecutor has misinterpreted the differ-
    ence  between  CRIMINAL  and  CIVIL  standards of conduct.

I have trouble with the drug company, for very reason you mention.
The drug indictment is ordinarily not for failure to inspect, it is
for homicide.  It is this example that confounds civil and criminal
notions of intentionality; the drug company intented to save a buck,
not to kill people.  The prosecutor's confusion in Mog-Ur is more
likely to involve his own qualifications for higher office.
                                                               If the
    Mog-ur sysop has breached a standard of conduct (and  I  draw  no
    factual conclusions, based on third-hand evidence!) the remedy is
    for the aggrieved party to sue for damages.

The elements of common-law theft are complete when the taker
exercises control over the information, without any demonstration
that anyone ever used the card.  Even if California theft law is very
peculiar, the general law of attempts would almost certainly make a
course of conduct intended as a theft sanctionable.  Should the cops
have to stand by and watch me powerlessly until someone actually
boosts your car?

    This way, both our society's interest in freedom of communication
    and  expression  AND the aggrieved party's property rights can be
    served in a controversial case.   And  ideally,  our  legislature
    could more specifically define a standard of conduct that assures
    that sysops and those in similar positions know what is  expected
    >from  them. Personally, I would rather err on the side of permis-
    siveness, but practically ANY reasonable standard of  conduct  is
    better than having a gung-ho prosecutor try to create a whole new
    class of information-age crimes.

I suspect legislature has acted, not very carefully, and not with
information in mind.  Most "theft of services" statutes are broad
enough to cover the intentional conversion of a telephone credit card
number.  These statutes often try to finesse the specific intent
problem because of difficulties of proof, and usually do it very
badly.  There is a New Jersey section, for example, that makes it a
crime to hack your electric meter with the intent to steal and then
creates a presumption that if your meter is munged, you did it with
the requisite intent.  Think about applying that one to an elderly
apartment house.

Enactments of this kind may well be susceptible to 14th Amendment
due process attack.  That, rather than the First Amendment claims
raised by VAIL, would seem to me the best line of analysis.

_B

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

Date: Mon, 12-Nov-84 23:07:35 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: BBS responsibility
To: TELECOM@MC

I'm not so concerned about the telephone credit card case in
particular (though, by the way, validating physical credit cards
from pay phones would *not* solve the problems, since there are
various other modalities of card usage) but I *am* concerned
about the more general BBS issues.

Let's take a couple of more extreme examples, and not necessarily
impossible ones at that:

1) A BBS operator starts up what amounts to a "houses to hit" BBS.
   His anonymous users post information about local homes and businesses
   that have been noted to have "lax" security, and also note the times
   the buildings are unattended, what valuables are inside, and
   recommend possible places to fence the goods if they are "removed"
   from those establishments.  The BBS operator makes sure he never
   knows who posts those messages, and disclaims any responsibility
   when robberies in the area increase 100 fold within a month
   of the establishment of his "information service."  He also
   claims "he never reads the messages on his board--he's only
   providing a public discussion service."

2) A racial "hate" group establishes a BBS to discuss and plan
   acts of destruction and terrorism against various racial
   and religious groups, all anonymously of course.  Both property
   damage and acts of personal, physical violence are
   proposed and planned on the BBS.  The operator claims he has
   no responsibility because he "never looks at the messages."

Both of these scenarios might be occurring right now, though we
certainly hope they are not.  Now the question is, do these
BBS's deserve to be protected?  What about BBS operators who
attempt to use "ignorance of content" as an excuse to establish
and/or promote illegal activities?  In my view, BBS operators would
be subject to much the same rules and penalties as a magazine
publisher when it comes to publication of such materials.  It is
unreasonable for operators to try to absolve themselves of all
responsibility by claiming lack of control of their boards
and lack of knowledge regarding their users.  If nothing else,
BBS operators could screen messages before allowing posting
to public boards.  Oh yes, this would be more work and more hassle--which
is probably why most operators kick and scream at the concept.  Or they
could make sure they've verified all users before allowing posting
to public boards (some BBS's wisely do this now).  But trying to
hide behind the "anonymous" cloak is irresponsible and likely
to promote increasing amounts of abuse by "anonymous" users.

--Lauren--



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

Date:     Tue, 13 Nov 84 15:36:27 EST
From:     Brint <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  Two Sides to the Bulletin Board

On the one hand, I seem to recall that the offending number was posted
in a category with an offensive name.  Can anybody recall what it was?

On the other hand, if someone poss a telephone calling card number on
the bulletin board down at the supermarket, is the grocery chain guilty
of a felony -- or of anything?

Brint

[phone]    AV:  283-6883     FTS: 939-6883

ArpaNet:  abc@brl
UUCP:     ...!{decvax,cbosgd}!brl-bmd!abc
Postal:

  Dr Brinton Cooper
  U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory
  Attn: AMXBR-SECAD (Cooper)
  Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md  21005

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

Date: Wednesday, 14 Nov 1984 08:57:51-PST
From: [e-mail]  (Arthur Molineaux DTN 2733133)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TARIFFS

We use :National Communications Tariffs
        38 West 32nd Street
        NY,NY 10001
        212-868-0377

They have all tariffs available.

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #120
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 15-Nov-84 17:04:52 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 15 Nov 84 16:09:26 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 120

Today's Topics:
    From Usenet net.legal (please, no mail on spelling Tcimpidis)
                  Thomas Tc*** and the phone phreaks
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #119
                   Re:  BBS's -- who is responsible?
               BBS, telephone credit cards, fraud, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 15 Nov 1984 06:06:36-PST
From: [e-mail]  (Lester Waters)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: From Usenet net.legal (please, no mail on spelling Tcimpidis)

From:   ROLL::USENET       "USENET Newsgroup Distributor"   15-NOV-1984 06:42


To:     VIKING::WATERS
Subj:   USENET net.legal newsgroup articles

Newsgroups: net.legal
Path: decwrl!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxr!mhux

        v!mhuxt!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!eagle!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!ro
            bison
Subject: Thomas Tc*** and the phone phreaks
Posted: Mon Nov 12 14:57:34 1984


The billboard/phone-phreak case has reached the New York Times
(Monday Nov 12 issue).  A long story is very short on facts and
long on concerns about censorship and liability.
I presume the shortage of facts is related to the case being
currently prosecuted.  Still, is there a reliable, objective
dicussion available anywhere of what probably happened?

I have two questions:

(1) It would be easier to talk about this case if we knew how
to pronounce the sysops' name.  Can anyone who knows for sure
post it? (Thomas Tcimp...)

(2) The crucial case issue in law appears to be: to what extent is
an electronic bulletin board a publisher, and to what extent is it
a carrier?  Carriers are generally not responsible for the content
of their messages, and publishers are.  I think the global issue
was not addressed properly by the NYT, nor on the net --

        If bulletin boards are publishers, then how many other
        companies that THINK they are in the carrier business are
        actually also publishers?

It is possible that nearly everyone in the store-and-forward
business could be treated as a publisher also.  S+F services
INTEND to screen none of the messages they forward, and IN GENERAL
messages they handle are sent from one person to one (or a few others)
person.  But there is nothing to prevent a S+F message from being
sent to most of the potential audience, and nothing to prevent
the S+F service from screening before forwarding.

Thomas T. apparently intended to operate as a S+F service, leaving
much data unscreened.  If he had required the sender of every message
to provide a specific list of addressees (selected from his user
population), it's hard to see any difference in the possible "crime".

Therefore, in my mind, this case attacks not only bulleting boards,
but every company that intends to store and forward messages among
individuals in different places.

I would appreciate public comment.

By the way, I'll reiterate another point I strongly believe in:
This is not primarily a "free speech" issue.  It's a case to decide
if we have a set of laws applicable to regulate this type of commerce.
Entities that are not part of the government, nor monopolies,
have wide discretion to control what they will publish or relay.
We rightfully hold them responsible in many cases to prevent the
publishing of scurrilous, damaging-and-false information that
attacks individuals not easily able to defend themselves
appropriately.

If we choose to have government-run bulletin boards, then the bill
of rights will be a key factor in determining their content.

  - Toby Robison
  allegra!eosp1!robison
  or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
  alternate: princeton!eosp1!robison

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

Date: Thu 15 Nov 84 09:44:49-EST
From: Doug Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #119
To: [e-mail]

I'm concerned about the general paper company issue.  Let's take a
couple of extreme examples, and not necessarily impossible ones at
that:

1) A paper company starts up what amounts to a "houses to hit" list.
   Some people use the paper made by the paper company to comunicate
   information about local homes and businesses that have been noted
   to have "lax" security, and also note the times the buildings are
   unattended, what valuables are inside, and recommend possible
   places to fence the goods if they are "removed" from those
   establishments.  The paper company makes sure that it never knows
   who writes what on any of its paper, and disclaims responsibility
   when robberies in the area increase 100 fold within a month of the
   establishment of its "communication service."  It also claims "we
   never read what anyone writes on our paper--we're only providing
   stuff for people to write on."

2) A racial "hate" group establishes a paper company so that people
   can write down their plans for destruction and terrorism against
   various racial and religious groups, all anonymously of course.
   Both property damage and acts of personal, physical violence are
   proposed and planned on the paper.  The paper company claims that
   it has no responsibility because "we never read what people write
   on our paper."

Both of these scenarios might be occurring right now, though we
certainly hope they are not.  Now the question is, do these paper
companies deserve to be protected?  What about paper companies that
attempt to use "ignorance of content" as an excuse to establish and/or
promote illegal activities?  In my view, paper companies would be
subject to much the same rules and penalties as a magazine publisher
when it comes to publication of such materials.  It is unreasonable
for paper companies to try to absolve themselves of all responsibility
by claiming lack of control of their paper and lack of knowledge
regarding users of their paper.  If nothing else, paper companies
could provide carbon sheets with all their paper and could require
that they be sent a copy of anything that is written on their paper.
Oh yes, this would be more costly and more work for the paper company
-- which is probably why most paper companies kick and scream at the
concept.  Or they could license people, before allowing them to
purchase paper, which would all be marked with unique identification.
But trying to hide behind the "anonymous" cloak is irresponsible and
likely to promote increasing amounts of abuse by "anonymous" writers.

--Big Brother--
-------


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

Date:     Thu, 15 Nov 84 10:09:41 EST
From:     Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
To:       "Theodore N. Vail" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  BBS's -- who is responsible?

The real question here is Are bboards and commercial information services
information carriers or are they publications?  They don't really fit the
classification of a conventional publication (I doubt anyone in the legal
community knows what an APA is).

-Ron

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

Date: 15 Nov 84 11:34 PST
From: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
To: telecom%BBNCCA@Nosc
Cc: Tom Perrine <tom@logicon>
Subject: BBS, telephone credit cards, fraud, etc.

Interesting subject.  Its even more interesting if you have been a
victim.

Three months ago, I received a rather large American Express bill; it
came in *three* boxes.  Examination of the contents revealed bills for
approximately 1500 phone calls made on my "ExpressPhone TravelNet" (MCI
paid via Amex) account, to the tune of $3000+.

After calling American Express and convincing them that I didn't make
the calls, my wife and I sat down to do a little "traffic analysis."

All of the calls were from places I have never been, like Miami, Kansas
City, New York, etc.  Once a call was placed to an area, there was soon
an outgoing call from that area, etc.

The first call was in the day after the previous billing cycle had
closed, from Los Angeles to New York.  The next call was 1 hour later,
from New York to Miami, Florida.  After that, the calls were really
flying, with literally scads of call from Miami to New York (were drug
deals arranged with my MCI account?) From there, things fanned out at a
nearly exponential rate, to include Kansas City, San Francisco
(probably San Jose/Santa Clara) and many other places I have never been.

On a whim, I tried dialing a few of the numbers.  In every case I got a
person, not a modem tone, who denied receiving any calls from the
cities I knew they had received a call from or even knowing what a BBS
was. B.S.**(+infinity)!

In any case, American Express and MCI Investigations in McClean have
all the records.  They (AMEX) intimated to me that this will allow them
to recover damages by convincing the people who *received* calls that
they are accessories to the crime if they don't tell them who called *!
("If you don't tell us who did call you, we wil sue *you*...")

I am *VERY* sure that my account number wasn't given out, or seen, as I
am a little paranoid about giving thengs like that out.  I *NEVER* give
my number to hotel operators, if I can't dial it myself, I go somewhere
I can, and then I make sure it isn't seen.

I later calculated by "back-of-the-envelope" that several people,
acting in concert could discover the MCI TravelNet access code of any
account, in less than a week, using home computers; the method is left
as an excercise for the weak of ethic.

Tom Perrine, an ex-TravelNet subscriber


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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #121
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 16-Nov-84 17:29:21 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 16 Nov 84 16:38:52 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 121

Today's Topics:
                        the BBS case continues
                          BBS responsibility
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #120
                        Re: BBS responsibility
                    Telephone calling cards, fraud, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15-Nov-84 16:09:44 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: the BBS case continues
To: TELECOM@MC

It's obvious that some people simply can't fathom the difference
between providing of materials and providing of a "service,"
particularly the person who recently showed that he couldn't
understand the difference between selling paper and running
a message handling service!

Maybe he can understand this:

Nobody would hold someone selling paper, or phones, or computer terminals
for that matter, responsible for how those things were used.  However,
if someone starts a "service" that uses those instrumentalities in
illicit manners, the person running that service might well be
responsible.

Another example.  What if there was a phone number you could call where
someone would answer, not ask who you were, and provide you with lists
of stolen phone and other credit card numbers that had been provided
by other callers.  Perhaps he claims he doesn't know what those
numbers mean, but he's happy to pass them along anyway as a "service."
Or let's say that phones weren't even involved, it was all done
by postcard (harder to manage since postal addresses are involved).
In both of these cases, the "services" would be considered to be
"aiding and abetting" in criminal activities, regardless of their
claims of "no knowledge or control."

The problem that some people seem to have is that they can't understand
that technology does not excuse one from conventional legal
responsibilities.  The reason the BBS's are so popular for passing
around illicit numbers is because they are largely ANONYMOUS.
If they weren't anonymous, people generally wouldn't discuss such
topics.  When CCIS technology is sufficiently in place to make
calling number recording very simple, they will probably stop being
used for such purposes (some years off, though).

What is publishing from a legal standpoint?  My guess is that the
legal question may revolve around the intended audience.  If you
are sending messages to specific persons, and only they may receive
the material, it may well be considered to be a common carrier
type operation.  If you allow essentially anyone to access your
info, you may be taking on the responsibility of a publisher.

For example, what if someone anonymously posted a message to a BBS
that clearly libeled a person and did him or her great financial
harm.  Who would be responsible?  Do you really think that all courts
are going to accept the argument that the BBS operator has no
responsibility?  Keep in mind that only BECAUSE he created an
"anonymous" method for people to send messages was the libelous
message so simple to send.  The obvious extension of such situations
is people setting up BBS's as a convenient way to "avoid"
the legal issues surrounding libel and other similar topics.
Somone could set up the open libel BBS -- where people feel free
to say anything, no matter how damaging, about anyone without
being traceable.  Of course the BBS operator would disclaim all
knowledge of this.  Or people *could* set up systems that mainly
distributed information useful to the commission of crimes, and
once again claim lack of knowledge.

The key problem is that the law did not anticipate this sort
of "anonymous" situation.  It was assumed, for example, that the only
way to get a message to large numbers of people was through magazines,
conventional broadcast facilities, or newspapers who knew their legal
responsibilities and would act accordingly before publishing questionable
materials.

I don't think that the legal system will long allow people to
operate what amount to "no control and no responsibility"
broadcast operations.  And when the crackdown comes, it will
probably be much more severe than any self-imposed controls
that the BBS operators might have set into place for themselves.
In any case, I do not believe that the widespread use of such
technology to allow people to evade the requirements of
legal responsibility will (or should) be permitted in the long run.

Somebody must be responsible for widely distributed and available
materials, and where the originator of the material is not known,
the only other responsible party must be the entity that made
it POSSIBLE for the anonymous material to be distributed to a
large audience, via a single entity, in an anonymous manner.
If that entity had not existed, it would not have been so simple
or convenient to reach so many people with a single message so quickly.

When you start performing operations that amount to broadcasting,
responsibilities are part of the game.

--Lauren--





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

Date: 15 November 1984 21:56-EST
From: Donald E. Hopkins <A2DEH @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  BBS responsibility
To: vortex!lauren @ RAND-UNIX

Now that companies like Atari, Commedore, and Coleco are telling the
masses that it is a social responsibility for them to get their kids a
computer, there are now multitudes of people setting up and using
BBS's. The good old days of BBS's for computer hobbiests are over. The
rules that applied back then simple don't work now. The only
reasonable way a BBS operator can really keep track of what his bbs is
used for is to verify the name and address of every user, and assign
login passwords. Any message a user puts on the board would have his
of her name on it, and the operator would know exactly who they were,
so if anything like this case in question occured, the sysop could
simply point the police to the little snot's doorstep, and the right
people would get punished. This would discourage anyone from abusing
the system, and provide a certian ammount of security. Security may be
a pain in the butt if you're trying to get real work done on real
computers, but if you have a computer system like that open to the
public, you are going to get a lot of people calling up trying to trash
all they can.

        -Don


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

Date: 16 Nov 1984 00:52-PST
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #120
From: the tty of Geoffrey S. Goodfellow <[e-mail]>
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA

Re: egregious fraud on MCI/AMEX TravelNet.

Nothing new here really.  It's going on all over the country in
epidemic proportions.  One company told me their loss in revenue
is "substantial", another said "Millions and millions per month".
Yet another said they get 25,000 cracker attempts PER DAY, with a
peak at about 3PM West Coast time.

It doesn't take any great technological act of chicanery to dike
the codes out.  Some do it by hand, others have their computers
do the work for them while they snooze away at night.  'round
about morning time, it's new codes to read over bacon and eggs.

Some OCC's are trying to deter the crackers as best they can
though.  Since the method most commonly used is normally to dial
a modem in a remote city and detecting carrier sense means you
made it -- One OCC has followed the "invalid authorization code
message" with an answer modem carrier instead of the usual
busy/reorder you would get by staying on the line.

There is really not much the carrier's can do to really find out
who is calling into them.  Without Equal Access or upgrading to
Feature Group B level access (950-xxxx), which I understand
provides them with ANI of the caller.  Hopefully this will add
the needed level of accountability to move the crackers out of
their bedrooms.

By the way, perhaps the next Guinness World Records book could
have a section on the largest phone bills (both honest and fraud)
in dollar amount, number of pages, weight in pounds, number of
delivery trucks, etc.

g

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

Date: Thu, 15-Nov-84 21:35:40 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BBS responsibility
To: A2DEH@MIT-MC
Cc: TELECOM@MC

I agree totally.  The problem is ANONYMOUS messages.  So long as
there is some way to know who is posting messages (even if this
information isn't displayed on the messages but known to the
BBS operator) then it is practical to hold the person who SENDS
the messages responsible, instead of the BBS operator.
If truly anonymous postings are permitted, however, it is the
operators who are going to have the problems.

--Lauren--



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

Date:           Fri, 16 Nov 84 10:24:04 PST
From:           "Theodore N. Vail" <[e-mail]>
To:             [e-mail]
Subject:        Telephone calling cards, fraud, etc.

With all the fuss about the appearance of a valid telephone charge
number on a bboard, it is worth noting what the Telcos' official line is
(not that they follow it):

1.  Until about two years ago they routinely published millions of valid
    telephone charge numbers (because every valid telephone number
    was also a valid telephone charge number) in their own telephone
    directories.

2.  If one looks at a Telco Calling Card (here I will be quoting from
    a GTE card -- I don't have a Pacific Bell card), one can look in
    vain for a statement that the number is secret and should not to be
    divulged.  Indeed, all but the last four digits are the same as my
    telephone number, and if I weren't cognizant of the problem, I might
    not be aware that those four digits amount to a "pin" (personal
    identification number).

    What one does find is a number of statements regarding "use" and
    possession of the card.  For example:

        "Such unauthorized use can constitute a violation of law.  The
        card is not transferable."

        "If your telephone and/or calling card number is changed or
        service is discontinued, please destroy your old card to protect
        yourself against unauthorized charges by others."

        "The card is not transferable."

    It appears that the telco considers the card, itself, not the number
    on the card, as the item to be protected.  In this sense the telcos
    are acting as if the card were like a Visa card or American Express
    card, both of which must be physically presented (those who accept
    telephone charges on such cards knowingly accept the risk that the
    rightful "owner" may reject the charges).

On the general problem of publishing a charge number (not necessarily
a telco number):  These are not normally treated as secure.  Whenever
used, a large number of persons, not specially cleared, are given
access.  A similar statement applies to bank checking account numbers
which appear on checks and are accessible to anyone involved in cashing
a check.  (This is a real problem which has led to major abuses.)

I continue to believe that this is a First Amendment matter.  Ask any
newsperson about restrictions on what they may publish.  They will
immediately tell you about the "public's right to know" and the First
Amendment.  In my opinion, a bboard is much closer to a newspaper than a
"store and forward network", which is simply a message passing facility
the modern version of the United States Post Office (which, after all,
is itself, a store and forward network).

Finally, about 35 years ago, the nation realized the problems that might
occur if persons anonymously discussed illegal matters (such as forceful
overthrow of the United States Government).  This realization was due to
the forthright, outstanding American Senator and Hero, Joseph McCarthy,
who brought the problem to the attention of the American public.  He
would have had no problem with bboards.  He would simply have required
that all sysops take an appropriate oath of allegiance.  Those who
didn't would have been blacklisted, lost their jobs, etc.  His supported
would have provided adequate policing of the bboards.

ted

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #122
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 17-Nov-84 22:34:50 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 17 Nov 84 21:13:31 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 122

Today's Topics:
                       BBS's and responsibility
                    New telco charging capability?
              Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings
                               Objection
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16-Nov-84 15:38:50 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: BBS's and responsibility
To: TELECOM@MC

Getting to be a pretty hairy topic, eh?

--Lauren--



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

Date:  Sat, 17 Nov 84 09:33 EST
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  New telco charging capability?
To:  [e-mail]

Just see a TV ad (by Jeanne Dixon for horoscopes).  The number was
415-976-3333.   The important point was the charge was listed as
.50+toll charges.  This means telco is doing bill-back via the phone
number!!  Not even a 900 number!

Am I interpreting this correctly?









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

Date: Sat 17 Nov 84 09:04:53-PST
From: Tim Gonsalves <[e-mail]>
Subject: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings
To: [e-mail]


While making a direct-dial call from area code 415 to India (011-91-xxx-xxxx#

        ),
I got the following two recordings:
"All circuits to the country you have dialed are busy.  This is a recording.
212-5231"
and
"The call cannot be completed.  This is a recording.  212-5235"

What are the two numbers, 212-5231 and 212-5235, at the end of the recordings

        ?

                                Tim Gonsalves
                                        Gonsalves@SU-Sierra
-------

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

Date:     Sat, 17 Nov 84 11:41:40 EST
From: Brint <[e-mail]>
To: telecom@Berkeley
Subject:  Objection

I object to Lauren's avoiding the issue of the responsibility, if any,
of someone who makes a bulletin board available for public use and who,
in no way, controls the content of the messages. Countless shopping
centers across the USA make available hardcopy bulletin boards for
public posting of messages.  Are these managements to be held liable of
someone posts a teleco redit card number?  It seems to me that, if the
BBS is really accessible to the anonymous public and if the BBS owner
engages in no activities relating to the content of the messages, then
he/she is no more or less liable for message content than the owner of
the supermarket with its hardcopy bulletin board.


Which way is it, Lauren?

Brint


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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #123
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 03:28:16 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 18 Nov 84 23:10:41 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 123

Today's Topics:
                      Emergancy Breakthroughs..
                            several topics
                      what are the alternatives?
                        TELECOM Digest V4 #121
                        the BBS case continues
                             Uniden EX1040
                                 BBSs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Nov 1984 21:05-PST
Subject: Emergancy Breakthroughs..
From: MHAMILL@SRI-CSL
To: Telecom@BBNCCA

Hello,
I have one question Reguarding the
Emergency Breakthroughs.
The other day, I did an emergency
breakthrough from A 914 operator,  to
area code 703-491-xxxx. The operator
called the 703-491 inward operator
and said:
"Emergency Interrupt on 703-491-xxxx"
To which the 703 inward responded:
"Could i have the name of the party?"
I said,"Mark Hamill"
The inward said:
"Could I please have the number you are
 calling FROM Mr. Hamill?"
I said :"914-946-9563"
Then the inward asked for the reason
for the interrupt. At this point the
914 operator asked if all of this was
necessary. The inward said it was for
the records only.
I said:"I must speak to the other
party"
The inward then said:
"I am sorry Mr. Hamill, that is not a
 valid reason for an interrupt"
and then hung up.
My operator did not know what was going
on and asked me to try the call again
later.

My question is:"Shouldent the Phone
Co. have to put through the interrupt
as long as I am going to pay for it?
And also, why would they want my name
and phone #?

thanks ,
Mark Hamill
MHamill@SRI-CSL

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

Date: Sat, 17-Nov-84 23:31:18 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: several topics
To: TELECOM@MC

Gee, several topics.  Let's get the BBS one out of the way first.
I haven't evaded the issue of physical bulletin boards, I just
was searching around trying to find some old newspapers that I
hoped I still had that described some interesting situations along
these lines.  Unfortunately, it appears that those old papers got thrown
out, but I remember the material quite well.

The issue of physical bulletin boards (as well as BBS's) would
seem to most directly involve the continued presence of or
frequent postings of "illegal" messages.  While I don't follow
the supermarket bulletin board scene too closely, I do recall
at least two instances at universities when there were investigations
into what were considered to be "illegal" postings on the public
("unrestricted") boards there.  In one case, I remember that the
issue involved someone advertising to buy stolen goods, and in another
case it involved drugs.  In both cases the messages were pulled and
quickly reappeared, in one case apparently resulting in the posting
of strict "rules" for use of the boards and frequently checking of
the boards for adherence.  The fear indeed was that the school might
be sued if someone was harmed or otherwise victimized thanks to the
material on those boards.  There's still a chance that I have that
old newspaper around--I'll make another attempt at finding it.

I don't think that anyone would try prosecute a grocery store owner
if an occasional "bad" message showed up on his board.  But what
if someone posted a message that was direct libel, or recommended
illegal acts or some of the other topics we've discussed already?
And what if the owner left such messages up for long periods of time and/or
allowed such messages to be frequently posted?

The bottom line is that it is considered either illegal or
subject to civil liability (depending on circumstances) to publicly
post certain sorts of information when that information constitutes
libel or aids/abets in crime.  I know of no exceptions that
say, "It's OK to allow the display of such information if you don't
know who posted it."

If a pattern of abuse were not apparent, one would hope that
BBS's (and physical bulletin board) owners would simply be asked
to remove the messages, and that legal/civil action would not be taken.
In cases of obvious patterns of abuse (for example, someone who
insisted on allowing the posting of stolen credit card numbers on
their board and left them up for long periods) more serious
action would seem suitable.

I strongly believe that there is NO DIFFERENCE between physical
bulletin boards and BBS's in this regard.  We're hearing
more about BBS's because they reach so many people and are
very, very simple to use anonymously, but similar situations
could occur with any "public display" facilities.

-----

To the person asking about the 976 charge-back numbers...  They have
been present here in L.A. for quite some time.  The information
service provider rents a bunch of phone lines (I think around 25 is the
minimum), specifies the maximum length of the call (3 minutes the
absolute max, I believe) and the amount they want to charge for the
call up to $2 or possibly $3.  They also provide the recordings
or computer equipment (touch-tone/voice output, etc.) for the lines.
For each call that comes in, telco charges the caller any ZUM/toll
charges plus the designated "call cost," keeps a chunk, and sends
a certain percentage of the "call cost" back to the provider.

The most popular of these services to date have been the "Eros" type
numbers, by the way, though there are people running stock market
query/response numbers and other information services that are
also apparently doing QUITE well.  In fact, I may be peripherally
involved with a local 976 info service (writing and doing recordings
for a general information service--not sexually explicit!) quite soon,
in which case I'll presumably find out even more about how these 976
services operate.

Two interesting points:

1) They are local to each area code.  Here in L.A. where we now have
   two codes, the 213 and 818 systems are considered entirely separate.

2) I'm told that these numbers only collect the "call cost" when called
   from numbers inside the local area code.  For calls outside the
   local code, they supposedly only charge as "regular" calls.  That's
   what my 976 source says, anyway, for whatever it's worth, though one
   would think that there would be special arrangements for close
   knitted codes like 213/818.  Also, it appears that there would
   be a problem with any calls going through alternate carriers
   on a local basis, but that situation is quite cloudy.  At least
   this is the information that telco is apparently giving prospective
   976 service operators--they are warning them that only calls
   inside the local area code will generate them revenue.

-----

Telco recordings that include numbers at the end normally are indicating
the area code and a switch location code for the recording in
question.  If you hear a recording ending with "212-172" you are most
likely listening to a recording somewhere in New York City.  By and large,
these numbers are being phased out in the toll network, partly because
of complexities being introduced by new CCIS-based call routing systems.

--Lauren--



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

Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 02:38:21 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: what are the alternatives?
To: TELECOM@MC

By the way, I'm still waiting to hear useful alternative suggestions
from those who feel that BBS operators should be free of any
responsibility for all messages on their systems.  Are we to assume
that you feel that any and all information should be OK to have
on these systems?  How about *your* credit card numbers?  Your medical
history?  The status of your bank account?  When you come and go from
your house?  Degrading or obscene messages regarding yourself or your
relatives from people who dislike you?  How about discussions of your
sexual preferences, problems, and kinks?  If you agree that there
are SOME TOPICS not suitable for public discussion, and you insist
that people should be able to anonymously post messages to these systems,
it might be interesting to hear who should be responsible for the damage
that might be inflicted on individuals through the public display of
such info.

--Lauren--



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

Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 11:58 EST
From: Douglas Alan <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #121
To: [e-mail]


>       From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
>       Subject: the BBS case continues

>       It's obvious that some people simply can't fathom the difference
>       between providing of materials and providing of a "service,"
>       particularly the person who recently showed that he couldn't
>       understand the difference between selling paper and running
>       a message handling service!

It's obvious that some people simply can't fathom that a service is a
type of material.  So what if you can't a touch a service like you can
touch a rock?  You can buy services, sell services, give away services
just like any other material.  When you buy some material, the seller
isn't responsible for what you do with the material, so why should the
provider of a service be responsible for what you do with the service?

By your line of reasoning, phone companies should take responsibility
for crimes that are planned over telephones, mail comapanies should be
responsible for packages that contain bombs, hotels should be
responsible for everything that is discussed in their hotel rooms.
Phone companies should listen to all conversations.  Mail companies
should open and search all packages.  Hotels should bug all their rooms.

>       The problem that some people seem to have is that they can't
>       understand that technology does not excuse one from conventional
>       legal responsibilities.

The real problem that some people seem to have is that they can't
understand that just because freedom can be abused (especially with the
aid of technology) doesn't mean that it should be taken away.

>       The reason the BBS's are so popular for passing around illicit
>       numbers is because they are largely ANONYMOUS.  If they weren't
>       anonymous, people generally wouldn't discuss such topics.

Gee, so are rumors.  I guess we should make them illegal too!

>       For example, what if someone anonymously posted a message to a
>       BBS that clearly libeled a person and did him or her great
>       financial harm.  Who would be responsible?

If a rumor is started that clearly libels a person and does him great
financial harm.  Who would be responsible?

Clearly we should make talking illegal, for without talking there could
be no rumors.

>       Somone could set up the open libel BBS -- where people feel free
>       to say anything, no matter how damaging, about anyone without
>       being traceable.  Of course the BBS operator would disclaim all
>       knowledge of this.

If I were to say, "I believe that Ronald Reagan had sex with a German
shepard," I would not be guilty of anything, no matter how damaging this
was to Reagan.  I have the right to believe in anything I want to, and I
have the right to voice my opinions.  On the other hand, if I were to
say, "Ronald Reagan had sex with a German shepard, and I can prove it,"
I would be guilty of slander, unless I did indeed have proof.  There can
be no such thing as anonymous slander, because if no one is willing to
sign his name to it, then it has no authority.  If people are willing to
believe anonymous lies or regard my unsuported beliefs as facts, then it
is they who are guilty ones.

>       The key problem is that the law did not anticipate this sort
>       of "anonymous" situation.

Thomas Jefferson knew very well what he was doing when he created the
bill of rights, and if he were alive today, he'd probably want hold a
revolution.

>       Somebody must be responsible for widely distributed and available
>       materials, and where the originator of the material is not known,
>       the only other responsible party must be the entity that made
>       it POSSIBLE for the anonymous material to be distributed to a
>       large audience, via a single entity, in an anonymous manner.
>       If that entity had not existed, it would not have been so simple
>       or convenient to reach so many people with a single message so
>       quickly.

This line of reasoning is rediculous.  Again, by this reasoning, Thomas
Jefferson is responsible for all abuses of the First Ammendment.

The guilty are the guilty.  Even if they are not easy to find.  The fact
that there is an easy-to-find scape-goat doesn't make him guilty of
anything.

                        Not afraid to defend the First Amendment,
                        Doug Alan


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

Date:  Sat, 17 Nov 84 22:58 MST
From:  "Kevin P. Fleming" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Uniden EX1040
To:  [e-mail]

Anyone out there in NetLand have any stories good or bad, about Uniden
extension phones?  I am thinking of buying an EX1040 two-line with
memories and conference calling and all of that good stuff.  Please
reply via private mail, or to the net if you must.

                    -Kevin

KFleming%pco@CISL

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

Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 15:53:23 est
From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: BBSs

Just saw an interesting variant in the paper...  It seems that a neo-Nazi
group in this country is using an American-based BBS to spread the "message"
in Canada.  Importation of printed versions of that material is against
Candian law, but they haven't figured out how to handle this one.

                --Steve Bellovin
                ulysses!smb@Berkeley
                [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #124
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 17:50:33 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 19 Nov 84 15:54:15 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:
                         cost of leased lines
                                   privacy
                               BBS case
                      Emergancy Breakthroughs..
                   "Emergency Break-ins" (Verifies)
                             Re: privacy
                 move BBS discussion to another list?
            Re:  Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings
                         976 numbers and BBS
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #122
                              950 access
                            14.4Kb modems
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 1984 22:33:28 PST
Subject: cost of leased lines
From: Dave Dyer <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]


 Can someone point me to an order-of-magnitude cost estimate for
leased lines?  I'm looking for something with about the level
of detail and accuracy as:

          ( $N + $K per kilometer * $X per baud. ) per month



-------

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

Date:           Sun, 18 Nov 84 22:37:40 PST
From:           "Theodore N. Vail" <[e-mail]>
To:             [e-mail]
Subject:        privacy

Lauren Weinstein asks:

        Are we to assume that you feel that any and all information
        should be OK to have on these systems?  How about *your* credit
        card numbers?  Your medical history?  The status of your bank
        account?  When you come and go from your house?  Degrading or
        obscene messages regarding yourself or your relatives from
        people who dislike you?  How about discussions of your sexual
        preferences, problems, and kinks?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publicizing this information is legal, can be published by any news-
paper, and often is!  Go down to your local magazine stand and read the
fan magazines about Hollywood Celebrities and other public figures.
Read the National Enquirer.

Privacy rights are limited, are not in the Bill of Rights, and take a
back seat to the First Amendment.

Note that it is almost impossible for a "public figure" to win a libel
or slander suit -- such a person must prove not only that the published
material was false and defamatory, but also that there was "malicious
intent".

By the way, well-known magazine columnists who keep their name in
the public eye by constantly publishing in usenet, etc., are almost
certainly "public figures" in the eye of the law.

ted

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

Date: 18 Nov 1984 23:09:23 PST
Subject: BBS case
From: Dave Dyer <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]


 This whole discussin on BBS illustrates the inherent inanity
of trying to classify *ANY* communication as "legal"
or "illegal" based on its content.   How is the poor
sysop supposed to know if a number posted on his board
is stolen?  Or even if it's a phone number at all?  Do
you suppose that theives will "observe regulations" by
clearly marking all proscribed communication;
   **SYSOP; PLEASE DELETE TO SAVE YOUR ASS**

 Trying to regulate the content of BBS will only put
the honest operators to a lot of trouble, or out of
business altogether, and make them subjct to arbitrary
harrasment by any DA with an axe to grind ("crusading DA
cracks down on dial-a-crime").   The operators whose
intent is criminal will have no trouble skirting the
regs.
-------

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

Date: 19 Nov 1984  00:25 PST (Mon)
From: Tony Li <Tli@Usc-Eclb>
To:   MHAMILL@SRI-CSL
Cc:   Telecom@BBNCCA
Subject: Emergancy Breakthroughs..


As I understand it, an Emergency Breakthrough is supposed to be used
only for *Emergencies*.  The life or death type, I s'pose.  The
operator cutting in on you is an invasion of privacy, and the 'rules'
say that they can only cut in with a valid emergency.  The name and
phone number are so that they can track the call in case they get a
complaint.

Speaking of which, I remember once when I got an Emergency
Breakthrough whilst hacking...  The operator got an earful of Vadic,
and once I figured out what was going on and killed the modem, she
told me that I had a problem on my line.  Sigh.

Cheers,
Tony ;-)

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

Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 23:26:53 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: "Emergency Break-ins" (Verifies)
To: TELECOM@MC

Line verification (or "interrupts") are normally only allowed when
a "good reason" is present.  It's pretty clear why: you aren't
simply paying for a service (the call interrupt) but you're also
interrupting someone ELSE'S call, who presumably doesn't want his
or her call disturbed except for a good reason.  Perhaps you know
that the person in question wouldn't mind being interrupted by you,
but telco has no way to know that.

The keeping of records regarding who places interrupt calls is to
help provide protection in cases of harrassment--you'd be surprised
how much this still happens, even with a charge for the procedure.

As a practical matter, I would expect most any operator who was
told that the reason for the call was "a personal emergency" would
place the call without further questions.  If they won't, it's
"let me speak to your supervisor" time...

--Lauren--



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

Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 23:57:44 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: privacy
To: randvax!vail@UCLA-LOCUS
Cc: TELECOM@MC

Theodore,

Your own message brings up the key issue!  Yes, there are conflicts
between privacy rights and First Amendment rights.  However, the
First Amendment rights do NOT override ALL privacy rights.

In particular, if a person feels slandered or damaged by an
article in The National Enquirer, they can sue the person who
wrote the article AND/OR the Enquirer itself.  And in fact, suits
of this kind, even by "public figures," are becoming increasingly
successful as the courts begin giving more emphasis to privacy rights.
There have been cases won where there was no issue of "inaccuracy"
but simply of serious invasion of privacy.

But the important thing is that in such cases, people at LEAST
have the ability to sue the publication involved.  It is extremely
doubtful that even The National Enquirer would publish "anonymous
rumors" that could conceivably result in a lawsuit, unless they
(at least in private) knew who the original authors were.  Otherwise,
they'd end up taking the full brunt of any lawsuits.  Responsible
publications (and even most irresponsible ones!) just don't
put before the public any and every unsubstantiated fact that
someone happens to anonymously phone in!

Two other points.  It appears to be held from a legal standpoint
that "non-public" figures have substantially greater rights to
privacy than "public" figures.  Publications normally are aware
of this distinction and usually careful about what they publish,
since they are aware of the potential problems.  The BBB's we're
talking about, on the other hand, don't even offer that modicum
of "filtering" -- they "publish" anything about anyone
without regard to *any* privacy issues.

Oh, the second point.  The definition of "public figure" has been
worked out pretty well in the courts.  It apparently requires that
a person be "generally" known to "the public at large."  This does
not include people who are only widely known within certain limited
technical communities, even if they publish in those communities.

If you took a general sampled poll of people scattered around the U.S.
and asked them who, say, Carol Burnett was, you'd get a high percentage
who could identify her.  If you asked the same group who
Lauren Weinstein was, you'd probably get a 0% response from
the sampling group.  She's a public figure.  You and I are not.
Now, if we appeared on The Tonight Show it *might* make a difference,
but we haven't, and hopefully we won't.

--Lauren--

P.S.  By the way, not even the National Enquirer would publish
      lists of people's credit card numbers.  Stories about houses
      painted mysteriously at night by ghosts, but not credit
      card numbers.  General publication of credit card information
      would be considered to be aiding and abetting in the commission
      of crime by virtually any court.  (Yes, stories about ghosts
      painting houses--I saw the headline on my way out of the
      supermarket...)

--LW--



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

From: Jon_Tara@Wayne-MTS
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 16:13:24 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

re: 976 numbers and per-call charges

     Several months ago Michigan Bell dropped weather service.
(They still provide time.)  Several companies now provide weather
service using 976 numbers.  The charge is .15/call.

     Apparently, 976 is a special exchange, and the public is
supposed to "know" that if they call a 976 number they're going
to be charged for some service.

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

Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 01:40:35 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: move BBS discussion to another list?
To: TELECOM@MC

Given that this discussion is becoming increasingly involved with
issues of law, and decreasingly involves telecommunications
technology, perhaps we should move it over to INFO-LAW?

--Lauren--

[Hear Hear! I think TELECOM readers have read enough of the legal
implications of the BBS case. Note: If you have some legitimate
information to tell about the case, I encourage you to post it to
TELECOM, but the debate really belongs in INFO-LAW. --JSol]

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

Date:     Mon, 19 Nov 84 7:54:16 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To:       Tim Gonsalves <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings

I don't know what the numbers after the hyphen mean (have had that happen
on recordings I have gotten), but I did read in a newspaper article of
almost 20 years ago that overseas calls go thru New York (hence the 212).


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

Date: Mon 19 Nov 84 08:02:47-PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: 976 numbers and BBS
To: [e-mail]

976-XXXX numbers are nation-wide "local" numbers.  If you dial them from
anywhere the network will take you to wherever the serive provider is
and charge you the toll charges in addition to charges by the provider.
Pretty dangerous if you have a system which restricts toll calls based
on 1+ or NPAs only.

A suggestion:  How about a BBS split-off newsletter for those that enjoy
this type of useless academic polemic?.

-------

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

Date: 19 Nov 84 09:37:21 PST (Monday)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #122
To: [e-mail]

Re :Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings

Tim-

I have always assumed that the first portion of the recording number was
the area code of the tape recorder that was talking to me. In this case
it would mean that your call got dumped in New York. Makes sense. When I
have run into those things the areqa code quoted was always equal to
source or destination.

Geoff <[e-mail]>

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

To: [e-mail]
Subject: 950 access
Date: 19 Nov 84 14:53:25 EST (Mon)
From: Dave_Farber <farber@udel-ee>

I live right near a boarder to area 302 and much of 302 is a local
call for me. I subscribed to SBS and got a 950 number out of
a 302 access point. WHen I tried to dial it I got reorder. Seems
I have to either dial 1-302-950.... or 1950.... I assume that the
1950 takes me to Philadelphia about 50 miles away. Is there
ever a charge for a 950 number!!

Dave

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

From: ihnp4!amdcad!phil@bbncca
Date: Sun Nov 18 13:53:12 1984
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 84 16:36:46 pst
To: ihnp4!bbncca!telecom-request
Subject: 14.4Kb modems

Anyone have any experience or recommendations on the subject of
14.4Kb modems?

        phil ngai
amd![e-mail] or
ihnp4!amd!phil

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #124
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 22:30:43 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 19 Nov 84 15:54:15 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:
                         cost of leased lines
                                   privacy
                               BBS case
                      Emergancy Breakthroughs..
                   "Emergency Break-ins" (Verifies)
                             Re: privacy
                 move BBS discussion to another list?
            Re:  Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings
                         976 numbers and BBS
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #122
                              950 access
                            14.4Kb modems
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 1984 22:33:28 PST
Subject: cost of leased lines
From: Dave Dyer <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]


 Can someone point me to an order-of-magnitude cost estimate for
leased lines?  I'm looking for something with about the level
of detail and accuracy as:

          ( $N + $K per kilometer * $X per baud. ) per month



-------

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

Date:           Sun, 18 Nov 84 22:37:40 PST
From:           "Theodore N. Vail" <[e-mail]>
To:             [e-mail]
Subject:        privacy

Lauren Weinstein asks:

        Are we to assume that you feel that any and all information
        should be OK to have on these systems?  How about *your* credit
        card numbers?  Your medical history?  The status of your bank
        account?  When you come and go from your house?  Degrading or
        obscene messages regarding yourself or your relatives from
        people who dislike you?  How about discussions of your sexual
        preferences, problems, and kinks?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publicizing this information is legal, can be published by any news-
paper, and often is!  Go down to your local magazine stand and read the
fan magazines about Hollywood Celebrities and other public figures.
Read the National Enquirer.

Privacy rights are limited, are not in the Bill of Rights, and take a
back seat to the First Amendment.

Note that it is almost impossible for a "public figure" to win a libel
or slander suit -- such a person must prove not only that the published
material was false and defamatory, but also that there was "malicious
intent".

By the way, well-known magazine columnists who keep their name in
the public eye by constantly publishing in usenet, etc., are almost
certainly "public figures" in the eye of the law.

ted

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

Date: 18 Nov 1984 23:09:23 PST
Subject: BBS case
From: Dave Dyer <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]


 This whole discussin on BBS illustrates the inherent inanity
of trying to classify *ANY* communication as "legal"
or "illegal" based on its content.   How is the poor
sysop supposed to know if a number posted on his board
is stolen?  Or even if it's a phone number at all?  Do
you suppose that theives will "observe regulations" by
clearly marking all proscribed communication;
   **SYSOP; PLEASE DELETE TO SAVE YOUR ASS**

 Trying to regulate the content of BBS will only put
the honest operators to a lot of trouble, or out of
business altogether, and make them subjct to arbitrary
harrasment by any DA with an axe to grind ("crusading DA
cracks down on dial-a-crime").   The operators whose
intent is criminal will have no trouble skirting the
regs.
-------

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

Date: 19 Nov 1984  00:25 PST (Mon)
From: Tony Li <Tli@Usc-Eclb>
To:   MHAMILL@SRI-CSL
Cc:   Telecom@BBNCCA
Subject: Emergancy Breakthroughs..


As I understand it, an Emergency Breakthrough is supposed to be used
only for *Emergencies*.  The life or death type, I s'pose.  The
operator cutting in on you is an invasion of privacy, and the 'rules'
say that they can only cut in with a valid emergency.  The name and
phone number are so that they can track the call in case they get a
complaint.

Speaking of which, I remember once when I got an Emergency
Breakthrough whilst hacking...  The operator got an earful of Vadic,
and once I figured out what was going on and killed the modem, she
told me that I had a problem on my line.  Sigh.

Cheers,
Tony ;-)

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

Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 23:26:53 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: "Emergency Break-ins" (Verifies)
To: TELECOM@MC

Line verification (or "interrupts") are normally only allowed when
a "good reason" is present.  It's pretty clear why: you aren't
simply paying for a service (the call interrupt) but you're also
interrupting someone ELSE'S call, who presumably doesn't want his
or her call disturbed except for a good reason.  Perhaps you know
that the person in question wouldn't mind being interrupted by you,
but telco has no way to know that.

The keeping of records regarding who places interrupt calls is to
help provide protection in cases of harrassment--you'd be surprised
how much this still happens, even with a charge for the procedure.

As a practical matter, I would expect most any operator who was
told that the reason for the call was "a personal emergency" would
place the call without further questions.  If they won't, it's
"let me speak to your supervisor" time...

--Lauren--



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

Date: Sun, 18-Nov-84 23:57:44 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: privacy
To: randvax!vail@UCLA-LOCUS
Cc: TELECOM@MC

Theodore,

Your own message brings up the key issue!  Yes, there are conflicts
between privacy rights and First Amendment rights.  However, the
First Amendment rights do NOT override ALL privacy rights.

In particular, if a person feels slandered or damaged by an
article in The National Enquirer, they can sue the person who
wrote the article AND/OR the Enquirer itself.  And in fact, suits
of this kind, even by "public figures," are becoming increasingly
successful as the courts begin giving more emphasis to privacy rights.
There have been cases won where there was no issue of "inaccuracy"
but simply of serious invasion of privacy.

But the important thing is that in such cases, people at LEAST
have the ability to sue the publication involved.  It is extremely
doubtful that even The National Enquirer would publish "anonymous
rumors" that could conceivably result in a lawsuit, unless they
(at least in private) knew who the original authors were.  Otherwise,
they'd end up taking the full brunt of any lawsuits.  Responsible
publications (and even most irresponsible ones!) just don't
put before the public any and every unsubstantiated fact that
someone happens to anonymously phone in!

Two other points.  It appears to be held from a legal standpoint
that "non-public" figures have substantially greater rights to
privacy than "public" figures.  Publications normally are aware
of this distinction and usually careful about what they publish,
since they are aware of the potential problems.  The BBB's we're
talking about, on the other hand, don't even offer that modicum
of "filtering" -- they "publish" anything about anyone
without regard to *any* privacy issues.

Oh, the second point.  The definition of "public figure" has been
worked out pretty well in the courts.  It apparently requires that
a person be "generally" known to "the public at large."  This does
not include people who are only widely known within certain limited
technical communities, even if they publish in those communities.

If you took a general sampled poll of people scattered around the U.S.
and asked them who, say, Carol Burnett was, you'd get a high percentage
who could identify her.  If you asked the same group who
Lauren Weinstein was, you'd probably get a 0% response from
the sampling group.  She's a public figure.  You and I are not.
Now, if we appeared on The Tonight Show it *might* make a difference,
but we haven't, and hopefully we won't.

--Lauren--

P.S.  By the way, not even the National Enquirer would publish
      lists of people's credit card numbers.  Stories about houses
      painted mysteriously at night by ghosts, but not credit
      card numbers.  General publication of credit card information
      would be considered to be aiding and abetting in the commission
      of crime by virtually any court.  (Yes, stories about ghosts
      painting houses--I saw the headline on my way out of the
      supermarket...)

--LW--



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

From: Jon_Tara@Wayne-MTS
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 84 16:13:24 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

re: 976 numbers and per-call charges

     Several months ago Michigan Bell dropped weather service.
(They still provide time.)  Several companies now provide weather
service using 976 numbers.  The charge is .15/call.

     Apparently, 976 is a special exchange, and the public is
supposed to "know" that if they call a 976 number they're going
to be charged for some service.

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

Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 01:40:35 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: move BBS discussion to another list?
To: TELECOM@MC

Given that this discussion is becoming increasingly involved with
issues of law, and decreasingly involves telecommunications
technology, perhaps we should move it over to INFO-LAW?

--Lauren--

[Hear Hear! I think TELECOM readers have read enough of the legal
implications of the BBS case. Note: If you have some legitimate
information to tell about the case, I encourage you to post it to
TELECOM, but the debate really belongs in INFO-LAW. --JSol]

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

Date:     Mon, 19 Nov 84 7:54:16 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To:       Tim Gonsalves <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re:  Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings

I don't know what the numbers after the hyphen mean (have had that happen
on recordings I have gotten), but I did read in a newspaper article of
almost 20 years ago that overseas calls go thru New York (hence the 212).


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

Date: Mon 19 Nov 84 08:02:47-PST
From: HECTOR MYERSTON <[e-mail]>
Subject: 976 numbers and BBS
To: [e-mail]

976-XXXX numbers are nation-wide "local" numbers.  If you dial them from
anywhere the network will take you to wherever the serive provider is
and charge you the toll charges in addition to charges by the provider.
Pretty dangerous if you have a system which restricts toll calls based
on 1+ or NPAs only.

A suggestion:  How about a BBS split-off newsletter for those that enjoy
this type of useless academic polemic?.

-------

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

Date: 19 Nov 84 09:37:21 PST (Monday)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #122
To: [e-mail]

Re :Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings

Tim-

I have always assumed that the first portion of the recording number was
the area code of the tape recorder that was talking to me. In this case
it would mean that your call got dumped in New York. Makes sense. When I
have run into those things the areqa code quoted was always equal to
source or destination.

Geoff <[e-mail]>

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

To: [e-mail]
Subject: 950 access
Date: 19 Nov 84 14:53:25 EST (Mon)
From: Dave_Farber <farber@udel-ee>

I live right near a boarder to area 302 and much of 302 is a local
call for me. I subscribed to SBS and got a 950 number out of
a 302 access point. WHen I tried to dial it I got reorder. Seems
I have to either dial 1-302-950.... or 1950.... I assume that the
1950 takes me to Philadelphia about 50 miles away. Is there
ever a charge for a 950 number!!

Dave

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

From: ihnp4!amdcad!phil@bbncca
Date: Sun Nov 18 13:53:12 1984
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 84 16:36:46 pst
To: ihnp4!bbncca!telecom-request
Subject: 14.4Kb modems

Anyone have any experience or recommendations on the subject of
14.4Kb modems?

        phil ngai
amd![e-mail] or
ihnp4!amd!phil

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #125
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 22-Nov-84 00:27:39 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 20 Nov 84 21:42:55 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 125

Today's Topics:
                             BBS filter?
           strange charging for certain numbers, continued
                             misc. topics
                      Re:  TELECOM Digest V4 #124
                             BBS Liability
            Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #123
                        the BBS case continues
                        the BBS case continues
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 19 Nov 84 17:19:03 EST
From: Craig MacFarlane <[e-mail]>
Subject: BBS filter?
To: [e-mail]


        How about running all incoming msgs though a filter to scan for
   naughty words,politicians names, numbers like credit card numbers, and
   any other things that might question the intent of the msg.  After the
   flag goes up, put the msg in a file to look at by the sysop with time
   and date.  After editing he/she could put the msg back on for the public
   to read...
                                just adding to the fire,
                                [raig
                                cmacfarlane@bbnccj


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

From: ima!johnl@bbncca
Date: Mon Nov 19 18:24:00 1984
Subject: strange charging for certain numbers, continued
To: bbncca!telecom

As of a few years ago, the telco's charging was special-cased for numbers
ending in 9911 or 9951 (I think.)  Such numbers were supposed to be reserved
for business offices, which you could traditionally call for free even from
far away.  My uncle who owns the Shoreham Telephone Co. (in Vermont) had to
pick out such toll slips by hand when preparing bills, at least until he
bought a computer for billing.

Evidently those numbers are no longer special, because these days you call
collect to talk to a distant business office -- around here the recording
asking you to wait for the next available service rep even says that they'll
accept charges!

John Levine, ima!johnl or [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 19-Nov-84 17:54:32 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: misc. topics
To: TELECOM@MC

A few topics:

1) 950 numbers.  There isn't SUPPOSED to ever be a charge for dialing
   these numbers.

2) 976 numbers.  They are NOT "nationwide" access numbers.  They are
   unique to each NPA (area code) and result in the service charge-backs
   discussed in a previous digest when called from within the same
   area code.

3) Just as a point of information, overseas calls from the U.S. are
   routed from a variety of locations, including White Plains NY,
   San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, and a variety of other locations.
   For many years, the White Plains location (area code 914) was
   the primary gateway to most of the world.

--Lauren--



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

Date:     Mon, 19 Nov 84 20:12:03 EST
From:     Joe Pistritto <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  Re:  TELECOM Digest V4 #124

        On the subject of Emergency Breakthrough, remember there is
another service that will handle a lot of the cases that emergency
breakthrough is used for: Verification.  In many cases, (non life and
death, but still critical), all you want to know is whether the person
you are trying to call is actually TALKING to someone, or if the line
is screwed up for some reason, (phone off the hook, etc.).  You can
ask for the 'Verification Operator' in my area (301), and the operator
will tell you whether or not there is conversation on the line.  Of
course, he/she won't tell you what the content is, but you can then
decide if you want to do a breakin.  There is no charge currently
for verification in this area, although I have heard rumors there
might be soon.

        On another topic, a couple weeks ago, I posted a question as
to what the bit rates of the available T(1, 2, 3, etc.) trunks were.
Got no response, so I'll ask again.  Someone out there must know this...
(I already know T1 = 1.544 Mhz).

                                                -JCP-

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

Date:     Tue, 20 Nov 84 12:47:02 EST
From:     Brint <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  BBS Liability

OK, now Lauren and I have reached an important point of agreement:  that
"hardcopy" bulletin boards and computer BBSs should be treated the same
way.  Now, we need to agree on what that way is.

An important problem is "drawing the line."  If the law expects bulletin
board owners to police the content of their "boards," and holds them
liable for illegal postings, is it not also consistent to hold the
public utility company liable if illegal postings are made on the wooden
poles that carry its wires?  And should the owners of walls be
responsible for libelous and slanderous grafiti(sp?) posted thereon?

Yes, I agree that walls and poles are not erected for the posting of
information.  But they are THERE.  And such posting is very nearly a
tradition in American society.  (No defense intended!)

It seems that holding bulletin board owners responsible for materials
posted on their boards implies that the state is telling such folks how
to operate their boards, e.g., that they must periodically read every
posted item, that they must insist on the identity of the poster, etc.
Do we really want government writing such regulations?

I believe that there are other means to prosecute the real
culprits--those who actually post the items.

Brint

-------------------
Afterthought:  If, on the other hand, a bulletin board is, in fact, to
be considered a broadcast medium equivalent to radio, TV, and
journalism, then it is already subject to these restrictions.

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

Date: 20 Nov 84 09:41 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings
To: Tim Gonsalves <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]

I believe that the number after the hyphen is the number of the
recording, and that the 212 alludes to the fact that your call was
routed through the international switching center in White Plains, NY.

                        Herb

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

From: decvax!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!pmg@Berkeley
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 84 14:02:38 est
To: decvax!ucbvax!telecom@Berkeley
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #123


Subject: the BBS case continues
From: P. Michael Guba <aplvax!pmg>

First of all I would like to say that Lauren's analogy with a
physical bulletin board at a grocery store or student union is
a very good one.  Electronic BBS's are a new medium and they
can reach many more people but they should be required to follow
the same rules.

|  From: Douglas Alan <[e-mail]>

|>      From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
|>      Subject: the BBS case continues

|  When you buy some material, the seller
|  isn't responsible for what you do with the material, so why should the
|  provider of a service be responsible for what you do with the service?

Because he has the capability of monitoring how you use that service
without invading your rights to privacy.
If the service being provided can be used as a PUBLIC forum in an
ANONYMOUS manner the provider of the service must be held accountable
to exercise reasonable care in preventing any illegal use of the service.

|  By your line of reasoning, phone companies should take responsibility
|  for crimes that are planned over telephones, mail comapanies should be
|  responsible for packages that contain bombs, hotels should be
|  responsible for everything that is discussed in their hotel rooms.
|  Phone companies should listen to all conversations.  Mail companies
|  should open and search all packages.  Hotels should bug all their rooms.

Under all of these situations that Doug mentioned, the right of privacy
of the average citizen in using these services takes precedence over
the discovery of the few people that abuse these mediums by using them
to commit crimes.  When people post information to a bulletin board,
on the wall or on a computer, they have given up their right to privacy
in transmitting their information.  Once the posted message is in the
public forum, it is under scrutiny of the law and a search warrant,
or permission of the author or other privledged recipient of the message,
are not required to enter the message as evidence in a court of law.
None of these conditions apply to the use of the mediums discussed by Doug.

|>      The problem that some people seem to have is that they can't
|>      understand that technology does not excuse one from conventional
|>      legal responsibilities.

|  The real problem that some people seem to have is that they can't
|  understand that just because freedom can be abused (especially with the
|  aid of technology) doesn't mean that it should be taken away.

And some people don't realize that freedoms carry responsibilities.

|>      The reason the BBS's are so popular for passing around illicit
|>      numbers is because they are largely ANONYMOUS.  If they weren't
|>      anonymous, people generally wouldn't discuss such topics.

|  Gee, so are rumors.  I guess we should make them illegal too!

Rumors are normally transmitted from one person to another or in small
closed groups and therefore are protected by our rights to have private
conversations.  Thats why they are called rumors and not the Washington
Post.

|>      For example, what if someone anonymously posted a message to a
|>      BBS that clearly libeled a person and did him or her great
|>      financial harm.  Who would be responsible?

|  If a rumor is started that clearly libels a person and does him great
|  financial harm.  Who would be responsible?

The person who put the message into the public or who was most responsible
for the financial harm that was created by the rumor.  Thats why I don't
repeat rumors that can harm people, and thats why I don't slander
people on BBS's.

|  Clearly we should make talking illegal, for without talking there could
|  be no rumors.

This one doesn't even deserve a response.

|>      Somone could set up the open libel BBS -- where people feel free
|>      to say anything, no matter how damaging, about anyone without
|>      being traceable.  Of course the BBS operator would disclaim all
|>      knowledge of this.

Lauren is correct.  If some one is providing a public forum for
ANONYMOUS messages they have accepted SOME responsibility for making
sure that the posted information does not violate laws.  And they
should exercise REASONABLE care to insure that the postings are
legal.  It is the responsibility of juries in our justice system
to determine what is reasonable care.

|  There can
|  be no such thing as anonymous slander, because if no one is willing to
|  sign his name to it, then it has no authority.  If people are willing to
|  believe anonymous lies or regard my unsuported beliefs as facts, then it
|  is they who are guilty ones.

How does this line of thought apply to anonymously posted telephone
credit card numbers?  The person who posted the number is aiding
a criminal action.  If the BBS operator does not exercise reasonable
care in removing such messages he is responsible for that message
being on the bulletin board.  On the other side of the coin, if his
system also supports transmission of private mail between frequent
users, he is not responsible for filtering these messages because
they are private.

|>      The key problem is that the law did not anticipate this sort
|>      of "anonymous" situation.

|  Thomas Jefferson knew very well what he was doing when he created the
|  bill of rights, and if he were alive today, he'd probably want hold a
|  revolution.

Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he could see how some
people were condoning the commitment of crimes, under the guise of
exercising their freedoms.  Someone has the right to say anything they
want but the must also pay the penalty if what they say infringes on
someone else rights.

|>      Somebody must be responsible for widely distributed and available
|>      materials, and where the originator of the material is not known,
|>      the only other responsible party must be the entity that made
|>      it POSSIBLE for the anonymous material to be distributed to a
|>      large audience, via a single entity, in an anonymous manner.
|>      If that entity had not existed, it would not have been so simple
|>      or convenient to reach so many people with a single message so
|>      quickly.

|  This line of reasoning is rediculous.  Again, by this reasoning, Thomas
|  Jefferson is responsible for all abuses of the First Ammendment.

Don't forget your First Ammendment ends where the next persons
Bill of Rights begins.

|  The guilty are the guilty.  Even if they are not easy to find.  The fact
|  that there is an easy-to-find scape-goat doesn't make him guilty of
|  anything.

Someone made it hard to find the guilty.  And that same person had the
power to remove the illegal message.  You call him a scape-goat, and I
say the courts will decide whether or not he has exercised what I have
defined as reasonable care in removing illegal messages from his BBS.

In a previous telecom digest "Theodore N. Vail" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

|  I continue to believe that this is a First Amendment matter.  Ask any
|  newsperson about restrictions on what they may publish.  They will
|  immediately tell you about the "public's right to know" and the First
|  Amendment.  In my opinion, a bboard is much closer to a newspaper than a
|  "store and forward network", which is simply a message passing facility
|  the modern version of the United States Post Office (which, after all,
|  is itself, a store and forward network).

This is true, but don't forget that newspapers, no matter how loosely
the term is used, have been sued for, and lost, libel cases and that the
author of an article, and the editor of the paper are ultimately
responsible for any article published in the paper.  The author wrote the
article and the editor provided the means for public distribution of the
material.

A bulletin board operator assumes the same responsibility
to exercise reasonable care that the information being posted is not
libelous or criminal in nature, that an editor would have to assume
if he published an ANONYMOUS article in his paper.

REPEATING:      Don't forget your First Ammendment ends where the
                next persons Bill of Rights begins.

I love discussions on legal interpretations, done with minimal flaming.

This views presented in this article are mine and have
no connection with my employer.

Just another conservative engineer,
Mike
----
P. Michael Guba
...seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!pmg
...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!pmg



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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #127
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 23-Nov-84 21:01:55 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 23 Nov 84 20:24:35 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 127

Today's Topics:
            Re:  Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings
                            public figure
                                 976
                        Pac Bel's "Party Line"
                     telco provided "party-lines"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 23 Nov 84 13:26:24 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  Re:  Strange numbers in AT&T's int'l recordings

You have said "212 alludes to...(being) routed thru international
switching center in White Plains, NY".  But White Plains is in 914.


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

Date: Fri, 23-Nov-84 12:17:27 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: public figure
To: TELECOM@MC

Sure, if the published information in question dealt directly
with technical issues.  But the examples of "harmful published
information" that I was using were things like credit card numbers,
comings and goings from the home, and sexual proclivities.  None
of these areas relate to "technical" issues in the manner you
suggest.  A person has to be a public figure in the "general" sense
before the broad base of their privacy begins to erode, and even
then items like credit card numbers would never be included in the
"eroded" catagory.

--Lauren--




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

Date: Fri, 23-Nov-84 12:24:27 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: 976
To: TELECOM@MC

Some of the services are attempting to get the same 976 access numbers
in each city, mainly to simplify their advertising, but they are
still distinct services local to each area code.  Even in Los Angeles
the 213 and 818 codes are providing separate 976 services (the 818 976
service was awarded to General Telephone, by the way...)

In L.A., 976 services are in great demand.  There
isn't enough central office equipment to support the number of
people who wanted to provide services, and the available circuits
were awarded by lottery.  Once you are awarded a service, you MUST
begin using it within a short time or the lines will be given to
someone else.

--Lauren--



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

Date: Fri, 23 Nov 84 13:32:05 pst
From: Phil Lapsley <phil%ucbeast@Berkeley>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Pac Bel's "Party Line"

     It's interesting to note that a group of individuals have been
running a service similar to Pac Bell's "Party Line" for some time
now in San Francisco.  I forget the name of their conference, but
it was well run, using a microcomputer with a voice synthesizer and
five or six lines.  Each individual had their own access code, and
when you called and entered your code, the computer would announce
your arrival on the conference with a short trumpet-like fanfare
and then give stats on how many people were on the conference, etc.

     As for the concern that people would give out Sprint numbers,
etc. on the conference, well that indeed did happen, and the only
reason I would suspect that phreaks wouldn't use Pac Bell's service
would be the fear that maybe Pac Bell *is* listening.  As far
as legal responsibility for publishing... well, I won't touch that
with a 1200 baud modem.

                                                Phil

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

Date: Fri, 23-Nov-84 12:30:33 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: telco provided "party-lines"
To: TELECOM@MC

I suspect that these may be a legal "sleeper" -- I wouldn't be at
all surprised to hear about major lawsuits resulting from information
passed through these lines.  They are a bit different than a BBS
since you can only "broadcast" to a limited number of people (the
number of people on the line at a given time) but they may be
opening the door to telco vulnerability for "offending" messages.
What if jerks started exchanging telco calling card numbers
over such a service?

Should be interesting to see what happens, from a legal
standpoint, with these services.

--Lauren--



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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #128
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 28-Nov-84 15:18:15 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 28 Nov 84 14:21:14 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 128

Today's Topics:
                           T-carrier specs.
                        T1, T2, etc data rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 84  9:26:04 EST
From: Jim Berets <jberets@bbn-vax>
Subject: T-carrier specs.
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]

From "Introduction to Communication Systems" by Stremler:

Specifications for the T-carrier TDM/PCM Telephony System

System  Rate    MUX     Voice   Medium  Rptr.   Max.    Sys.
        (Mbps)          Chans.          spacing sys.    error
                                        (miles) length  rate
                                                (miles)
-------------------------------------------------------------
T1      1.544   T1      24      Wire    1       50      1e-6
                                pair
T2      6.312   4(T1)   96      Coax    2.5     500     1e-7
T3      44.736  7(T2)   672     Coax    not used for xmission
T4      274.176 6(T3)   4032    Coax    1       500     1e-6
T5      560.160 2(T4)   8064    Coax    1       500     4e-7
WT4     18500.0 58(T4)  233000  Wave-   25      4000    1e-8
                                guide

There is also T1C which is 2(T1).

Jim


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

From: ihnp4!ariel!jmn@Berkeley
Date: 27 Nov 84 11:16:06 CST (Tue)
To: ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom@Berkeley
Subject: T1, T2, etc data rates

[]
        The data rates of the digital transmission facilities in
the U. S. A. are;
                        Bit Rate        No. of 64,000bps
                                        voice channels
        T1              1.544Mbps       24
        T1C             3.xxx           48
        T2              6.312           96
        T3              44.736          672
        T4              274.176         4032
In Japan;
        level 1         1.544Mbps       24
        level 2         6.312           96
        level 3         32.064          480
        level 4         97.728          1440
        level 5         400.352         5760
In CEPT (Europe);
        level 1         2.048 Mbps      30
        level 2         8.446           120
        level 3         34.368          480
        level 4         139.264         1920
        level 5         560.xxx         7680

                                        John M. Nervik



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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #129
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 00:01:59 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 29 Nov 84 22:34:22 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 129

Today's Topics:
                             phone wiring
                        Hello, I'm a computer
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #127
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed 28 Nov 84 16:16:01-PST
From: Mike Dixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: phone wiring
To: [e-mail]

while attempting a bit of reverse-engineering on my phone answering machine
(a record-a-call 675) i noticed that it seems to expect signals on the first
and fourth wires (modular plug) as well as the second and third.  all the
phones i've ever looked at ignored these wires, and indeed some extension
jacks don't even connect them...

can someone give a brief summary of what each of the four wires are used
for, what the signal levels are like, etc.?  thanks.             .mike.
-------

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

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 84 13:00:51 EST
From: Craig MacFarlane <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hello, I'm a computer
To: [e-mail]


   Have many of you noticed the increase in computer/recordings that call
your no. to get you to buy something?  In the last 2-3 weeks I've received
about 5 of these calls, and I'm rarely at home.

 Where does the law draw the line between inquiry and abuse?  Is there any-
thing stopping someone from setting up a recording that will call every no.
in the local area, and say "eat at joes"?  I think the ones that bother me
the most are the surveing calls, where the recording pauses for a response,
because you can't find out who they are.

 Anyway, I was just wondering if this is fad or trend...

                                                [raig


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

Date: Thu 29 Nov 84 22:01:27-EST
From: Keith M. Gabryelski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #127
To: [e-mail]

A couple of things:

Re: Screening BBS Mail..

        Would anyone out there like to right the routines for the
        various computers.  I sure wouldn't like to put in a time
        wasting routine like that on my BBS.

Re: Interuptions..

        I've never had a problem interupting a line.  I've even used
        bizarre names that only the receiving party would understand
        and I still never had a problem.  Maybe the operator was new
        operator that just finished reading the "Standard Practices"
        (You've gotta break the new ones in.)

Re: Party Lines..

        There have been several party lines (that I have been on) up
        and down the coast here.  Charlie Oakland I think is the one
        that runs the one in SF.  (They would not allow stuff of
        questionable nature on the line).

        There is also one in LA related with FEEDBACK I think.

        I've noticed that 4-5 is the maximun number of people you can
        have on a conference before it got annoying.  With all the
        people being random, I would say that the number would have be
        a lot less. (Lukers not-withstanding.. ofcourse who would lurk
        with prices like that.)

                        Keith
-------


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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #130
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Sat, 1-Dec-84 01:49:02 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 30 Nov 84 16:57:10 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 130

Today's Topics:
                  Phone wiring and "Hello, I'm a computer"
                   automated recordings (dial out)
                         Hello, I'm a computer
                             BBS Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:           Thu, 29 Nov 84 21:23:50 PST
From:           "Theodore N. Vail" <[e-mail]>
To:             [e-mail]
Subject:        Phone wiring and "Hello, I'm a computer"

The first and fourth wires on a four-conductor modular plug are normally
used for modular jacks connected to one line of a key (push-button)
multi-line telephone system.  Shorting them disables the "hold"
circuit and enables the telephone to be used.  The "hold" circuit is
(traditionally) a "holding" relay across the telephone line, and the two
wires are connected in parallel with the coil, so that shorting them
removes current from the coil and the holding relay opens.  Of course,
now there are electronic equivalents, but the circuitry at the telephone
remains the same.  Signal levels are a few volts dc and the current is
the traditional "20" milliamperes.
------------------------------
I have received computer calls, with no human asking first if I wanted
to receive them.  What laws, rules, regulations, etc., if any, would I
be breaking, if I set my auto-dialing modem to indefinitely dial the
number that the recording tells you to call for more information.  My
modem will keep dialing until it gets a modem to answer.  (Because of
its "linking" feature, it doesn't have the 15 call limitation that some
believe is required.)

ted

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

Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 01:17:15 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: automated recordings (dial out)
To: TELECOM@MC

The rules regarding these devices vary from state to state.  Here
in California, the law says that you are supposed to be asked by
a human whether or not you wish to hear the recording before it is
started, and they are supposed to monitor the line to drop the
recording if you hang up.  So you can use automated techniques to
pick numbers and dial, but you "have" to let a person query the
callee.

Of course, these rules are sometimes ignored, and I (very rarely,
even with multiple phone lines) still get on occasional completely
automated call.  They usually never tell you the name of the
company calling, just prompt you for various information.

I consider them to be a somewhat entertaining way to practice
my knowledge of Anglo-Saxon expletives.

--Lauren--



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

Date: 30 November 1984 12:24-EST
From: Ray Hirschfeld <RAY @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  Hello, I'm a computer
To: cmacfarl @ BBNCCJ

I, too, have been getting more junk calls lately.  I wonder if it's
possible to get a home 976 number.  I wouldn't mind these calls if I
got a dollar for each one.

At one point I considered getting an unlisted number to eliminate
these nuisance calls.  It burns me that the phone company charges not
only a whopper of a service charge for this, but a monthly charge as
well.  And it wouldn't protect against dialers that try every possible
number rather than go through the book.

                                Ray


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

Date: 30 November 1984 15:00-EST
From: Ray Hirschfeld <RAY @ MIT-MC>
Subject:  BBS Liability
To: telecom @ BBNCCA

There has been a lot of discussion recently about the liability of BBS
operators for credit card numbers posted on their systems.  The people
contributing to this discussion seem to be polarized into two camps,
those who feel that only the person who posted the number can be held
responsible, and those who feel that, because the culprit cannot be
identified, this responsibility devolves upon the operator.

Neither position seems right to me.  Neither the BBS operator nor the
person who posts the number is necessarily guilty of anything.  Even
if the submission of the credit card number were not anonymous, it
seems to me that culpability is limited to those who use the number
fraudulently.  Similarly, I would not hold Abbie Hoffman or his
publisher criminally liable for _Steal This Book_.

Slander/libel is a different matter, since the message is itself
damaging.  But there is nothing inherently damaging about a number on
a bulletin board.  I give out my mastercard number over the phone all
the time, and conceivably anybody who takes a phone order from me can
abuse it.  I'm not doing anything illegal, though.  If I post a
message on a BBS that says "my credit card number is so-and-so but I
don't authorize anybody to use it," I'm asking for trouble but I don't
think I'm breaking the law.  If a number were posted with malicious
intent it might be different, but this seems like a very difficult
thing to prove.

I know very little about laws concerning these matters, so the above
is based solely on common sense, which has little to do with law.  If
I'm way off base, please let me know.


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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #131
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 22:51:37 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 4 Dec 84 15:36:05 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 131

Today's Topics:
                      junk calls; call forwarding
                             phone wiring
                   Automated recordings (dial out)
                       RE:Hello, I'm a computer
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 30 Nov 84 19:35:44 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  junk calls; call forwarding

I have heard of junk calls being routed to every possible number, thus
stripping away the protection afforded by unlisted numbers (and also
reaching jails, hospitals, etc.).  I have also heard of not being able
to hang up on some of these calls, which spells trouble if you happen
to want to make emergency call at the very same time (it's happened!).
But I am not sure who said what (if anything) about such junk calls.

Re: call forwarding.  I can still make outgoing calls, right?  If I am
making such an outgoing call and a call comes in, do I hear anything?
(If the phone is on the hook, I hear one ring on an incoming call but
cannot answer it there, right?)


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

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 84 17:24:19 est
From: ulysses!smb@Berkeley (Steven Bellovin)
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: phone wiring

There are a number of common uses for the other two wires.  The most likely
use in this case is for the 'A-A1' lines -- an off-hook signal used by
key phone systems to deal with someone picking up a held line, lighting
the buttons to show a line is in use, etc.  If that's the case, the
answering machine should simply complete a circuit between those two when
it's off-hook.

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

Date: Sat 1 Dec 84 13:19:49-EST
From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automated recordings (dial out)
To: [e-mail]

I suspect that activity of this sort will decrease when we all have those
little boxes that tell us the number of the phone that is calling us.  (They
were testing them in Pennsylvania a year ago.)  Then you at least have some
information to give to the phone company when you report those harassing phon

        e
calls.  You could even take it upon yourself to prevent them from harassing
others by tying up THEIR dialout line with YOUR autodialer.

                                        - Ralph Hyre
-------

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

Date: 4 Dec 84 14:36:27 EST
From: Gadi <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE:Hello, I'm a computer
To: [e-mail]


Getting an unlisted number might not help.
When I was in high-school I worked for a Telephone Sales company
(selling Newspapers).  We were gived a card with the first
5 digits and had to dial the 100 last 2 digit combinations.
This way we got all the unlisted numbers...

                           -Gadi
                      Friedman@Ru-Blue.

-------

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #132
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 7-Dec-84 19:00:17 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 7 Dec 84 16:39:58 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 132

Today's Topics:
                           Automated dialers
                    Political polling by telephone
                              junk calls
                         Re: call forwarding
                   MCI Mail won't be free for long
                      Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #130
                             Forwarding..
                        TELECOM Digest V4 #131
                              Allnet ???
                            Introducing...
                   air-to-ground phone scanner freqs
                            950+ handling
                   Can anyone identify this modem?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Sun, 2 Dec 84 10:41 EST
From:  "Roger A. Roach" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Automated dialers
To:  [e-mail]

I'm afraid that some of these dialers just call sequential numbers so
even getting an unlisted number may not protect you.  I saw something in
TELECOMMUNICATIONS NEWS (July 9, 1984, pg 31) that may help.  It seems
that Southwestern Bell is going to be trying out something called LASS
(Local Area Signaling Service) in Austin, TX in early 1985.  This would
include a feature called "displayed calling-party number",
"customer-originated trace and nuisance call rejection" and "automatic
recall of last called or calling party".  If this feature became
generally available, you could have your computer intercept the inward
call and obtain the number of the person calling you.  If it was a
number in its database, it could announce who is calling you before you
pick up the phone.  ("Mr.  Jones is calling you from his office" or
"someone is calling you from Joe's Bar and Grill".)  Then all you would
have to do is to have your computer recognize the number of the dialing
computer and answer the pauses with your favorite lines from
Jabberwocky.  This is more effective way of dealing with these calls
rather than hanging up because this requires a human to listen and
ascertain that you are not buying what they are selling.  If you just
hangup, the computer goes on to the next number and no human gets
involved.  If their costs of monitoring these calls becomes high enough,
it will no longer be an effective way to market.


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

Date:  4 Dec 1984 1327-PST
From: Richard M. King <[e-mail]>
Subject: Political polling by telephone
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]

        As I recall, Dewey was predicted to beat Truman by a poll taken
of telephone subscribers before an election.  This was inaccurate because
the set of people with telephone service was not a cross sectin of the
voting population.

        In 1984, practically everyone has a phone, so this is no longer a
problem.  BUT

        Pollsters dial numbers at random in order to get unlisted numbers.

        I have two lines in my house - one for the people and one for the
modem.  We have hunting (might as well) so we often don't remember not to
answer the modem line if it rings while the listed line is not busy.  Last
election we were polled on that line.

        That pollster had twice as high a probability of contacting me (and
similarly situated people) as of contacting a person with a single line.
They did NOT ask us whether we had two lines, which would have enabled them
to compensate for this.

        Are pollsters asking for trouble?


        If some poll gets a wierd result circa 1988 or 1992 when approximatel

        y
half the population has two lines, you heard it here first!

                                                Dick
-------


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

Date: 5 Dec 1984 08:52:47-EST
From: prindle@NADC
To: telecom@bbncca
Subject: junk calls

I recently got one of those junk calls (a builder trying to sell aluminum
siding in the guise of a survey).  I absolutely could not hang up on it until


it was over (approximately 3 minutes)!  Depressing the switch hook for up
to 30 seconds had no effect!  I called the business office to complain and th

        ey
said it was impossible unless the CO equipment was malfunctioning.  Fortunate

        ly
I was able to track down the caller via his answering service (number given
at end of survey/ad) and give him a piece of my mind on the matter.  Can
someone explain how he could have caused this "can't hang up" effect?

Frank Prindle
Prindle@NADC

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

Date: 5 Dec 84 11:48:09 PST (Wednesday)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: call forwarding
To: [e-mail]

Call forwarding available here (Los Angeles area, Pacific Bell) comes in
two flavors: 1) forward immediately.  This gives a short ring at the
forwarder, but cannot be answered there.  2) forward after 3
(unanswered) rings or if busy.  Here you can answer during the three
rings, but you never even know of the arriving call if you are on the
phone already.  In either type you can call out from the forwarder
phone.

It has always bothered me that they linked "unanswered" and "busy"
forwarding together.  It might make sense for someone who has a
secretary who will then get the call if he doesn't answer or is already
on the phone, but in most cases, secretaries have extension phones on
the same line, so forwarding is not needed.  I usually use the forward
"unanswered" for when I am going back and forth between my office and a
lab.  In that case, I don't want the "busy" forward to go to the lab.  I
would rather the caller got a busy tone or got forwarded to the phone
next door to my office.

/Don Lynn

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

Date: Wed 5 Dec 84 15:59:50-EST
From: Ralph W. Hyre Jr. <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Mail won't be free for long
To: [e-mail]

I just called them, and they said that starting January 1, there will
be an $18.00 annual mailbox fee.  I was told that if I signed up now,
the fee wouldn't be assessed until my 'anniversary date' next December.
I didn't ask what would happen to current subsribers, but I presume that
they would also be grandfathered in for a while.

Are there any 'free to sign up and read messages, pay to send' mail services
left?  How much will people pay per year to have an electronic mailbox?
(I won't pay $20.00 just to make myself marginally more accessible to people.

        )

                                        - Ralph
-------

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 84 12:05:38 pst
From: ihnp4!uw-beaver!tikal!teldata.shad@Berkeley (Warren Shadwick)
To: cholula!tikal!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom@

        Berkeley
Subject: Re: TELECOM Digest V4 #130

In response to the four wires on a standard modular plug, I have seen
the second pair used for lamp voltages on "Princess" type telephones
with illuminated dials.  Color coding at the phone (note that the
standard modular cord contains a reversal at the wall):

   green - tip
     red - ring
  yellow - ground
   black - lamp

Tip & ring are the normal transmission pair.  Ground is quite often
connected and is still used on party lines for tip-to-ground or
ring-to-ground ringing.  The lamp voltage requires a ten volt AC
adapter.

                                Warren Shadwick
                                Teltone Corporation



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

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 1984  01:20 EST
From: [e-mail]
To:   [e-mail]
Subject: Forwarding..

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 1984  01:57 EST
Message-ID: <GZT.KEITH.12068923644.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
From: [e-mail]
To:   [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #131
In-reply-to: Msg of 4 Dec 1984  15:36-EST from Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <T

        elecom-Request at BBNCCA>

Call forwarding:

If the phone is ON-hook you will hear one ring.  If the phone is
OFF-hook (even with call-waiting) nothing will happen.  The call will
be forwarded but you will not know of it.

                Keith

Also, Forwards don't seem to be able to be made to Non-Supervised
numbers (ie, numbers that don't cost; recordings, weather, time).
----

Does anyone by chance know what the "INWRD" (INWARD, next to emergency
interrupt) button on the TSPS console does.  I realize it lights up if
the operator must become and inward, but it is also a button and
doesn't seem to do anything when presses (and no operator I have
talken too has ever had a reason to use it or knows what a reason
would be to use it)


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

Date: 6 Dec 84 18:16:33 EST
From: Eric <[e-mail]>
Subject: Allnet ???
To: [e-mail]

Hi,

 I was up  fairly late the  past two  nights, and at  the same  time
(around 1:30  A.M.) saw  a commercial  for ALLNET.  Well, the  first
night it really caught my attention - the commercial went  something
like this:

        When you hang up the phone with some long distance services
   you keep paying up to a minute after you hang up the phone! Tired of
   paying after you hang up?, then subscribe now to Allnet, where after
   the first minute we update your bill every six seconds!

        Tired of high long distance rates? Well here's something
   new: long distance for free! That's right, sign up now for Allnet
   long distance service and get 2 hours long distance time free
   anywhere in the U.S. and even Alaska and Hawaii.

        Not only that, but our rates are up to 60% lower than AT&T
   and lower than many other long distance services etc etc... Call now
   at 1-800-etc. etc. (I don't remember the exact number).

Well, I couldn't  pass this  up: I  called immediately  to get  more
information. I got a recorded message first telling me that all  the
operators were busy and then someone cam on the line telling me  the
same and asking me for my name  and number and that they would  call
me back in a  few minutes.  About 20  minutes later the same  fellow
called me back and said: " I'm sorry, we don't have service to  your
area right now, why  don't you try calling  back after the first  of
the year." Boy was I pissed! - are these people for real or are they
advertising stuff they don't even have? If I thought it was worth it
I'd sue them for false and misleading advertising. Their ad  claimed
'service to  anywhere in  the  USA' !!!  They  won't be  getting  my
business - I'll  probably go  with MCI  or some  such company.   Has
anyone else had any experiences with Allnet?

Eric
-------

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

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 84 15:26:30 pst
From: dual!fair@Berkeley
To: TELECOM@BBNCCA
Subject: Introducing...

Hello folks!  Just wanted to say that Cap'n Crunch is now on line and I
can be reached Via the following Electronic address and wish to
participate in the telecom discussions  (Legal!! of course).  I will be
reading the digest on a USENET site just a few hops off of Berkeley:
dual!proper![e-mail].  My land line is [phone] so
drop me a line.

        John T. Draper

[I'm just letting John send this from `dual' because `proper' has
decided to be flakey tonight. Please direct responses to the address he
gave above - Erik E. Fair]


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

Date: Tuesday, 4 December 1984  14:27-EST
From: "Bob Parnass, AJ9S" <[e-mail]>
Subject:   air-to-ground phone scanner freqs

Anyone heard any air-to-ground telephone conversations yet?
Here's a start:

Illinois Bell Telephone, domestic public air-to-ground
                       [Illinois]___________ 454.6750____KSC881    (govt recd

        s)
              "        [Illinois]___________ 454.9500____KSC881    (govt recd

        s)
unidentified: air-to-ground telephone, only the aircraft side of conversation


                       heard, strong signals 12/3/84
                       [location?]__________ 459.9750_mo_callsign? (B. Parnas

        s)

--
=============================================================================

        ==
Bob Parnass,  Bell Telephone Laboratories - ihnp4!ihu1h!parnass - (312)979-54

        14

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

From: hou4b!dwl@Berkeley (d.w.levenson)
To: Telecom-Request@BBNCCA
Date:  5 Dec 1984  16:44 EST
Subject: 950+ handling

Having used an OCC for the past year or so via a 950+ access code, I
have found several anomalies in the way it is handled from coin
phones in New Jersey.  I'm wondering if others have similar
experiences or explanations.

Most coin phones allow me to dial the 950+ and do not require a coin
deposit.  The rest of the call, is handled as if from a
non-coin station.  Most coinless public phones work the same way!

The coin phones in Morristown go to a no-such-number recording after
only three digits, if they are 950.  If I dial 1+201+950+ the call
is handled the way I would expect, from coin phones.  From non-coin
"Charge-a-Call" phones, this results in a "can't be completed as
dialed" recording.  Then, I can dial 0+201+950+.  I wait for the
logo tone, and dial my AT&T Calling Card number.  The dial tone from
the OCC is the next thing I hear, and the call is processed
normally.  (No billing to the calling card results.)

The coin phones in Ft. Lee tell me a twenty-cent deposit is required.
If I deposit twenty cents and then place the call, it is handled
correctly but the coins are then collected, not returned as I would
expect.  Using 1+201+950+ seems to work there, and does not ask for
coins.

Any thoughts on this?


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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 84 14:37:20 pst
From: hpda!hptabu!dclaar@Berkeley (Doug Claar)
To: Telecom-Request@BBNCCA
Subject: Can anyone identify this modem?

I have a modem device that consists of a single acoustic
coupler which fits over the telephone microphone. My
understanding is that it transmits data at 1350 baud,
half duplex. Is this any kind of standard modem? If so,
can anyone tell me what the standard is, and where I might
get the receiving half?

Thank you,
Doug Claar
HP Computer Systems Division
UUCP: { {ihnp4 | decvax }!hplabs | ucbvax}!hpda!dclaar
ARPA: hpda![e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #134
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 05:26:21 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 12 Dec 84 17:25:36 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 134

Today's Topics:
                       Telco directory service
                              Re: Allnet
                         Re:  Call forwarding
                           950 strangeness
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue 11 Dec 84 12:38:34-EST
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telco directory service
To: [e-mail]

The New England Telephone company's directory service computers for 617
went down this morning and there was no directory service to be had for
quite a while.  They clearly don't have a distributed database with
multiple servers as with domain names.

Marvin Sirbu
-------


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

Date: Tue 11 Dec 84 19:09:47-EST
From: Robert S. Lenoil <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Allnet
To: [e-mail]

Their ad said "service TO anywhere in the USA."  This is true, as you can
reach any phone in the USA from Allnet.  That may be misleading, but it is
not supposed to imply that Allnet is offered FROM everywhere.

I use Allnet under 1+ dialing.  If you live in an equal access area, their
access number is 10444, and they encourage you to use it (it's not just for
subscribers as other company's numbers are).  They are resellers of AT&T
trunks, and as such the quality is just fine.  Their rates are MUCH better
than either AT&T, MCI, or SPRINT, and their six-second increment billing does


save you lots of money (US Tel also uses six second billing).
-------

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

Date:     Thu, 6 Dec 84 17:48:56 EST
From:     Ron Natalie <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  Re:  Call forwarding

Carl:
        As I recall, no indication is given to the person on the line.
If I recall correctly, call waiting doesn't even go off.

-Ron


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

Date: 11 Dec 84 20:46:47 EST
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: 950 strangeness
To: [e-mail]

Morristown?  My old stomping grounds.  Having to dial 1+201+950+ sounds
*very* strange, to wit, a *bug* that should be corrected.  1+201+ should
not route any different from if you simply dial the seven digits, and if
it is, the office is screwed up.  Does this happen from the fones in the
455 office [which 267, 538/9, etc are part of]??

Naturally, if you try to explain this to a repair person, they won't understa

        nd
a thing you're driving at.  Try to determine exactly what is softwarily
wrong, and call the BSC [*not* the residence office] at 267 9900, or maybe
the Admin HQ at 649 9900.  You have to bypass a lot of front-end people
by asking for supervisors.  Both those numbers are official and therefore
toll-free if you dial through the operator.  G'luck!

_H*
-------

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #135
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 19:22:45 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 13 Dec 84 16:34:20 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 135

Today's Topics:
                     718 area (specifically, 976)
                          MCI Mailbox Charges
                         Equal access dialing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 13 Dec 84 8:27:15 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  718 area (specifically, 976)

I just got my phone bill with a call to 718-976 New York, NY
(although 718 does not include Manhattan).  Does this have
something to do with 718 not yet being fully cut over?
(Full cutover to take place around New Year's?)


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

Date:     Thu, 13 Dec 84 11:16:12 EST
From:     Brint <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  MCI Mailbox Charges

Ralph was told by MCI that their new mailbox charge would not
be billed until December 1985?  MCI has just informed me
via a piece of MCI Mail that my first $18.00 would be billed in January, 1985

        !

Brint


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

From: ima!johnl@bbncca
Date: Thu Dec 13 11:22:00 1984
Subject: Equal access dialing
To: bbncca!telecom

Just got my latest Boston white pages from NYNEX Information Resources (since


when do phone companies need a separate division to publish the phone book?)
and I am amazed at the total lack of information they give on dialing.  For
intra-lata calls, the usual stuff is there about 1+number and 0+number, and
for non-equal-access areas the same stuff applies, with a warning
that you go to AT&T unless do you something else that your OCC should have
told you about.

But for the equal access areas, they say that 1+NPA+number goes to your
preferred carrier and other than that, you're on your own.  So I have a few
questions.  If you dial 0+NPA+number, what happens?  At this point I gather
than only AT&T has operators, so other LD carriers presumably say no.  So how


do I dial AT&T and ask for an operator?  The obvious thing would be this:

  00ATT+NPA+number

but I gather that's not it.  Perhaps 10ATT+0+NPA+number.  Perhaps not.

And for international calls, they don't tell you how to dial at all!  They
give the country and city codes, but no hint on how to dial.  I thought
that 011+country+city+number was standard, but evidently not.  And how do
you dial international through a non-preferred acarrier?  Don't tell me,
it's 10XXX+011+country+city+number.  By the time you dial all that with a
rotary dial, you could have written a letter.  Aargh.

John Levine, ima!johnl (uucp), [e-mail] (internet)

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

From: Jon_Tara@Wayne-MTS
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 84 23:55:30 EST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

    The information that appeared here on Allnet was a bit misleading.
Yes, they have six-second billing, but they also have a 1-minute
minimum.  They also charge more for the first minute than they do
for subsequent minutes.  Their salesman told me that they don't bill
for calls under 1 minute at all, but they same salesman told me that
the first minute was NOT loaded, which turned out not to be true.
(I haven't gotten a bill yet, so I don't know about not billing
under 1 minute - I'll report back - my FIDOnet system should give
*that* a good test...).

     Personally, I've found the quality to be as rotten as any
of them.  They proudly enclosed a review from Data Communications
showing that they had better data quality than anyone (ATT included!)
It hasn't been born out in practice, at least not by me.

     I'm using a small company called Telemarketing Communications,
Inc. (TMC)  They have true six-second billing, and claim to use
ATT Watts lines exclusively.  I still can't say that their quality
is as good as ATT, but it's the best of the alternate services
that I've tried (Allnet, Sprint, MCI, and SBS Skyline.)

     Each service seems to have it's own "typical" problem.
Skyline's is satellite delay.  Allnet, Sprint, and MCI have
chronic low levels.  TMC has a peculiar crosstalk problem, which I've
never noticed anywhere else.  Suprisingly, though, my modem seems to
ignore the phantom voices.

     One final note: the salesperson for Skyline specifically said
that they weren't "tarrifed for data", but that "many people have
satisfactory results" (they must have slooooow reflexes...).  The
TMC salesperson claimed that they *are* tarrifed for data.  I have
a feeling that this means that if you call and complain about your
data connections, that they don't have any obligation to fix it or
refund your money.  Anyone know for sure?

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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #136
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ucbvax!telecom
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 14-Dec-84 22:55:04 EST
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 14 Dec 84 16:53:06 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 136

Today's Topics:
              "The Hot Line" is good business in Sweden
                          MCI Mailbox Charges
                       PHONE CO's UNION BUSTING
                         MCI mailbox charges
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thursday, 13 Dec 1984 17:22:49-PST
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: "The Hot Line" is good business in Sweden

With the recent discussion on the California "party line" phone
proposal, I thought it was about time to translate this article from
the Stockholm Newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet, dated July 25, 1983.
The article was written by Marianne Roennberg.

Note: the Swedish crown is now worth about 11 cents.  It was slightly
higher when this was written.  "Televerket" is the Swedish Telephone
Authority.

           Televerket Earns Millions:
        "The Hot Line" is a brilliant affair

    "The Hot Line" is more popular than ever.  The Stockholm numbers
    were called 2.5 million times both in May and June [1983].  Teen's
    need for contact gives Televerket a million kroner per week.

"Hello" sounds in the phone now and then.  Many call one of the 400
lines just to listen.

There's no doubt that "Hot Line" calls are are a popular pasttime for
summer-vacationing youths.  The number of calls to the three Stockholm
numbers has quadrupled since school vacation started.  In March,
Stockholmers called 700,000 times; in May 2.8 million, and in June
2.5 million.

"The Hot Line" had been open between 1700 and 0800: i.e., after
office hours, so as not to overload business exchanges.  After July
first, it will be open 24 hours every day.

"If we notice that the traffic interferes with business users,
we'll cut back on the hours", says Sven-Ingvar Larsson, Televerket
superintendent for Stockholm.

_Not Free_

The calling-game isn't free.  Each call lasts five minutes and costs
0.23 kroner [about 3 cents].

"We earn a million per month from 'The Hot Line.'"  Slightly more
than half of that is paid by Stockholm residents.

"The Hot Line" came to be by chance.  Youths discovered that
many could speak at the same time if they called a number with
a refrence-tone [an non-existant number].  The pressure on
the technology became so great that the reference-tone had to
give way.

Televerket cut wires as fast as they could to stop the operation.
Then the youths got angry, demonstrated, and demanded a completely
legal "hot line" from Televerket.

_Legal Line_

The profit-making company realized that they could make a profit
from loneliness even among the young and Stockholm got three
numbers and 400 lines to play with.

Since then, even Helsingborg, Gothenburg, Umeaa, Skelleftiaa,
Koeping, Enkoeping, and Uppsala have started their own lines.

Shocked parents have accused Televerket of lacking morals:
it encourages youths to call and astonished parents discover
"The Hot Line" only when an unexplicably high telephone bill
lands in the mailbox.

"We have discussed the viewpoints and came to the conclusion that
each subscriber must be responsible for the way their telephone
is used," says Sven-Ingvar Larsson.

-- Sidebar --

Sunday afternoon was beautiful.  Despite that, a few preferred
talking a while on "The Hot Line" instead of going to the beach.

The line's hanger's on sit quietly listening to others who call.
Whenever a new caller is added, you hear a click in the receiver.
Then you hear a careful "Hello."  All listen closely, but
not everyone answers.

When a -- judging from the voice -- young girl enters, a waiting
man answers immediately.  Hopefully, they throw out "The Hot Line's"
standard questions to each other:

"Who are you?"

"Someone.  And you?"

"Maria.  Where do you live?"

"On Soeder [Southern neighborhood in Stockholm].  And you?"

"Vallentuna [suburb].  How old are you?"

"Nineteen.  And you?"

"Seventeen."

"Oh damn!"

That's how most calls sound.  After that, many have a problem
finding something to say.

Those who follow the traffic for a few days recognize some
frequently reappearing voices.  "The Hot Line" doubtlessly
pulls in people with many different contact-problems.

Thousands of people enjoy "letting go" a bit but the limit
of what one may say on "The Hot Line" is, for the most part,
one's private phone number.

------
Sloppily translated by

Martin Minow
[e-mail]



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

Date:     Thu, 13 Dec 84 21:20:14 EST
From:     The Home Office of <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  MCI Mailbox Charges

Ralph was told by MCI that their new mailbox charge would not
be billed until December 1985?  MCI has just informed me
via a piece of MCI Mail that my first $18.00 would be billed in January, 1985

        !

Brint

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

From: rhc%ucbjade.CC@Berkeley ( San Franciscan for Responsible Anarchy )
Date: 14 Dec 1984 0025-PST (Friday)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: PHONE CO's UNION BUSTING

From the Dec 5-18, 1984, issue of
Grassroots, Berkeley's Community Newspaper
-------
                PHONE CO's
                UNION
                BUSTING

        ``We change janitors every 2-3
        years ... just as we change
        our cars.''
                        -- Robert Roche,
                        Pacific Bell Vice-President
                        Comments at recent PUC meeting

        Local 87 members of the Service
Employees International Union, AFL-
CIO, joined by the San Francisco
Organizing Project (a coalition of 21
church congregations, 16 unions, and
the Citizens Action League) have asked
for a moratorium until February on
contracting changes which have already
laid off 50 union janitors. In December
50 more janitors are expected to lose
their jobs.
        This follows nearly a year of legal
actions by Local 87 against ``union-bust-
ing'' policies by Pacific Bell:
* Union janitors have been systemati-
cally eliminated from phone company
facilities throughout the state.
* New contractors have refused to hire
former union workers.
* Several non-union contractors have
been proven to be violating state
prevailing wage laws.  This August
Pacific Bell and its subcontractor,
Stay-King, was fined over $18,000 by
the State Labor Commission for paying
substandard wages.  Stay-King then
disappeared, owing its employees over
a month's pay.
        ``This is an important fight because
we are the last union janitors working
in Pacific Bell buildings in this state,''
according to Local 87 President Wray
Jacobs.  ``We think it's obscene that Ma
Bell is asking for over $900 million in
rate increases this year and $1.4 billion
next year (approximately $10 per
residential customer per month) ...
while at the same time it is trying to
skim a few dollars off the backs of this
city's janitors.
        The California Public Utilities Com-
mission law requires that Pacific Bell
subcontractors pay ``prevailing wages''
and that such contracts be given to the
lowest ``reasonable'' bidder.  ``Pacific
Bell claims it has no responsibility for
its subcontractor's violations ...  But
it's Pacific Bell that pockets the
difference when non-union janitors are
paid less than the prevailing wage,'' said
Jacobs.
                        -- Fred Kotler &
                                Jean Quan,
                                Local 87

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

Date: Thu, 13-Dec-84 17:00:38 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex![e-mail]>
Subject: MCI mailbox charges
To: TELECOM@MC

While I was expecting them to pull the rug out from under the
freebie mailboxes for quite some time, their decision may have
been hastened by a procedure that some users were apparently
following.  Apparently some people were transferring messages
across the country by setting up a "free" mailbox, having
the access known by people in scattered geographic areas, then
transferring messages as mail creation "temporary" files within
the account.  That way, they didn't have to even "post" the
messages--they just waited for the next person to login and
read the temp file.

--Lauren--



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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #137
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 21 Dec 84 04:33:07 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 20 Dec 84 23:10:04 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 137

Today's Topics:
                   Using Other Inter-Lata Carriers
                 "Improved" tone switching circuitry
                 CrosstalkModem Creosstalk.
                           2400 baud modems
                 New 2400 baud modems         8/19/84
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hou4b!dwl@Berkeley (d.w.levenson)
To: Telecom-Request@BBNCCA
Date: 14 Dec 1984  15:07 EST
Subject: Using Other Inter-Lata Carriers

If AT&T is not your default inter-lata carrier, you can still dial 0+
for assistance, on intra-lata calls.  If you dial 0+ on an
inter-lata call, you will be routed to your default carrier's
operator (if any) or to a recording telling you you can't do that.
To place an operator-assisted call where AT&T is not your default
carrier, assuming that your carrier does not provide operator
assistance, you must dial 10ATT-0-NPA-NXX-XXXX.  To dial internationally,
you dial 011+ etc for your default carrier, or 10ATT-011+ for AT&T.

If you don't have equal access yet, dial 950-10XX+<account_number>-011+
to call internationally using a non-AT&T carrier.

This comes from "Notes on the BOC Intra-Lata Network", 1984 edition,
published by Bell Communications Research.


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

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 84 13:12:23 cst
From: [e-mail] (Ed Nather)
To: Telecom-Request@BBNCCA
Subject: "Improved" tone switching circuitry

The phone company in Austin, Texas has replaced the local switching
system on my exchange with "...new, digital switching..." and has caused
an interesting problem, starting the day of the switchover.  When I call a
modem on another exchange, the carrier is interrupted at regular intervals by


a short noise burst that, at 1200 baud, always yields the "{" character
on my display, and no other. With different routes through the new
switching system, the noise pip comes  every 0.8 seconds or every 80
seconds, exactly.  And it is always one-way: the distant modem doesn't
see it, but mine does, always.

Has anyone had a similar experience?  Any advice or suggestions would be
welcome.  And how do I explain this to the phone company???

Ed Nather
Astronomy Dept., U. of Texas
{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather


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

Date: Wed, 19 Dec 84 09:21:59 cst
To: telecom@Berkeley
Subject: CrosstalkModem Creosstalk.
From: [e-mail]


I had a new variation on the crosstalk problem the other day. The
lines I use for long distance calling are very poor when it
comes to crosstalk (you can offen make out entire converstions without
problem). Well for this call I was not meet by human crosstalk but
that of a modem! I finally had to hangup and redial. Kinda makes me
wonder what is going to happen as more and more modems come on line,
and phone lines get worse.

                                                Ted Fidder
                                                Iowa State University
                                                CSNET: fidder@iowa-state




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

Date: 20 Dec 1984  06:52 MST (Thu)
From: Keith Petersen <[e-mail]>
To:   Info-Cpm@AMSAA, Telecom@MIT-MC
Subject: 2400 baud modems

This is file 2400BAUD.TXT - relayed from the RCPM circuit:
--Keith

From:  Wayne Masters, Potpourri sysop
       [phone] 300/1200/2400 baud
       San Jose, Ca.

Subject: New 2400 baud modems         8/19/84

       Many of you have asked technical questions about the 2400 baud
modems now on the market (and more being introduced monthly).  As most
of you know by now Irv Hoff and I have been beta testing 2400 baud for
several months.  The test results are amazing to say the least.  Running
controlled tests on standard dial-up phone lines with random "noisy
connections", the number of "hits" on a given file transfer is less by
a factor of 10 using 2400 baud vs 1200 baud.  So it is concluded that
2400 baud technology is working and will soon be available on most
commercial and private dial-up systems.  Now, what is a "standard" 2400
baud modem?

       You will no doubt see various technical descriptions of a given
2400 baud modem touting it's features.  Be sure the modem you choose has
this specification:

       CCITT recommendation for a V.22 bis modem communicating at 2400 bps.

       Further explanation of this CCITT standard:
Frequency- Bell 212A
Encoding modulation-  16 level psk  (quadrature AM or QAM)

       This sounds a lot like the Bell 212A standard for 1200 baud--and it
is.  The difference is in the encoding or modulation scheme.  Bell 212A 1200
baud uses 4 level psk and 2400 baud uses 16 level psk.  If you "listen" to
the 2400 baud carrier it will sound exactly like the familiar 1200/212A-
like "static" or a scratchy noise.

       Features to look for in your search for the "right" 2400 baud modem:

1.  Does it retain 300 baud bell 103 capability?  (most offer 1200 baud as
    a "fallback")
2.  Is it "smart"--a biggy if you intend to call other systems a lot.
3.  Does it offer autoanswer--a biggy if you run a remote system.
4.  Price--a real biggy

       So far, none of the modems on the market offer all these features
in a "standalone" modem.  That is one big reason why Irv Hoff and I have
been involved with Racal-Vadic--not only beta testing to prove 2400 baud
technology...but to get the features most users prefer designed into the
modem.  Others may follow some day but Racal Vadic will introduce their
"standalone" modem in time for Christmas 84 with the following features:

1.  Smart-autodialing.  It will recognize both the Hayes and Vadic commands.
2.  0-300 baud at both Bell 103 and Vadic protocols
3.  1200 baud at both Bell 212A and Vadic protocols
4.  2400 baud CCITT V.22 bis
5.  Price is expected to be $695.00 retail

      The first release will be an external RS-232 model.  Early 1985 will
see the single card slot version for IBM PC's and compatiables.

       In order for 2400 baud to be in "great demand" there must be systems
available for the users to access.  I am working with Racal-Vadic to
identify RCP/M and RBBS systems where 2400 baud modems could be placed to
generate public interest in 2400 baud.  Sysop's should contact Potpourri
at 408-378-7474 if interested in participating.

       Now about software to support 2400 baud.

       Both MDM7 and MEX will support 2400 baud if the user modifies his
port overlay to setup his port for 2400 baud.

       For sysops who use BYE3, the problem is different.  Most
implementations of BYE rely on the hardware's Data Available signal (DAV)
to trigger a check-for-carriage-return sequence at different baud rates.
If most hardware is like mine (Z80 SIO), if the hardware is set to look
at 300 baud and the modem answers at 2400 baud the DAV is never set and
you are in an endless loop.  Same thing happens if you set the hardware
to 2400 and the modem answers at 300.
       I modified BYE3 (version 26 and up) to handle TSTBAUD differently.
I chose to look at each baud rate in 2 second windows, 300 first, then
1200 and 2400, and loop thru this sequence until a C/R or L/F is detected.
The caller is never more than 4 seconds away from his calling speed but
must continue to issue c/r's until the familiar message "Nulls, if needed"
is displayed.  Sysop's who choose to use BYE3 need only add the "SET2400"
code into their port insert.

       Well, enough for now.  Feel free to contact me if you are more
confused now than you were before reading this.

                     -wayne masters, Potpourri sysop-
                            408-378-7474


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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #138
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 24 Dec 84 23:08:36 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 24 Dec 84 17:45:26 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 138

Today's Topics:
                        Getting {'s to death?
            Maintaining the network and invading the house
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Friday, 21 Dec 1984 05:57:25-PST
From: [e-mail]  (Fred R. Goldstein)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Getting {'s to death?

The V.22 (212) type modems use a "scrambling" scheme to keep the bits
density up to par, and the chip set decodes the bit stream as it comes
in.  If for some reason (like noise on the line) it can't decode a
character correctly, then it puts out a { character.  It's not really
being received; instead, it's your modem's way of telling you it missed
something (or missed a "nothing").

If your CO is digital, one possible explanation of why it has a regular
error every 80 seconds is if the T-carrier span lines connecting it to
the CO where the computer is, or the toll switch, aren't in sync.  Then
you may see a "slip", as the 1.544000 Mbps clocks drop a bit here and
there.  This will manifest itself as an inaudible phase shift in the
received signal.  V.22 modems are phase modulated (4psk), and generally
work by timing the peaks of the waveforms.  So if you lose 1/8000 of a
second, the 2400 Hz modem tone will be phase shifted, changing the
meaning of the bit and munging the descrambler.

Although all digital transmission systems in the public network try
to maintain sync to the master clock in Kansas City, most long-haul
toll circuits are still analog, so you have "digital islands".  With
neither end of the circuit officially in sync, somebody at telco may
have slipped up and let both ends be free-running (instead of master-
slave).  That's my guess.

At 300 bps you shouldn't have any problems with this, not that it's much
consolation.

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

Date:  Sun, 23 Dec 84 23:35 EST
From:  [e-mail]
Subject:  Maintaining the network and invading the house
To:  [e-mail]

The planned converted of Newton Mass to a DMS-100 switch
apparently did occur as scheduled last weekend.  One side
effect was to misprogram my residental hunt group so that all
incoming calls came into the same number.  I reported it to
service.  The next day I got a call at the office that the
problem was resolved.  Fine.

But than a while later a get a message from home that there is
a telco person on my premises trying to fix a problem.  My
first reaction was to tell him to get out.  Hist story is that
he was sent since they were checking out my repair order and
couldn't clear it until they dealt with an "80% short" they
found on my line.

There are a number of issues here:

     1. People first reaction is to allow telco people in the house
        instead of requiring positive confirmation from me that it is
        at my request.  This is a long standing problem for those of us
        with foreign equipment such as computers on the network.  I've
        trained my wife but people still don't understand that I must
        be present before people muck with the circuits in my house.

     2. I presume the "80% short" is found by diagnostic support in
        the new exchange?  What is an 80% short?

     3. The real issue here is that if there truly is this problem,
        then they should phone me, or better yet, send me a letter,
        saying that they have found this problem and advise that I
        resolve it.  If it doesn't threaten the network, then it is my
        problem.  If it threatens the network, then they should install
        an interface to isolate my house from the network.

I am not objecting to their willingness to check out my house
to resolve the problem, even if they do charge me.  What I am
concerned about is that telco (Nynex in this case) doesn't seem
to be prepared for the new world in which I am responsible for
maintaining my premise system.  They should simply inform me of
the problem.  If I elect, they can come and fix it.

Since the problem, I have not heard anything from them about
the problem.


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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #139
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 28 Dec 84 22:13:06 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 28 Dec 84 16:36:19 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 139

Today's Topics:
                             lost message
          Setting Up Call Forwarding From Another Telephone?
                                 511
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Dec 84 16:34:48 EST
From: Jon Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: lost message
To: [e-mail]

During the processing of today's digest, I lost a long message rating
several 2400 baud modems and the companies which sell them. Will whomever
sent that message please resend it to TELECOM@BBNCCA and I will be sure
and post it on the digest.

Sorry!
--JSol


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

From: <nomdenet%tp3@rand-unix>
Date: Thursday, 27 Dec 1984 14:29-PST
To: randvax!telecom@BBNCCA
Subject: Setting Up Call Forwarding From Another Telephone?


   Is it possible to set up (or cancel) call forwarding for a given telephone


from any other telephone normally or by phone-phreakish methods?  I assume
call forwarding can be set up and/or cancelled from the central office.  Yes?


No?

                                               A. R. White
                                               ARPA:  tp3!nomdenet @ Rand-UNI

        X
                                               UUCP:  ... randvax!tp3!nomdene

        t

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

Date: 27 Dec 1984 0824-EST (Thursday)
From: vax135!peora!jer@Berkeley (J. Eric Roskos)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: 511

Being new to this conference, I just now tried out the various methods
suggested for identifying your own phone number.  None of them worked (200-
555-1212 came closest, giving various unusual and nondeterministic results
after the first 5 was dialed), but dialing 511 caused the phone to go
completely dead (as someone else mentioned).  My question is... why?  Is
this a feature, a way of discouraging people from experimenting (it works
well for that), or just a bug?  The phone stayed dead for quite some time.


Here in Orlando we are presently a market test area for a very useful
software product called "Touchstar", which provides blocking of calls from
unwanted numbers, redialing of the last person who called you (for missed
calls), repeat dialing (every 40 seconds for 30 minutes (45 tries in all,
which exceeds the purported limit for "attack dialing")), a special ring
for calls from "special people", customer-initiated call tracing,
forwarding of only selected callers, displaying of the number calling you
(requires special equipment), and the ability to "list the numbers of
incoming calls on computer equipment". (Both of the latter properly protect
non-published numbers).  Hence I assume we have one of the newer switching
systems here, though I don't know which one.  Any ideas on what 511 is for?



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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************
----------kgd
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #140
From: [e-mail]
Path: watmum!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!ucbvax!telecom
Date: 31 Dec 84 23:54:10 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

From: Jon Solomon (the Moderator) <Telecom-Request@BBNCCA>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 31 Dec 84 18:17:07 EST    Volume 4 : Issue 140

Today's Topics:
                        TELECOM Digest V4 #139
                          Odd phone problem
                           2400 baud modems
                      Phone Surveys by Computer
                      Equal access carrier codes
                     new 2400-baud modem from R-V
               Q: telephone problem due to programming
                       old use of 511 in Phila.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 December 1984 17:54-EST
From: "Marvin A. Sirbu, Jr." <SIRBU @ MIT-MC>
Subject: TELECOM Digest V4 #139
To: TELECOM @ BBNCCA

The service being tested in Orlando is being offered on an ordinary
#1ESS.  The reason for selecting Orlando is that, for the caller's
number to be displayed ALL the switches in Orlando from which calls
originate must be equipped with the appropriate software generic.
Orlando is one of the few cities in the country where there are NO
electromechanical switches still in servce -- everything is SPC.
(Harrisburg, Pa is another such city which is why a similar test is
being conducted there).

The service being tested also requires the equivalent of CCIS (common
channel signaling) between all of the local central offices to convey
information such as the caller's number from the origin office to the
final office.  The special equipment needed to receive caller's numbers
at the called number location essentially provides a CCS channel all the
way to the customer.  Lot's of interesting services will be possible
when CCS channels are widely available to customer locations, as
is planned for in ISDN standards.

Marvin Sirbu


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

From: Christopher A Kent <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 1984 1855-EST (Friday)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Odd phone problem

I've been getting reports lately from people trying to call me that my
phone will often ring 1 to 6 times and then go busy. I've reported this
to GTE on the trouble number, they've supposedly checked things out and
found nothing. Any ideas on what this could be? Could it possibly be my
cheep phone?

Cheers,
chris
----------

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

Date: 29 Dec 1984  12:30 MST (Sat)
From: Keith Petersen <[e-mail]>
To:   Telecom@BBNCCA
Subject: 2400 baud modems

From: Bruce Factor
To:   All
Re:   2400 baud modems
Date: 5 Dec 84 23:27:16 GMT

For those of you in the market to buy 2400 baud modems I want to
inform you of a great deal.  I would like to state that I am not
affiliated with ANY of these companies, and I am not receiving and
benefits by posting this information!

After spending a few days pricing modems I have compiled the following
information (saving the best for last).  If anyone has any additional
information I would greatly appreciate it.

We were interested in rack mounting them so most of the prices given
are for cards that would plug into a rack.  "box" refers to a stand
alone modem.

DEC     1 - (800) 962 - 3244

now     DF112-AM        300/1200        card    $ 506
now     DF126-AM        2400 only       card    $ 634


Racal Vadic     1 - (800) 482 - 3427

now     VA212PAR        300/1200        card    $ 445
3/85    VA4224          1200/2400       card    $ 740
now     VA1681          houses 16       rack    $ not priced yet


Concord Data Systems    (617) 890 - 1394
                                                                Q10-24
now     CDS224 AA/ORG   1200/2400       box/card$ 845           $ 825
now     CDS224 Autodial 1200/2400          "    $ 995           $ 975
now     CDS224 ARQ      1200/2400          "    $1295
now     CDS224 ARQ Auto 1200/2400          "    $1395
now     CDS224 Super    1200/2400          "    $1695
now     CDSRM-07A       houses 7        rack    $ 750


Hayes   1 - (800) 241 - 6492

now     Hayes1200       300/1200        box/card$ 499
2/85    Hayes2400       300/1200/2400   box/card$ none
now     08-00056        houses 6        rack    $ 766

Quantity Discounts are minimal.


Micom   1 - (800) 527 - 0204
                                                                Q >16
now     M3012           300/1200        box     $ 495
now     M3012 plus      300/1200        box     $ 595
1/85    M3024           1200/2400       box     $ 795
1/85    M3024 plus      1200/2400       box     $ 895           $ 805
  "        "                "           card    $ 845           $ 760
now     M3200           houses 16       rack    $ 750


General Datacomm                (203) 574 - 1118
                                                                Q 10 - 19
now     DC211AL         300/1200        box     $ 675           $ 595
 "         "                "           card    $ 585           $ 520
1/85    DC2412          1200/2400       box     $1195           $1050
 "         "                "           card    $1105           $ 790
 "      DS1             houses 16       rack    $ 795

Paradyne        1 - (800) 482 - 3333 or 1 - (800) 342 - 3532

now     DTU1200D        300/1200                $
now                     1200/2400               $ 900


NEC     1 - (800) 538 - 8166
                                                                Q 11 -20
now     N212BRL         300/1200        box     $ 795           $ 669
 "         "                "           card    $ 725           $ 606
 "      DSP2430         1200/2400       box     $1095           $ 976
 "         "                "           card    $ 965           $ 855
 "      N4083           houses 8 - 1200 rack    $ 625
 "      SR0801          houses 8 - 2400 rack    $ 900


QUADRAM         (404) 923 - 6666
                                                        Q > 3
now     QM10000         300/1200                $ 695           $ 625
not available           ?/2400                  $

NO Rack mounting.


Ven-Tel         1 - (800) 538 - 5121
Will Call me back.

                        300/1200                $
                        ?/2400                  $


Promethus       (415) 490 - 2370        (check 800)
        Distributor:
Will call me back.

                        300/1200                $
                        ?/2400                  $


Fujitsu         (408) 946 - 8777        ext 576

not available           300/1200                $
now     F1935B          1200/2400               $ 895

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

CTS Datacomm    (203) 743 - 3681        Pete Coccaro
        Distributor:    Professional Network Services
                        Harvey Schlesinger      (617) 449 - 6460

Model:  CTS2424AD

These people had by far the best deal.
The list price for the Stand Alone (box) modem is  $ 795
The list price for the (rack) mounted modem is ~$ 700.

Besides starting off $ 200 less than everyone else their
quantity discounts are very good.  The Stand Alone modem
will be available starting January, and their rack mount
modem should be available February.

Here is a Quantity discount price list.

Quantity        %dicount        S.A.    rack
========        ========        ====    ====
    1              list         $795    $700
  2-5              10 %          716     630
  6-10             20 %          636     560
 11-25             25 %          596     525
 25-               30 %          556     490

For all of you usenet sites that are still running 1200
(or possibly even 300) the modems will pay for themselves
very quickly.

From all of the literature that I have recieved here are
a few of the advantages of this modem above the others:

1) works at 300 or 1200 or 2400 asyn    (others only 1200/2400)
                   1200 or 2400 sync

2) Stores 10 numbers (40 chars each)    (others only 1)

3) For tone dialing it dials ALL 12     (others only can generate
   tones including (* and #)             numbers 0-9)

   This last one caused a nasty problem when we needed to
   generate the extra tones because some of the sites we talk to
   have switching systems that require them (Gandalf).

4) Will automatically change the speed   (some of the others needed
   to the other modem.                   a manual intervention).

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

usenet:  {philabs, allegra}!sbcs!bruce                  Bruce Factor

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

Date: Sat 29 Dec 84 19:36:20-EST
From: Andrew Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Surveys by Computer
To: [e-mail]


     Could someone explain how these phone surveys done by computers work??
I just got a call from one,  and it wouldn't hang up if I put the phone on
hook for a while,  so I gave it (her?) a carrier tone and it tried to connect


to my modem and then hung up.

                                        -dru

-------


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

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Equal access carrier codes
Date: 30 Dec 84 00:32:18 EST (Sun)
From: Mike O'Brien <[e-mail]>

        In the wonderful new world of equal access, where you can select
your long-distance carrier differently for every call, there are assigned
codes for a whole bunch of new long-distance carriers about which I basically


know nothing at all.  Some require that you sign up with them before you
use them; some say you can use them at will and your calls will appear on
your next bill.

        Can anyone tell me where I can get a list of all valid equal-access
codes and the carriers they represent, together with an indication of which
require prior sign-up and which you can just go use?

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

From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@Berkeley
Date: 30 Dec 84 00:40:34 CST (Sun)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: new 2400-baud modem from R-V

> ... Others may follow some day but Racal Vadic will introduce their
> "standalone" modem in time for Christmas 84 with the following features...

Anyone know if they actually did?  It sure sounds good.

                                Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                                {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry


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

Date: Sun 30 Dec 84 03:56:00-CST
From: Werner Uhrig  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Q: telephone problem due to programming
To: [e-mail]

after my phone stayed strangly silent on the 25th and 26th, I decided to call


my 'listed' number from my second line, and sure enough, I got a fast, busy
tone, which I have often heard when the lines in a certain area are overloade

        d.
Strangely enough, other phones in the area, including my second line, did not


show similar symptoms.  Also the phone worked perfectly for dialing out.
So, after the problem did not go away I reported it on the 27th, and was told


that I should not expect anyone to check it out until the 31st or later.
On the 28th, I decided that I was less than satisfied with that response time

        ,
which basically meant that noone would be able to reach me either for X-mas
or New Year's as noone knows my second number.  So I decided to inquire if it


would be possible to put a recording on my first line, informing of my 'new'
number, or to enable call-forwarding for the duration of the problem.

Not surprisingly, really, I got the run-around, noone seemed to understand
what or how to achieve the effects I desired, Repairs and the Business Office


of Southwestern Bell gave me 'circular references' to talk to the other.
Calls to me were not made or returned, as was promised, until, late Friday,
a 'new voice' called, informing that it was all a computer error, which had
caused the problem on several lines.  When asked for more info on the problem

        ,
the person could not give more, as 'that was all she was told'.

I intend to try to dig around some more and find someone to talk to who can
give straight answers, but in the meantime, if anyone out there could add
some factual knowledge to what might be going on here, or how one might
penetrate the front-people of SouthWestern Bell and which department or
job-title to ask for to get answers, mail me.  One other "strange" matter:
lately, I had noticed a strange ticking sound on that line, as well as a
wooshing-sound, kind of like a tape-recorder, which has since disappeared.
Could it be that I had been bugged ???
-------

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

Date:     Mon, 31 Dec 84 12:30:57 EST
From:     Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  old use of 511 in Phila.

In 1976, you could call 511 in Philadelphia for Bicentennial information.


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

End of TELECOM Digest
******************************